UK Court Decision Opens Way for Political Wrangles, 'Disorderly' Brexit

Britain's Supreme Court ruling that the decision over triggering the mechanism for leaving the EU must be taken by parliament and not by UK Prime Minister Theresa May's government alone puts the issue back to parliament which will start the process of political wrangling that she wanted to avoid, Sputnik has been told.

The Supreme Court has ruled that May's government cannot invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon — formally triggering the Brexit process which is supposed to last only two years — without the consent of parliament but that it does not have to consult the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland devolved assemblies and parliaments first.

UKSC confirms (by majority of 8:3) that an Act of Parliament is needed before Article 50 can be triggered 1/2 https://t.co/QUny4FUZIr

— UK Supreme Court (@UKSupremeCourt) January 24, 2017

Sewel Convention is not a legal obligation and devolved legislatures do not have power to veto Article 50 2/2 https://t.co/J2bkZwGWwm

— UK Supreme Court (@UKSupremeCourt) January 24, 2017​

​The decision now means that — instead of being a simple matter for the government to control the Brexit negotiations process — it will become a political ballgame as the negotiations continue. It leaves the way open for MPs who wanted to remain in the EU to table amendments to the Brexit legislation at any stage and seek to have a hand in the negotiations at every stage and forge their own brand of Brexit.

"It is possible to envisage that some parliamentarians might make it conditional to vote in favor of triggering Article 50 and that there is greater parliamentary involvement — not just at the end of the process, as Theresa May promised — but throughout the process," Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law at the University of Cambridge told Sputnik.

"Once Article 50 is triggered, the clock starts ticking at EU level and so the fact that there are domestic difficulties, that the Westminster parliament wants to have a say on a regular basis, the fact is that the clock will keep ticking. So there is a risk that if parliament slows down the process very much, we risk not having an agreement with the EU and we have a disorderly Brexit because the time runs out under Article 50," she said.

Background

The case was brought by UK businesswoman Gina Miller and others who argued that the Prime Minister, Theresa May, and her government did not have the authority to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon — the process of actually leaving the EU — without an Act of Parliament voted on by all MPs.

Gina Miller represents so many WoC who face threats and hatred to get the job done — often with little recognition. Hero. #Brexit #Article50 pic.twitter.com/6baBQNRjSl

— Josh (@J_Manasa) 24 January 2017

Very few MPs will vote not to trigger Article 50, given that the country had a referendum on the issue which resulted in a vote to leave. However, they could use parliamentary powers and processes to affect the course of negotiations.

A historic decision. Parliament has now got the opportunity to make sure brexit is achieved for the benefit of all. https://t.co/s1YYjLd9c7

— Steve Watson (@SteveWatson10) January 24, 2017​

My response to the #SupremeCourt judgement. A blow for the Govt, and now down to opposition parties to stop an extreme Brexit. #Article50 pic.twitter.com/O2T7UpU4hP

— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) January 24, 2017​

Scotland and Northern Ireland don't have veto. Westminster can simply disregard us. What a surprise! #SupremeCourt #Article50

— Deirdre Heenan (@deirdreheenan) January 24, 2017​

The question, in law, centered on what is known as the "Crown Prerogative": the ancient power vested in the king or queen to make unilateral decisions over his/her parliament. It dates back centuries to when England was ruled by Kings and Queens who had total power over their people and there was no parliament as we know it today.

Statement from @jeremycorbyn on the PM's defeat in Supreme Court: https://t.co/RxKu4wGEXl #SupremeCourt

— Jeremy Corbyn for PM (@JeremyCorbyn4PM) January 24, 2017​

The case went to the High Court, which ruled that May's Government could not use the prerogative to invoke Article 50 and that only parliament could consent such action.

The UK Government appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard the case over four days, early December. The case against the UK Government is that the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA1972) — which was the main legislation on Britain joining what is now the EU — created statutory rights that only parliament may revoke or amend.

Members of the pro-European movement Britain for Europe pose on a double decker bus dressed as judges outside the Supreme court building in London on the first day of a four-day hearing on December 5, 2016.

© AFP 2023 / Ben Stansall

The UK Government's argument was that ECA1972 is the "conduit" by which EU treaty obligations agreed by the UK Government with other member states enter UK law. In other words, ever since the 1972 Act, successive government have made agreements and signed treaties using prerogative powers derived from that act of parliament.

"In a joint judgement of the majority, the Supreme Court holds that an Act of Parliament is required to authorize ministers to give Notice of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the European Union," the president of the court, Lord Neuberger said.