BBC News, although it’s probably in most headlines.
So the UK Government has lost this ruling, where the High Court says that, through our ancient constitution preventing the Crown from altering legislation without recourse of Parliament, and that triggering Article 50 to leave the EU would change the law, the Government cannot start the process of leaving the EU without parliamentary approval beforehand.
I’ve no doubt the Government will appeal this, although I fear they may win the appeal if they insist Article 50 is revocable, based on what Lord Kerr of Kinlochard has been saying today.
What next? If the ruling stands, I can’t see the Lords at the very least approving the trigger, and the Commons itself is looking dashy, as Brexiters are in a massive minority there. No doubt there’ll be many MPs however that will vote for it out of fear of an electoral backlash, but as time goes by it looks more clear that a) the Government has no idea what it wants from Brexit and b) it’s economically undesirable.
With the Fixed Term Parliaments Act in place the Government can’t simply dissolve Parliament and get a majority of Brexiters, and I honestly don’t think it’s as clear-cut as assuming an election now would lead to a thumping UKIP/Thatcherite coalition in the Commons.
Whatever happens, it’s explosive. And the pound’s gone skywards again for the first time in a while.
Maybe they can ask the UKSC whether they can execute David Cameron too?
If I was a rational member of the UK Government I would kiss the feet of the High Court Judges and say “damn the Parliament won’t agree”. This is not a straw for a drowning man, this is a chopper hovering over him and a diver ready to fetch.
If I’m understanding the judgement correctly, the Govt and claimants both agreed that Article 50 is irrevocable, and things proceeded on that basis. I don’t think they can change that on appeal, can they?
The referendum was advisory not binding and gave a direction but not carte-blanche to get there by all means necessary.
The government has a responsibility to come up with a sensible plan for exiting the E.U. The elected members are best placed to apply checks and balances to that.
If the situation were reversed and a non-E.U. UK had voted at a referendum to try and join the E.U. I’d expect the house to give great scrutiny and final agreement to the plan for doing so.
On the plus side, this will annoy the French and Germans eurocrats immensely and that is always funny, on another plus point I’ve got family ski pass season tickets to buy soon and they aren’t cheap, and they are in euros so if this cuts the cost slightly then that’s all to the good.
In the long run I cannot see this making that much difference. Whatever their personal views my feeling is the majority of MPs will not be able bring themselves to actually block something the majority voted for in the referendum, at least not at this stage. They might be able to force HMG into spelling out what sort of exit they are seeking but not actually halt progress. Too much danger of a backlash from the electorate egged on by the more rabid end of the press.
Further down the line, when it becomes clear Exit does not mean the nirvana promised by the Brexiteers, then Parliament might be able to stop final approval but I doubt it. Whatever Lord Kerr says, once Article 50 is triggered we are on our way out, however stupid that may be…
I know precious little about the appeals process. I thought they could appeal on that basis. If not…makes it less likely they’ll reverse the judgment, I guess.
I think it weakens the potential for the Tory right to sneakily negotiate a Hard Brexit and tell Parliament ‘Well, Article 50 was triggered two years ago, so you either accept this or no deal at all’. They can’t hold Parliament hostage in that way.
If the Government’s forced to put out its post-Brexit vision for UK-EU relations and it’s demented and/or too soft for Brexiters, then it’ll be hacked out in the cold light of day where it should be.
I agree there’s still little chance Article 50 will be avoided, but it’s a good thing for our constitution and for representative democracy of itself.
The full judgement is here, in a pdf which unfortunately doesn’t permit copying text.
Twitter suggests para 94 is the critical one:
Whether the government appeals or not, I think it’s fair to say that this jeopardises the March 2017 timetable we’re currently working to. This isn’t the same as stopping Brexit, of course, but it does give more time for public opinion to shift (in either direction), for further events to eventuate, and for any coherent Parliamentary or extra-Parliamentary opposition to Brexit to get its act together.
I also wonder if the true significance of this ruling will turn out to be as statement of the limits of the power the executive vs Parliament.
I think it was always on the cards that TPTB were going to find a way past the Brexit vote. Parliament is overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the EEC and when it comes to a contest between the people and Parliament the latter will always win. Look for another referendum to be called; it’s a common stratagem among European governments, if you don’t like the result of a referendum just repeat the procedure until you get the answer you want.
I doubt Parliament would just blindly refuse to pass an A50 bill. What they will do is use this to push the government into laying out exactly what is envisioned by leaving the EU in terms of non-tariff barriers, membership of the customs union, financial passporting etc. Whether the government is able to answer these questions is a rather different matter.
For what it’s worth, a recent survey shows that when asked “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union?” a narrow majority(45% vs 43%, 12%DK) now say Remain. That at least reflects a certain unease about the kind of Brexit the government appears to be steering for.
If that result were to be reflected over a series of polls during the next 3-6 months, MPs would have increasing reason to push the government hard on the details of Brexit, and possibly to push for a second referendum (although a narrow lead for Remain probably wouldn’t be enough for that, I would think).
Translation, “it took an Act of Parliament to get us into the EEC/EU, and an Act of Parliament is needed to get us out”.
Both sides agree on that. What the High Court is further saying is that since the effect of notice under Article 50 is to inevitably get the UK to leave the EU, then just to start the process requires an Act of Parliament.
Extremely slim. Some MPs may seek to amend an Article 50 Bill to include a second referendum on the completed negotiated deal, but I can’t see a re-do happening unless the economy utterly tanks between now and March 2017. The economy is chugging along steadily right now as we are still in the EU. If we left the Single Market I would imagine it would be bad for the economy.
Hence why the Government did not want to have to reveal its negotiating stance to Parliament. It wants to screw the pooch and wreck the economy but avoid responsibility for it.
My understanding is that the type of relationship May wants is not available: May wants UK control over immigration plus free trade in goods, services, investment; financial passporting in particular is very important. The European view is very strong that if the UK wants free trade in goods, services, investment, financial passporting there has be be continued free movement. So the only options are a hard Brexit (with at most a Canadian type free trade agreement) or a Swiss/Norway type agreement where there is no UK control over immigration and UK control over at most little more than agriculture/fisheries.
The article Baron Greenback linked to above suggests that the smart option for MPs is to give themselves the option to call for a second referendum, as a hedge against Brexit becoming massively unpopular. E.g. if in 2018 the economy has taken a hit and the available Brexit deal isn’t a good one, people may well welcome a chance to pause and think again.
However, I don’t think that analysis takes into account the irrevocable nature of A50 (which the author assumes earlier for purposes of argument). Once Parliament triggers it, out we will eventually go. So a second referendum would have to happen *before *A50 is triggered, but negotiations with the EU on a Brexit deal don’t start *until *A50 is triggered. Which means any referendum would be based at best on the government’s hoped for Brexit deal, not the final outcome of negotiations. I doubt many people would see the point of that.
