Skip to comments.Government Must Ask Parliament to Trigger Article 50, High Court Rules (Overturning Brexit?)
Posted on 11/03/2016 6:08:33 AM PDT by Bratch
The government must consult parliament before invoking Article 50, the High Court has ruled.
The court ruled that Prime Minister Theresa May does not have the authority to use the Royal Prerogative to invoke the EU divorce process.
The Lord Chief Justice has ruled that the government’s arguments are “contrary to fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament”.
He added: “The court does not accept the argument put forward by the government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it.”
Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, sitting with the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales, delivered the verdict Thursday morning after a three-day hearing in October.
The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC had argued the move could be a “backdoor” to overruled the Brexit vote, but did not turn up to court today.
Gina Miller, one of the claimants who brought the article 50 case, said in a statement outside Royal Courts of Justice that the government should accept the ruling.
However, the government has said it will appeal the decision.
A spokesman said: “The Government is disappointed by the decision.
“The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament. And the Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum.”
The Supreme Court will likely hear the case on 7 December.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The will of the people don’t matter in any country it seems.
The PM should put it to a House of Commons vote.
If it fails, she will have to resign. Her successor could call an election.
I don’t see this as a huge setback. It actually seems more in line with the tradition of parliamentary sovereignty. And likely in line with the 1972 Act, which does not give the PM the right to act unilaterally in this way. That would be a parliamentary prerogative. And fair enough.
Once this gets through Parliament, it will be that much stronger.
They have been slow walking this waiting for for somebody to save them.
Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, sitting with the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales, delivered the verdict
The Just and Proper response would be for Parliament and the PM to REMOVE ALL THESE JUDGES FROM THE COURT for Subverting the Will of the People.
We too are going to have to remind Government who runs this mother.
Devils Advocate....could the Court just be upholding the flip side of our Constitutional treaty powers? That Obama can’t execute a treaty without first having it pass in Congress?
I don’t know British law that well, but this could be a purely technical decision.
Liberals are the same everywhere.
And there is but one solution.
Oh, forgot, the Brits are unarmed.
“Lord Chief Justice, you have made your ruling, now let us see you enforce it!”
Sadly, its not as simple as that. Thanks to an act of constitutional vandalism by the last government, the ‘Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011’ mandates that Parliament can only be dissolved in less than five years if 2/3 of the Commons Agrees. Even if everyone in the Tory Party agreed, they don’t have the requisite supermajority, and would have to have the cooperation of the next two largest parties, Labour and the SNP. Labour wouldn’t agree to it, because the polls say they will lose even more MPs thanks to Corbyn, and the SNP could not hope to gain any more seats than they already have.
Parliamentary sovereignty was applied in approving the referendum in the first place. The referendum took place at the direction of an Act of Parliament. That should be quite sufficient to establish that the govt applying the result of the referendum is under the umbrella of Parliamentary sovereignty.
This is just a b.s. attempt to drive a wedge into the process, hoping to overturn the result of the referendum.
Listening to the BBC it seems this only means that Parliament has to approve the plan before the trigger can occur. I doubt they could get away with an open border plan and not have pitchforks and torches. Theresa May should write a one-line statement and call it her plan all it would say is : sovereignty.
Elections provide cover for the elites. Give the wrong result and you find the vote doesn’t count.
I would agree....should this NOT pass via Parliament, she’s finished. Another election needs to be held.
But I don’t see where any of this can go if Parliament doesn’t pass it. The stock market will drop by 500 points that day and maybe another 500 the next day. All of the EU commentary and bitterness? Where do you go now?
The odds of Parliament passing it? This would be an interesting twist, with some Labor members opposing the exit and some in favor of it. Same with the Tories.
As for another election? The only thing I can see is that fewer Labor members will be elected. Lot of negativity with the general public right now with Labor.
“The will of the people dont matter in any country it seems.”
You bet. Especially not in a Monarchy. Britain is a 2nd world nation ruled by a Queen. They are no “free-er” than Syria.
the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 mandates that Parliament can only be dissolved in less than five years if 2/3 of the Commons Agrees.”
I had not heard of that, at all.
Fascinating constitutional development.
Parliament uses its sovereignty to effectively amend the constitution (as it were).
They could, of course, repeal that with a simple majority (see “parliamentary sovereignty”). But it sounds like that might precipitate a constitutional crisis....
If they want us on the streets, then carry on like this.
The public hate ALL politicians...this is the kind of excuse we need.
The Fixed Parliament Act, is nothing but a 5 yr thieving licence...once yr in v v hard to get u out for 5 yrs...as others have said a Constitutional outrage. If they try to hide behind that, then even more anger.
They could pass a bill, but then it would have to go through committee stages and pass through the Lords, who could delay it for up to two years if they wanted to before it could be presented to the Queen for Royal Assent. It wouldn’t be a quick process.
I saw a movie entitle “V” once. It didn’t end well for the authorities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.