UK's May must get parliament's approval before triggering Brexit

[snoop1130]

UK's May must get parliament's approval before triggering Brexit

By Michael Holden and Estelle Shirbon

 

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Theresa May must give parliament a vote before she can formally start Britain's exit from the European Union, the UK Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, giving lawmakers who oppose her Brexit plans a chance to amend or hinder them.

 

By a majority of eight to three, the Supreme Court decided May could not use executive powers known as "royal prerogative" to invoke Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty and begin two years of divorce talks.

 

"The Supreme Court today rules that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of parliament authorising it to do so," said Supreme Court President David Neuberger.

 

However, the judges did remove one major potential obstacle, saying May did not need the approval of the UK's devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before triggering Brexit.

 

May has said she intends to invoke Article 50 before the end of March but the ruling means she must bring legislation before parliament before she can go ahead.

 

That opens up the Brexit process to scrutiny from lawmakers, the majority of whom had wanted to stay in the EU. However, the main opposition Labour Party said it would not block Brexit although it would try to amend the legislation.

 

“Labour will seek to build in the principles of full, tariff-free access to the single market and maintenance of workers' rights and social and environmental protections," said party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

 

Attorney General Jeremy Wright, the government's top lawyer who argued its case, said ministers would implement the court's ruling.

 

"Of course the government is disappointed with the outcome," Wright said outside the Supreme Court. "The government will comply with the judgment of the court and do all that is necessary to implement it."

 

May said the decision did nothing to change the path of Brexit.

 

"The British people voted to leave the EU, and the government will deliver on their verdict – triggering Article 50, as planned, by the end of March," her spokesman said.

 

Last week May set out her stall for negotiations, promising a clean break with the world's largest trading bloc as part of a 12-point plan to focus on global free trade deals, setting a course for a so-called "hard Brexit".

 

Some investors and those who backed the "remain" campaign hope that lawmakers, most of whom wanted to stay in the EU, will force May to seek a deal which prioritises access to the European single market of 500 million people, or potentially even block Brexit altogether.

 

Sterling initially rose on the news that the government had lost its appeal, but it then fell over half a cent to hit day's lows against the dollar and euro after the ruling that the devolved assemblies did not need to give their assent. By 1022 GMT it had trimmed some of those losses and stood at $1.2485, down 0.4 percent on the day.

 

(Additional reporting by William James, Kylie MacLellan and Alistair Smout; Editing by Stephen Addison)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-1-24

[Grouse]

I can remember when Reuters got their facts correct. I am that old

 

The executive cannot take the decision without an act of Parliament.

 

May does not really want a clean break. She wants out of the EU but a close trading arrangement.

 

As Scotland will be ignored, a new independence referendum will now be a certainty

 

Anyway, Mrs May got slapped down; about time too. You are a new PM; learn some respect ✊ 

[optad]

 

12 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I can remember when Reuters got their facts correct. I am that old

A 'yes minister' moment.

 

Jonathan Lynn  thx you grouse.

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by optad

[nuakmuaynina]

not only new, unelected even by her own party, being the only one who wanted the job...

 

She was a terrible Home Secretary and is making a complete balls up of being PM.

 

Good she got put in her place.

[Enoon]

 

And so we leave the relative calm of the "eye", and plunge once again into the "body" of the storm.

 

Or if you prefer:

 

Half-time is over.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Enoon

[3NUMBAS]

Won't be a problem as enough tory and labour MPs will vote for the 50 ..The lords won't vote against as they could lose their jobs and get aboloished if there's an election caused by them  

[SOUTHERNSTAR]

A court consisting of stiff upper lip elitist thats so far removed from the average Britian that they seem to be living on Mars have decided that Britons may not decide their future by democratic means and must be subjected to a possibble veto by the Eaton old boys club. Get out the pitch forks !!!

[JAG]

I see that cheerie little chappie who leads the Liberal Democrats is going to vote against the Article 50 bill, unless they get another referendum.

 

A common view from the EU establishment  - wrong result? Hold another vote and keep on doing so until you get the right result.

 

And they wonder why the British electorate decided they didn't want to be ruled by Brussels any more!

[terryw]

All that will happen is that Brexit is delayed by 2 or 3 weeks. There are a lot of MP's and House of Lords members who are frightened of the wraith of the public if they dare to vote against the Government.

[alant]

16 hours ago, Grouse said:

I can remember when Reuters got their facts correct. I am that old

 

The executive cannot take the decision without an act of Parliament.

 

May does not really want a clean break. She wants out of the EU but a close trading arrangement.

 

As Scotland will be ignored, a new independence referendum will now be a certainty

 

Anyway, Mrs May got slapped down; about time too. You are a new PM; learn some respect ✊ 

what would be the point of another Scottish referendum if it will not be binding as demonstrated by this judgement?

[Laughing Gravy]

Another thread on brexit for some TV posters to go through the same old why brexit is bad, why it should be stopped and now why the MP's should have a say. Same old rubbish that won't change a thing.

[evadgib]

Link to all things Brexit:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/brexit 

[Baerboxer]

23 hours ago, Grouse said:

I can remember when Reuters got their facts correct. I am that old

 

The executive cannot take the decision without an act of Parliament.

 

May does not really want a clean break. She wants out of the EU but a close trading arrangement.

 

As Scotland will be ignored, a new independence referendum will now be a certainty

 

Anyway, Mrs May got slapped down; about time too. You are a new PM; learn some respect ✊ 

 

This court ruling quite rightly re-asserts the UK as a parliamentary representative democracy. May and her cronies were hoping to by-pass parliamentary procedure and establish a dangerous precedent in using the Royal Prerogative. Allowing the executive to by-pass parliament as it pleases is very dangerous to democracy. But she was trying to protect Tory unity and keep everyone in the dark too.

 

As for Scotland, it's about time Sturgeon was put down too. She doesn't have the power to legally inact a referendum on independence and again tries very hard to pretend she can by-pass parliament and law. Scotland has about 8% of the UK population but enjoys a representation of over 50 MPs in Westminster. A tail wagging the dog for too long. 

 

Not all of the population is interested in independence or even support countless referendums to pander to Sturgeon's ego. London has 50% more people than Scotland but less representation in parliament. Maybe time the rest of the UK considered Scotland's privliged position and how it's become the spoiled petulant child of the UK.

[Baerboxer]

7 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Another thread on brexit for some TV posters to go through the same old why brexit is bad, why it should be stopped and now why the MP's should have a say. Same old rubbish that won't change a thing.

 

Yeah, up holding the law and constitution, why bother? Just trust the politicians.

[jpinx]

The Supreme Court appear to have assumed that Art50 is irrevocable once triggered,
which the author had said was not the case. Art50 is merely a "Notice
to Quit" and, of itself, does not actually *do* anything except sound
the starting horn.  Whether any changes come about as a result of
using Art50 is not a foregone conclusion, because parliament will have
to enact any changes after debate and votes in both houses - thus
serving the democratic principles of the UK. Aside from the political
promises for a "full debate and vote" before the deal is finally
signed, one has to be mindful of just how the UK managed to join the
EU with so little legal fluster.  There was basically one act of
parliament which said something along the lines of "Any law passed in
Brussels would automatically become UK law".  This actually makes
getting out very easy, since repealing that single "membership law"
cuts out the background of all EU law, to be replaced after
as much debate as Westminster wants with appropriate UK legislation.
I seem to remember some one, possibly TM herself, outlining a
mechanism to take the complete EU "Book of Laws" at a certain fixed
date, and incorporating it in UK legislation when we leave.  This to
provide the continuity everyone craves. Then then parliament can roll
their collective sleeves up and extract the best of EU law, suitably
written for an independent UK.  The result of this chain of events is
that every action that flows from Art50 must be debated and voted,
thereby upholding the democratic principles the Supreme Court is
charged with protecting.
Art50 is clearly part of a "Foreign Treaty" and falls inside the
available actions for the Royal Prerogative.

 

No-one is going to challenge the Supreme Court by appealing to the ECJ
-- which would be a laughable waste of time and money, but, as it turns out - it's not going to make any difference really - some
procedural change, but the result is still Brexit, and that fact is
not sitting well with many people.

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

The Supreme Court appear to have assumed that Art50 is irrevocable once triggered,
which the author had said was not the case. Art50 is merely a "Notice
to Quit" and, of itself, does not actually *do* anything except sound
the starting horn. Wh

ether any changes come about as a result of
using Art50 is not a foregone conclusion, because parliament will have
to enact any changes after debate and votes in both houses - thus
serving the democratic principles of the UK. Aside from the political
promises for a "full debate and vote" before the deal is finally
signed, one has to be mindful of just how the UK managed to join the
EU with so little legal fluster.  There was basically one act of
parliament which said something along the lines of "Any law passed in
Brussels would automatically become UK law".  This actually makes
getting out very easy, since repealing that single "membership law"
cuts out the background of all EU law, to be replaced after
as much debate as Westminster wants with appropriate UK legislation.
I seem to remember some one, possibly TM herself, outlining a
mechanism to take the complete EU "Book of Laws" at a certain fixed
date, and incorporating it in UK legislation when we leave.  This to
provide the continuity everyone craves. Then then parliament can roll
their collective sleeves up and extract the best of EU law, suitably
written for an independent UK.  The result of this chain of events is
that every action that flows from Art50 must be debated and voted,
thereby upholding the democratic principles the Supreme Court is
charged with protecting.
Art50 is clearly part of a "Foreign Treaty" and falls inside the
available actions for the Royal Prerogative.

 

No-one is going to challenge the Supreme Court by appealing to the ECJ
-- which would be a laughable waste of time and money, but, as it turns out - it's not going to make any difference really - some
procedural change, but the result is still Brexit, and that fact is
not sitting well with many people.

It was common ground that some EU law could not be replicated into UK domestic and thus would be lost irrespective of the negotiations outcome.

 

Apologies a bit off topic, but I am finding the constant ad block notification  exasperating and will refrain from using TVF 

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by rockingrobin

[jpinx]

18 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

It was common ground that some EU law could not be replicated into UK domestic and thus would be lost irrespective of the negotiations outcome.

 

Apologies a bit off topic, but I am finding the constant ad block notification  exasperating and will refrain from using TVF 

 

What parts of EU law can not be replicated in some UK-esque form?

 

I use a script blocker rather than an ad-blocker - so I get no ads, and no annoying ad-blocker notices.    Has to be said, the site is so crap now I don't really bother with it much, but it's a shame because we had a nice conversation going - apart from the rude clowns