Brexit legal challenge wins: Theresa May must get approval to trigger Article 50, High Court rules Ruling hailed as 'the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs'.
Here is what the British press published this morning:
THE INDEPENDENT
Theresa May’s plans for triggering Brexit were plunged into chaos today by a sensational High Court judgment that she cannot bypass Parliament.
Three judges ruled the Prime Minister does not have the right to use the Royal Prerogative to invoke the Article 50 notice to leave the EU without involving MPs and peers.
The extraordinary development throws into confusion whether Ms May can stick to her timetable to trigger Article 50 by the end of March – and leave the EU by spring 2019.
If it leads to the Government being forced to push a Bill through Parliament – with numerous chances for it to be amended - there is thought to be virtually no chance of that timetable being achieved.
The Government immediately confirmed it would challenge the ruling at the Supreme Court – probably on December 7 – with speculation the case could end up at the European Court of Justice.
The pound immediately surged on the news, as the markets judged it would make it more difficult – at the very least – for Ms May to pursue a so-called ‘hard Brexit.
And Ladbrokes slashed the odds on a snap general election next year to 2-1, amid a belief that the Prime Minister will turn to the voters if she runs into an impasse at Parliament.
Given the huge Conservative lead in the polls, that could hand Ms May a much bigger Commons majority than the slender 12 which she inherited from David Cameron - and greater freedom to deliver Brexit.
In a devastating judgment for the Government, the Lord Chief Justice said its arguments had been contrary to “fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament”.
The ruling said: “The court does not accept the argument put forward by the government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act [to join the EU] to support it."
Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, hailed the decision as “the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs”.
He said: “It is critical that the government now lay out their negotiating to Parliament, before such a vote is held. So far, May’s team have been all over the place.”
But a furious Nigel Farage said: “I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand. Our political class, who were out in force, do not accept the 23rd of June Referendum result.
“I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke.”
And prominent Conservative Leaver Dominic Raab said: “This case is a plain attempt to block Brexit by people who are out of touch with the country and refuse to respect the result.”
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the party “respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union”.
But he added: “This ruling underlines the need for the Government to bring its negotiating terms to parliament without delay.”
A delighted Nicky Morgan, a Conservative MP who has demanded that MPs vote on Article 50, said: “Democracy has been asserted.”
But she added: “We are very well aware of how people voted – 17 million to leave the European Union in June – and I expect that Parliament will trigger the approval of the Article 50 notice.”
It is thought unlikely that MPs will seek to block Brexit, because – although a majority were pro-Remain – most, especially nervous Labour MPs, now accept the verdict of voters in June.
However, MPs - and peers in the House of Lords – could be handed the opportunity to challenge, or even delay, the process, if they are not satisfied with the Government’s strategy.
The ruling is a huge blow to Ms May, who tore into MPs wanting to influence Brexit at the Conservative conference, claiming they “are not standing up for democracy, they’re trying to subvert it”.
She said: “They’re not trying to get Brexit right, they’re trying to kill it by delaying it. They are insulting the intelligence of the British people.”
The challenge was brought by Gina Miller, a London businesswoman, arguing the inevitable consequence of invoking Article 50 was the loss of statutory rights enjoyed by UK and EU citizens.
They included the right to refer a legal case to the European Court of Justice, of freedom of movement and to sell services – rights which should only be taken away by Parliament.
The Attorney General argued, unsuccessfully, that the court challenge was an attempt to “invalidate” the public’s decision, in the June referendum, to leave the EU.
In a brief statement, a Government spokesman said: “The Government is disappointed by the Court’s judgment.
“The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament. And the Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum. We will appeal this judgment.”
Ms Miller herself said: “This result today is about all of us - our United Kingdom and our futures.
“It is not about how any of us voted – each of us voted to do what we believed was the right thing for our country. This case is about process, not politics.
“However you voted on June 23, we all owe it to our country to uphold the highest standards of transparency and democratic accountability that we are admired and respected for around the world.”
--
THE BBC
Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.
This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own.
Theresa May says the referendum - and existing ministerial powers - mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners called this unconstitutional.
The government is appealing, with a further hearing expected next month.
A statement is to be made to MPs on Monday but the prime minister's official spokesman said the government had "no intention of letting" the judgement "derail Article 50 or the timetable we have set out. We are determined to continue with our plan".
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn urged the government "to bring its negotiating terms to Parliament without delay", adding that "there must be transparency and accountability to Parliament on the terms of Brexit".
And UKIP leader Nigel Farage said he feared a "betrayal" of the 51.9% of voters who backed leaving the EU in June's referendum and voiced concern at the prospect of a "half Brexit".
BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said, if the court's decision was not overturned, there could be delays with potentially "months and months" of parliamentary hurdles.
But there was not yet "clarity" - if the judgement was not overturned - on whether there would be a "short, sharp" vote or whether Parliament would have to consider complex legislation, he added.
He predicted that, although a majority of MPs had backed the Remain campaign, most would ultimately be likely to vote for Article 50, as Brexit had been supported in the referendum.
The prime minister has said she will activate Article 50, formally notifying the EU of the UK's intention to leave, by the end of next March.
The other 27 member states have said negotiations about the terms of the UK's exit - due to last two years - cannot begin until Article 50 has been invoked.
Investment manager Gina Miller, who brought the case, said outside the High Court that the government should make the "wise decision of not appealing".
She said: "The result today is about all of us. It's not about me or my team. It's about our United Kingdom and all our futures."
But a government spokesman announced it would contest the ruling, in the Supreme Court.
He said: "The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament. And the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum. We will appeal this judgement."
Government lawyers had argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect "to the will of the people".
But the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, declared: "The government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union."
The three judges looking at the case found there was no constitutional convention of the royal prerogative - powers used by ministers - being used in legislation relating to the EU.
They added that triggering Article 50 would fundamentally change UK people's rights - and that the government cannot change or do away with rights under UK law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so.
Calling the case "a pure question of law", Lord Thomas said: "The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union: that is a political issue."
Reacting to the ruling, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox told the House of Commons the government was "disappointed" but remained "determined to respect the result of the referendum".
'Give people a chance to say no'
He added: "There will be numerous opportunities for the House to examine and discuss what the government is negotiating.
"When we are clear about the position we will adopt, then Article 50 will be triggered but, given the nature of the judgement this morning, we will now have to await the government's appeal to the Supreme Court."
Mr Farage said: "We are heading for a half Brexit."
He added: "I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand... I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke."
Mr Corbyn said: "This ruling underlines the need for the government to bring its negotiating terms to Parliament without delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament on the terms of Brexit."
But Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, a supporter of remaining in the EU, said: "Ultimately, the British people voted for a departure but not for a destination, which is why what really matters is allowing them to vote again on the final deal, giving them the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs."
--
Analysis - BBC political correspondent Eleanor Garnier
It is one of the most important constitutional court cases in generations. And the result creates a nightmare scenario for the government.
Theresa May had said she wanted to start Brexit talks before the end of March next year but this ruling has thrown the prime minister's timetable up in the air.
Campaigners who brought the case insist it was about "process not politics", but behind the doors of No 10 there will now be serious head-scratching about what the government's next steps should be.
This decision has huge implications, not just on the timing of Brexit but on the terms of Brexit. That's because it's given the initiative to those on the Remain side in the House of Commons who, it's now likely, will argue Article 50 can only be triggered when Parliament is ready and that could mean when they're happy with the terms of any future deal.
Of course, it will be immensely difficult to satisfy and get agreement from all those MPs who voted to remain. Could an early general election be on the cards after all?
No comments:
Post a Comment