This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/world/europe/theresa-may-brexit-vote-article-50.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
‘Brexit’ Talks Can’t Start Without Parliament, U.K. Supreme Court Rules ‘Brexit’ Ruling Reveals Cracks in Britain’s Centuries-old Institutions
(about 9 hours later)
LONDON — Prime Minister Theresa May must secure the approval of Parliament before she can begin the process of taking Britain out of the European Union, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday. LONDON — It remains unclear whether Prime Minister Theresa May’s plans or timetable for taking Britain out of the European Union will be altered by the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday that she must secure Parliament’s approval before beginning the process. Most analysts, even those who opposed “Brexit,” as the departure from the bloc is known, doubt that it will.
The ruling, which upholds an earlier decision by the High Court in London, creates another hurdle for Mrs. May, who has promised to begin a two-year, irreversible process of exit negotiations by the end of March by invoking the European Union’s Article 50, the legal mechanism for leaving the bloc. And Mrs. May had already said in her speech on Brexit last week that Parliament would have a vote on whether to accept the final deal negotiated with the European Union.
In its ruling, the court noted that Parliament had approved the 1972 legislation that enabled the country to join the European Union and incorporated European law into British law. Leaving the bloc would take away from British citizens a number of rights that had been granted by the bloc. But the ruling Tuesday — which included a decision to deny the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish legislatures a veto in the matter — has brought to the fore some ancient tensions in Britain’s democracy, which has somehow made it through the centuries with an unequal union of four nations, an unelected upper house of Parliament and without a written constitution. These tensions may ultimately have far greater impact than a ruling that was widely anticipated.
As a result, “the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament authorizing that course,” David Neuberger, the Supreme Court president, said in announcing the decision, which was approved 8 to 3. “There are some fairly serious questions about how the U.K.’s constitutional settlement operates, not least the lack of democracy at the heart of the houses of Parliament,” Stephen Gethins, the Scottish National Party’s spokesman on Europe in the British Parliament, said in an interview. “All this raises quite substantial questions about the future of the union.”
The strongest words of protest arose from the nations of the United Kingdom whose voters opposed Brexit. In Scotland, the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said Tuesday that the case for a second referendum on independence was growing ever stronger.
“It’s becoming clearer by the day that Scotland’s voice is simply not being heard or listened to within the U.K.,” Mrs. Sturgeon said.
In Northern Ireland, where the fragile 1998 Good Friday Agreement that ended decades of sectarian conflict is predicated on membership in the European Union and an open border with Ireland, the decision not to give its Parliament a vote risks aggravating the sectarian divide, officials said.
“Brexit will undermine the institutional, constitutional and legal integrity of the Good Friday Agreement,” said Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, which represents the Catholic nationalist community in Northern Ireland. “Our stability and economic progress,” he said, “are regarded as collateral damage.”
In its ruling, which upholds an earlier decision by the High Court in London, the Supreme Court noted that Parliament had approved the 1972 legislation that enabled the country to join the European Union and incorporated European law into British law. Leaving the bloc would take away from British citizens a number of rights that had been granted by the bloc.
As a result, “the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament authorizing that course,” David Neuberger, the Supreme Court’s president, said in announcing the decision, which was approved, 8 to 3.
Although a majority of lawmakers had campaigned to stay in the European Union before the referendum last year, most political observers said it was unlikely that legislators would reject the will of the voters.Although a majority of lawmakers had campaigned to stay in the European Union before the referendum last year, most political observers said it was unlikely that legislators would reject the will of the voters.
“There’s no going back,” David Davis, the British official tasked with overseeing the withdrawal, told Parliament later Tuesday. “The point of no return was June 23,” he said, referring to the date of the referendum. The prime minister’s office is expected to submit a tightly worded bill to Parliament as early as this week, and if all goes well Mrs. May will begin a two-year, irreversible process of exit negotiations with the European Union by the end of March.
In one important victory for the government, the court ruled that Mrs. May would not need separate approval from the regional legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. “There’s no going back,” David Davis, the British official assigned to oversee the withdrawal, told Parliament later Tuesday. “The point of no return was June 23,” he said, referring to the date of the referendum.
“The devolution statutes were enacted on the assumption that the U.K. would be a member of the E.U. but they do not require it,” Lord Neuberger said. “Relations with the E.U. are a matter for the U.K. government.” That is not going to stop some from trying. The Scottish National Party is likely to vote against the measure, and has vowed to submit 50 “serious and substantive” amendments in an effort to slow the process and, if possible, soften or reverse the outcome.
Within minutes of the ruling, which was not unexpected, Jeremy Wright, Britain’s attorney general, said outside the Supreme Court building in London that the government was disappointed with the decision but that it would comply with it. But with the leader of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, pledging not to stand in the way, and the Conservatives holding a majority in Parliament, Mrs. May is widely expected to prevail.
Mrs. May’s office said that the ruling would not affect the timetable to begin talks on a withdrawal, and Mr. Davis said that the government would soon introduce a simple bill to invoke Article 50. Some expect a little more pushback in the House of Lords, not enough to stop the bill’s passage but possibly enough to delay it, surely enraging the most vocal cheerleaders for Brexit — the tabloid press and English nationalists, from the right wing of the Conservative Party to the U.K. Independence Party.
The Conservatives could also take heart in the section of the ruling on the regional legislatures, which Theresa Villiers, a member of Parliament for the party, described as “very good news.” That the Lords could intervene in the process stems from another ancient quirk of the British political system.
Clearly disappointed that Parliament in Scotland, where there is a resilient independence movement, would not get its own vote on invoking Article 50, the Scottish National Party signaled its intention of preventing the national government from doing so. Unelected, overcrowded and with an age profile similar to that of many retirement homes, Britain’s upper chamber of Parliament has survived a century of debate over its purpose, while becoming the largest legislative assembly in the world outside of China. Unlike the elected House of Commons, members of the House of Lords are mostly appointed, and many were named by the Labour governments in power from 1997 to 2010. At the least, they could throw sand in the legislative gears on Brexit.
In a statement, the party said it would submit “50 serious and substantive” amendments to any legislation that would allow the withdrawal talks to proceed. The court case has also underscored the generally polarizing nature of the June referendum, in which 52 percent voted to leave the European Union.
The case has underscored the polarizing nature of the June referendum, in which 52 percent of Britons voted to leave the European Union. One of the plaintiffs, Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, has said she was threatened with murder and rape by Brexit supporters, who have accused her of trying to sabotage the withdrawal. A lawyer by training, Ms. Miller has said she was merely standing up for the rights of Parliament.
One of the plaintiffs, Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, has said she was threatened with murder and rape by supporters of “Brexit,” as the process of leaving the bloc is known, who have accused her of trying to sabotage an exit. A lawyer by training, Ms. Miller has said she was merely standing up for the rights of Parliament.
“This case was about the legal process, not about politics,” Ms. Miller said in a news conference outside the Supreme Court, where she thanked her law firm, Mishcon de Reya, for fighting her case.“This case was about the legal process, not about politics,” Ms. Miller said in a news conference outside the Supreme Court, where she thanked her law firm, Mishcon de Reya, for fighting her case.
Ms. Miller said she had been the victim of a torrent of criticism since filing the case, and said she was “shocked by the levels of personal abuse that I have received from many quarters over the last several months for simply bringing and asking a legitimate question.” Ms. Miller said she was “shocked by the levels of personal abuse that I have received from many quarters over the last several months for simply bringing and asking a legitimate question.”
Even the judges have found themselves under immense pressure. Members of the High Court who ruled against the government in November, setting the stage for the Supreme Court decision, were described by one tabloid newspaper as “enemies of the people.” At times it felt that the judges themselves were on trial. Members of the High Court who ruled against the government in November, setting the stage for the Supreme Court decision, were described by one tabloid newspaper as “enemies of the people.”
The ruling comes a week after Mrs. May first outlined her vision for a clean break with the European Union single market, one in which Britain would close its borders to visa-free migration for citizens from other countries in the bloc — a “hard Brexit” as it is often referred to here. But lawmakers from across the political spectrum have made clear that they want to be involved from the start.
Under the terms of Article 50, the prime minister, who officially supported remaining in the bloc but expressed only tepid support for it during the referendum campaign, has two years to complete exit negotiations once she invokes the rule.
In her speech last week, Mrs. May pledged to give both houses of Parliament the opportunity to vote on any accord, but lawmakers from across the political spectrum have made clear that they want to be involved from the start.
“I and many others did not exercise our vote in the referendum so as to restore the sovereignty of this Parliament only to see what we regarded as the tyranny of the European Union replaced by that of a government,” Stephen Phillips, a member of Mrs. May’s Conservative Party, said when the case was first brought.“I and many others did not exercise our vote in the referendum so as to restore the sovereignty of this Parliament only to see what we regarded as the tyranny of the European Union replaced by that of a government,” Stephen Phillips, a member of Mrs. May’s Conservative Party, said when the case was first brought.
If no deal is reached with the 27 other member states once the two-year countdown begins — or if Parliament rejects a final deal at that stage — it would most likely result in the sort of “cliff edge” breakup that Mrs. May, along with Britain’s bankers and business leaders, hoped to avoid. There is still an outside chance that Parliament will reassert control of Brexit talks, said Simon Tilford, a Britain and Europe specialist at the Center for European Reform in London.
Mrs. May’s government had argued that under Britain’s unwritten constitution, the leadership can make or leave international treaties without parliamentary approval. “What this does is it opens the way for much greater parliamentary scrutiny of the whole process,” he said. “But we’re only going to get this if the Labour Party is willing to push back. That is not likely, but not impossible.”
The High Court disagreed, ruling in November that it would be unlawful to use executive powers known as “royal prerogative” to start a process that would take rights away from citizens that had been granted by Parliament. Only Parliament could take those rights away, the court said. “It opens up the way for a kind of democratization of what is happening, for Parliament to hold the government to account,” he added. “So far we had a vote to leave the E.U., but it certainly wasn’t a vote to take Britain out of the single market, out of the customs union and to make people poorer.”
The government appealed the decision, taking the case to the Supreme Court, the country’s highest judicial body, which came to its own conclusion after holding four days of hearings in front of its 11 justices last month.
Most legal commentators had predicted that the government would lose the case, and according to British news reports, officials have already started drafting parts of a bill that would be subject to parliamentary approval in a bid to keep to the March timetable.