Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.

UK Supreme Court Rules That Parliament Must Approve Article 50 Invocation

posted by on Wednesday January 25 2017, @05:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the we've-always-been-at-war-with-eurasia dept.

takyon writes:

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament must vote on and approve of invoking Article 50 which triggers arrangements for leaving the European Union:

The Supreme Court has dismissed the government's appeal in a landmark case about Brexit, meaning Parliament will be required to give its approval before official talks on leaving the EU can begin. The ruling is a significant, although not totally unexpected, setback for Theresa May.

[...] The highest court in England and Wales has dismissed the government's argument that it has the power to begin official Brexit negotiations with the rest of the EU without Parliament's prior agreement. By a margin of eight to three, the 11 justices upheld November's High Court ruling which stated that it would be unlawful for the government to rely on executive powers known as the royal prerogative to implement the outcome of last year's referendum.

Also at NYT, WSJ, and The Guardian.

Previously: Brexit Court Defeat for UK Government

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
UK Supreme Court Rules That Parliament Must Approve Article 50 Invocation | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 45 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Wednesday January 25 2017, @09:01PM

    by zocalo (302) on Wednesday January 25 2017, @09:01PM (#458650)
    Maybe, but I'm honestly expecting to see fairly minimal dissent from the two main parties and it's essentially going to be rubber stamped, even if takes a while to get there. If there is going to be any serious attempt to halt the process the best time for that will be when it goes to the promissed approval votes on the final deal (or default) in ~2 years time; any swing in public opinion, in either direction, will be much more apparent. If someone feels the deal can be plausibly argued to be not in the nation's best interest then they'd have a justification for bouncing it, and hoping enough do the same to avoid being singled out for any major fallout - especially with the Lords vote as there is less opportunity for public comeback against the contrary voters. Alternatively, if the MPs planning to table amendments to the legislation that is now required can drag the process out we may not get a deal before the next general election, in which case we'd almost certainly get Referendum 2 by default.

    Frankly though, with May talking about a clean break from the EU and some countries saying they'll veto any deal that doesn't include free travel (which May can't/won't accept) and/or won't approve any extensions, I think we're most likely headed for a hard exit in a little over 2.5 years time - whether there is a deal in place or not. Barring some seriously obvious public regret or a considerable amount of painful economic/industry/trade upheaval in the meantime, I'm not sure whether enough MPs will vote against it given they'd almost certainly lose their next re-election, the Lords is more questionable, but as a veto without grounds/public support would likely end the Lords as it currently stands I can't really see it either.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2