SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we've-always-been-at-war-with-eurasia dept.
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:53PM
Great post, thank you. Does everything you say also apply to issues with the other UK countries, like the failed Scottish vote to leave the UK? If they did vote to leave (or if Ireland makes good on their threat to hold a similar vote), what would happen there?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kazzie on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:39PM
Working from memory here:
With reference to the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum (and working from memory) one key issue was the fact that the Scottish Parliament wanted to hold the referendum, but the Scottish Parliament, which is subservient to the British Parliament, didn't have the power to hold a referendum of its own accord. Technically, because Westminster established the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, it could override it or dissolve it at any time it wishes. It is only convention (the Sewell convention) that holds it back from doing this. In the same way, the Scottish Parliament cannot force the UK Parliament to do something.
Prior to the referendum, the Scottish and British governments came to an agreement, and a bill was passed at Westminster giving the Scottish Parliament temporary power to hold a referendum. A vote for independence would still be strictly advisory, and not legally force Westminster to grant Scotland independence. It was regarded that the UK government would be "honour bound" to enter into negotiations with the Scottish government over the dissolution of the union, and David Cameron's statements at the time supported this intention.
By comparison with the EU vote, while many MPs supported remaining in the EU, they largely accept that they must now proceed to leave (either out of respect for the referendum result, or out of fear of being thrown our by the electorate at the next election). When Alex Salmond went into the 2014 Scottish referendum with a reasonably clear set of objectives in the event of a "leave" result: keep the Pound, retain membership of the EU, stay in the borderless Common Travel Area with the UK and Ireland. There was no such clarity with the EU referendum.
For Northern Ireland, the UK Supreme Court have determined that there is no legal need for Northern Ireland to consent independently to leaving the EU. The fact that the NI Assembly has just been dissolved and forced into new elections is a more urgent issue there, as there is burrently no leadersip to represent NI's views and priorities.
The only referendum on the horizon in Wales is on the issue of devolving tax varying powers to the Welsh Assembly (soon to be renamed Welsh Government), and Welsh politicians disagree on whether such approval in needed. Scotland was asked this question at the same time as their 1997 referendum on devolution, whereas Wales wasn't asked at the time. It was thought devolution was a tough enough sale as it was. (For an overview on how close that result was, see this BBC retrospective [bbc.co.uk] published a decade later.)