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, @07:48PM
It sounds like May actually follows the rule of law so it's a moot point... however, why does this matter?
As a thought experiment, imagine May were to say "forget the courts, EU, here is formal notice of Article 50." Even if the UK courts say it is unconstitutional (which I'm not even sure they can based on UK law and Parliament having authority), from the EU perspective a designated legitimate authority has invoked Article 50 so it has been invoked. Even if it were illegal based on UK law, the EU follows EU rules so defacto it had been invoked.
Does the UK court ruling have any meaning or force, beyond the extent that May and the government listens to it?
(Score: 1) by Codesmith on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:36PM
I would hazard a guess that the EU would take the court ruling into consideration with regards to 'a designated legitimate authority'. May and her party are now required to take the order to leave through the parliament, and until such time, I'm sure the EU will just watch and wait. Under current EU structure (which still includes the UK) a nations courts can have effects on external organizations.
Pro utilitate hominum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:34AM
I would hazard a guess that the EU would take the court ruling into consideration with regards to 'a designated legitimate authority'.
They didn't when the Danish government did the same thing. I think it was on the patent directive.
The Danish parliament authorized the minister to vote NO to the patent directive, but he went on to vote YES on behalf of Denmark. The directive passed. IMHO, the EU lost all legitimacy for accepting that fraudulent vote.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:51PM
Does the UK court ruling have any meaning or force, beyond the extent that May and the government listens to it?
What? A UK constitutional crisis AND a dispute over the legitimacy of the notice under EU law? Anybody who could answer that would charge you £500 just for reading your post.
Lawyers and popcorn vendors would prosper.
As for what it would achieve - the government will be forced to subject their vision of Brexit to parliamentary debate. May has already had to climb down [bbc.co.uk] and promise a White Paper setting out the plans. If you're a Remainer, then you have one last shred of hope. If you're a Brexiteer then this also makes it harder for May to stealthily negotiate a faux-Brexit. Also its the way our system of government - which the Brexiteers were so keen on saving from Brussels - is supposed to work!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by purple_cobra on Wednesday January 25 2017, @09:45PM
As I mentioned to a friend earlier, her White Paper has Andrex printed on the roll because she, along with the rest of the party, are bricking it. Now that even members of her own party are starting to think this whole austerity thing might be a bit much - it's now hitting the NHS so hard that even their own, usually relatively well off, constituents are getting harmed by it, plus the decline/lack of essential services (refuse collection is going to become a bigger issue this year, I suspect) - then the slender majority the Tories enjoy might just end up vanishing unless she's far better at plate-juggling than she's been so far. If she pissed-off a couple more Tory MPs then things might get ugly. May has been trying to project herself as Thatcher v2, but for all I despised that dreadful woman she could, at least, manage some level of control over the party, something May isn't capable of.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Thursday January 26 2017, @02:38AM
I agree with the majority of your post, but the NHS is going to be bait and switched, more and more 'small charges' and 'private sector competition' will be added... and in the Tory voter crowd, it will be seen as a necessity brought on by 'the immigrants' and the breadth of services now offered by the NHS -- which if you believe the dailymail, 90% of NHS budget goes on cosmetic surgery for benefit scroungers and delivering anchor babies for illegal immigrants -- so they'll be supporting privatization and a transition to insurance by the back door, obviously pensioners will be excluded from the upfront costs for the most part. The rest of us are used to paying for certain things already, be it prescriptions, NHS dentists, a letter from the doctor for your employer, it's going to be incremental so we won't really notice and we can still blame the lower social classes for overburdening the system. Some are very supportive of removing the NHS facilities because of 'lifestyle choices' as it is...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @11:32PM
(Original poster here.)
I think I found the answer to my own question: Article 50 [lisbon-treaty.org]
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
So an unconstitutional notification would not be considered.