The highest UK court ruled Prime Minister Theresa May must seek an act of Parliament to trigger the two-year countdown to Brexit, handing lawmakers a chance to soften the government’s plan.
The court ruled against the government by an 8-3 vote, Judge David Neuberger said Tuesday. The judges ruled unanimously, however, that legislatures in Scotland and Northern Ireland don’t get to vote on the Article 50 process.
The judges said the withdrawal will make a fundamental change by cutting off the source of European Union law, as well as changing legal rights. The UK’s constitutional arrangements require such changes to be clearly authorized by parliament, and lawmakers must be involved in triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, they ruled.
"Only legislation which is embodied in a statute will do,” Neuberger said. “A resolution of the House of Commons is not legislation. What form such legislation should take is entirely a matter for Parliament.”
The decision is a defeat for May’s argument that she alone had the power to begin the country’s withdrawal from the European Union. The need to now win the approval of lawmakers threatens her 31 March deadline for starting the divorce talks, although most colleagues say they won’t try to stop the breakup given 52% of voters backed it in last June’s referendum.
Five Stages
A bill to implement Article 50 will have to go through five stages in each of the two chambers of Parliament. There are votes at each stage, and lots of opportunities for dissenters to propose amendments. Both houses must agree on the wording of the final law.
Parliamentary critics of May including some within her own Conservative Party can seize the opportunity to shape her strategy amid concern she risks hurting the economy by jeopardizing trade to win control of immigration.
May plans to rush through a parliamentary motion or short bill, designed to keep her timetable on track and give as little scope for amendments as possible.
The ruling that politicians in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland didn’t need to have a say before talks are triggered will be some comfort to May, as Scotland probably would have voted to block leaving the EU.
The pound fell 0.5% to 1.2474 pounds after the ruling. Sterling had rallied last week when May said she would give Parliament a vote on the final deal she negotiates with the EU. But by the time they vote on the final settlement, with the two-year talks deadline approaching, the choice they will face will be between accepting the terms or allowing Britain to fallout of the bloc without a deal.
The government had hoped to avoid a vote for fear lawmakers would bog down her plans. A majority in the lower chamber, the House of Commons, supported remaining in the EU and many members of the unelected upper chamber, the Lords, have also expressed concerns.
The chance of amendments rose after May last Tuesday outlined her vision, pledging to leave the EU’s single market to win control of immigration and lawmaking -- essentially a so-called hard Brexit.
Political Reaction
Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said that while the opposition won’t frustrate Article 50, it will try to amend the bill. He aims to “build in the principles of full, tariff-free access to the single market,” to ensure the government is accountable to Parliament through the negotiations and to put the final deal to a “meaningful” vote.
Tim Farron, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, former coalition partners of May’s Conservatives when her predecessor David Cameron was premier, said his party will vote against Article 50 unless the government agrees to subject the ultimate Brexit pact to a referendum.
While May said last week that Parliament would a say on whatever final deal she negotiates with the EU, the Article 50 vote remains key as it may be the only opportunity lawmakers have to shape the process.
By the time they debate the final settlement, with the two-year deadline looming, the choice they will face will be between accepting the terms or allowing Britain to fall out of the bloc without a deal.
More Cases
Any hope the Supreme Court’s ruling might herald an end to May’s legal headaches are likely to be disappointed, as at least two new challenges gather pace.
A Dublin court is being asked if the two-year exit process can be terminated at a later date, while two campaigners filed a lawsuit claiming the referendum didn’t grant May the authority to pull Britain from the European single market.
The politically charged lawsuit has placed the most senior judges in the British judiciary, a group traditionally reluctant to stray into politics, in uncharted territory.
The Supreme Court heard testimony at the start of December after the government appealed a November ruling by the High Court.
The case was initiated by Gina Miller, who runs an investment start-up and Deir Dos Santos, a hairdresser. Separate claims brought by others were consolidated behind Miller’s, who became the public face of the lawsuit and has endured death threats.
Some UK newspapers cried foul over the High Court’s decision, saying that judges had no place meddling in a democratic process.
The Daily Mail featured pictures of the three judges on its front page and the headline, "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE.” The Daily Telegraph billed the ruling as the "Judges Versus the People."
The British public voted to leave the EU in a 23 June referendum, causing David Cameron to quit as prime minister and May move in as his successor.
News by Bloomberg, edited by ESM. Click subscribe to sign up to ESM: The European Supermarket Magazine.
