4 hours ago ... The High Court decision on negotiations over Britain's withdrawal from the European Union seemed likely to slow — but not halt — the process.
6 hours ago ... LONDON — The British government's plan for exiting the European Union was thrown into uncertainty Thursday after the High Court delivered ...
‘Brexit’ Will Require a Vote in Parliament, U.K. Court Rules
Video
High Court Ruling Delivers Blow to U.K.'s 'Brexit' Plans
The case was brought by several
plaintiffs who challenged the right of the government to initiate the
process to leave the European Union without a vote from Parliament.
By REUTERS and THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date November 3, 2016.
Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images.
Watch in Times Video »
LONDON — The British government’s plan for leaving the European Union was thrown into uncertainty on Thursday after the High Court ruled that Parliament must give its approval before the process can begin.
The court’s decision seemed likely to slow — but not halt — the British withdrawal from the bloc, a step approved by nearly 52 percent of voters in a June referendum.
Nevertheless, the court’s decision was a significant blow to Prime Minister Theresa May. She had planned to begin the legal steps for leaving the European Union by the end of March, and to prepare for the negotiations over Britain’s exit mostly behind closed doors.
If
the court’s ruling is upheld — the government immediately vowed to
appeal — that plan would be thrown into disarray, analysts said.
Photo
Prime Minister Theresa May
had planned to begin the legal steps for leaving the European Union by
the end of March, and to prepare for the negotiations over Britain’s
exit mostly behind closed doors.Credit
Kirsty Wigglesworth/Associated Press
Mrs.
May would be forced to work with Parliament and consider its competing
priorities for Britain’s future. Specifically, she would have to give it
a detailed strategy for negotiating the British departure, or “Brexit.”
She has adamantly resisted doing so, arguing that this would impede her
flexibility in the negotiations, preventing Britain from getting the
best possible deal.
Few
observers believe that Parliament will go so far as to prevent a
departure from the bloc. Lawmakers themselves voted overwhelmingly to
hold the referendum and pledged to abide by the results.
The
more likely impact could be to weaken Mrs. May’s hold on the
negotiating process. Her main priority has been controlling immigration
and Britain’s borders, even if that hurts the economy by forcing her
nation to leave the European Union’s single market — a “hard Brexit.”
The court’s decision may ultimately force her to compromise, a prospect that led the pound to rise Thursday morning, lifting it from the multidecade lows it had been plumbing in recent weeks.
But
it was not immediately clear how the politics would play out. The
Conservative government is already split over what kind of future
relationship it wants with the European Union, and in general, members
of Parliament were not in favor of leaving the bloc in the first place.
The government hoped to get the talks started without a major
parliamentary debate and potential interference, especially in the House
of Lords, where the Conservatives do not have a clear majority.
What the Court Ruling Means
What did the High Court decide?
Prime Minister Theresa May must seek Parliament’s approval before Britain can start the process for leaving the European Union.
Will ‘Brexit’ still happen?
The court’s decision seemed likely to slow, not halt, a British exit, although nothing was certain.
What happens next?
Mrs. May has vowed to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
What if she exhausts her appeals?
Parliament
will ultimately have to vote on whether Britain leaves. Though most
lawmakers opposed "Brexit," it would be politically toxic to overturn it
now. In any case, Mrs. May’s negotiating position with the European
Union could be weakened.
If
Mrs. May should find parliamentary opposition intolerable, she might
ultimately be tempted to seek an early general election to gain a wider
mandate for leaving the bloc, some analysts said. Currently, her
Conservative Party holds a slim majority, with 329 seats in the 650-seat Parliament, and many of those members opposed a withdrawal.
The ruling unsettled the proponents of exiting the European Union, who warned against any backsliding. Nigel Farage,
who resigned as leader of the nationalist U.K. Independence Party after
the referendum, said he feared that Britain was heading for a “half
Brexit,” and he said he would return to politics in 2019 if the country
had not left the bloc by then.
“I
see M.P.s from all parties saying, ‘Oh well, actually we should stay
part of the single market; we should continue with our daily financial
contributions,’ ” he said in an interview on BBC Radio. “I think we
could be at the beginning, with this ruling, of a process where there is
a deliberate, willful attempt by our political class to betray 17.4
million voters.”
On
Thursday, the government said that an expedited appeal would be heard
in December by the Supreme Court, Britain’s highest appellate body, and
that it was sticking to its timetable for leaving the bloc for now. Yet
in the growing environment of constitutional, legal and political
uncertainty, the government’s strategy could easily be disrupted.
The
ruling was “a severe setback for Theresa May’s government,” said
Mujtaba Rahman, managing director for Europe at the Eurasia Group, a
political consulting firm. But he added that the government’s timetable
could still be met if the Supreme Court rules in its favor.
Although
Parliament approved holding the referendum, Mrs. May’s critics argued
in court that failing to give lawmakers a voice would turn them into
bystanders as Britain negotiated its disengagement from the bloc. They
also pointed out that, technically, the referendum is not legally
binding.
The case, brought by several plaintiffs, including Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, and Deir Dos Santos,
a hairdresser, is a constitutional one, about the powers vested in the
government, the crown and Parliament. The case is not about whether
Britain will or will not leave the European Union, but about the
procedure for invoking Article 50, the legal mechanism for leaving the
bloc, which provides a two-year period for negotiations.
The
plaintiffs argued successfully that leaving the European Union involved
the revocation of certain rights granted to Britons by Parliament, and
that lawmakers must have a say and a vote before Article 50 is invoked.
In
his ruling, the lord chief justice, John Thomas, said that “the most
fundamental rule of the U.K. Constitution is that Parliament is
sovereign and can make or unmake any law it chooses.”
Oddly
enough, this was precisely the case made by those who wanted to end
membership, who argued that only by leaving the European Union could
Parliament’s sovereignty be completely restored. Now that same argument
could delay the very exit so desired by those politicians and their
supporters.
The
government argued that under residual powers of royal prerogative,
which cover international treaty-making, it had the power to invoke
Article 50 without a vote in Parliament.
But the court found that invoking Article 50 would essentially repeal the European Communities Act,
a 1972 law that allowed for the incorporation of European law into the
British legal system, and that only Parliament had the power to do so.
Tim
Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, welcomed the ruling, adding
that it was “disappointing that this government was so intent on
undermining parliamentary sovereignty and democratic process that they
forced this decision to be made in the court.”
In
a statement, he added, “Given the strict two-year timetable of exiting
the E.U. once Article 50 is triggered, it is critical that the
government now lay out their negotiating to Parliament, before such a
vote is held.”
Cian Murphy, a senior lecturer in public international law at the University of Bristol, wrote on Twitter:
“The Article 50 judgment from the High Court: a political bombshell but
really rather predicable as a matter of constitutional law.”
Today’s Headlines: European Morning
Get news and analysis from Europe and around the world delivered to your inbox every day in the European morning.
Although
Mrs. May has said that lawmakers will eventually be consulted, many
fear it will take place too late to influence the shape of Britain’s new
relationship with the European Union.
For
example, if Parliament is given a chance to vote on an exit agreement
at the end of the two-year period, lawmakers may be forced to choose
between endorsing a deal they oppose or leaving the bloc without any
formal relationship with it.
The
government had dismissed the case as legal “camouflage,” regarding it
as a thinly disguised effort to frustrate the democratic outcome of the
June 23 referendum.
The
Conservative Party, which was badly split over the referendum, has now
largely embraced its outcome, in many cases enthusiastically.
Many
supporters of the opposition Labour Party also voted to leave the
European Union, which will make it harder for their lawmakers to oppose a
withdrawal.
Along
with the Supreme Court, the ruling might ultimately be referred to the
European Court of Justice, an institution opposed by many who argued for
Britain to leave the bloc.
Although Parliament approved holding the referendum, Mrs. May’s critics argued in court that failing to give lawmakers a voice would turn them into bystanders as Britain negotiated its disengagement from the bloc. They also pointed out that, technically, the referendum is not legally binding.The case, brought by several plaintiffs, including Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, and Deir Dos Santos, a hairdresser, is a constitutional one, about the powers vested in the government, the crown and Parliament. The case is not about whether Britain will or will not leave the European Union, but about the procedure for invoking Article 50, the legal mechanism for leaving the bloc, which provides a two-year period for negotiations.The plaintiffs argued successfully that leaving the European Union involved the revocation of certain rights granted to Britons by Parliament, and that lawmakers must have a say and a vote before Article 50 is invoked.In his ruling, the lord chief justice, John Thomas, said that “the most fundamental rule of the U.K. Constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make or unmake any law it chooses.”Oddly enough, this was precisely the case made by those who wanted to end membership, who argued that only by leaving the European Union could Parliament’s sovereignty be completely restored. Now that same argument could delay the very exit so desired by those politicians and their supporters.
The government argued that under residual powers of royal prerogative, which cover international treaty-making, it had the power to invoke Article 50 without a vote in Parliament.But the court found that invoking Article 50 would essentially repeal the European Communities Act, a 1972 law that allowed for the incorporation of European law into the British legal system, and that only Parliament had the power to do so.Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, welcomed the ruling, adding that it was “disappointing that this government was so intent on undermining parliamentary sovereignty and democratic process that they forced this decision to be made in the court.”In a statement, he added, “Given the strict two-year timetable of exiting the E.U. once Article 50 is triggered, it is critical that the government now lay out their negotiating to Parliament, before such a vote is held.”Cian Murphy, a senior lecturer in public international law at the University of Bristol, wrote on Twitter: “The Article 50 judgment from the High Court: a political bombshell but really rather predicable as a matter of constitutional law.”Although Mrs. May has said that lawmakers will eventually be consulted, many fear it will take place too late to influence the shape of Britain’s new relationship with the European Union.For example, if Parliament is given a chance to vote on an exit agreement at the end of the two-year period, lawmakers may be forced to choose between endorsing a deal they oppose or leaving the bloc without any formal relationship with it.The government had dismissed the case as legal “camouflage,” regarding it as a thinly disguised effort to frustrate the democratic outcome of the June 23 referendum.The Conservative Party, which was badly split over the referendum, has now largely embraced its outcome, in many cases enthusiastically.Many supporters of the opposition Labour Party also voted to leave the European Union, which will make it harder for their lawmakers to oppose a withdrawal.Along with the Supreme Court, the ruling might ultimately be referred to the European Court of Justice, an institution opposed by many who argued for Britain to leave the bloc.Continue reading the main story
No comments:
Post a Comment