‘Brexit’ Talks Can’t Start Without Parliament, U.K. Supreme Court Rules

New York Times ^ | Jan 24, 2017 | KATRIN BENNHOLD

[Truth29]

LONDON — Prime Minister Theresa May must secure the approval of Parliament before she can begin the process of taking Britain out of the European Union, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

The ruling, which upholds an earlier decision by the High Court in London, creates another hurdle for Mrs. May, who has promised to begin a two-year, irreversible process of exit negotiations by the end of March by invoking the European Union’s Article 50, the legal mechanism for leaving the bloc.

In its ruling, the court noted that Parliament had approved the 1972 legislation that enabled the country to join the European Union and incorporated European law into British law. Leaving the bloc would take away from British citizens a number of rights that had been granted by the bloc.

As a result, “the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament authorizing that course,” David Neuberger, the Supreme Court president, said in announcing the decision, which was approved 8 to 3.

[Truth29]

Another delay and hurdles put in place to stop the British people from leaving the EU.

[Regulator]

Note that the Barrister pushing this has a rather clear motive for preventing the British from controlling their borders.

She doesn’t want the invasion force stopped. She’s one of them.

[mewzilla]

...a number of rights that had been granted by the bloc...

Just another reason folks in the UK need a written constitution.

[FlipWilson]

Another example of how the judicial branch has become the tyrannical branch.

[mewzilla]

The uniparty is not just an American menace.

[captain_dave]

Treaties are a political decision. I thought Parliament was supreme. If PM May is a powerful prime minister she will easily carry the vote in Parliament. If such a vote fails, her government may fall, triggering new elections.

[InterceptPoint]

It's Brexit vs. Bloxit.

[Nextrush]

There will be many hurdles although I expect the Tories to push through a vote to ‘start the talks’ to look good politically and continue to claim they are advancing Brexit.

The final deal down the road may be a phony Brexit.

[Mashood]

Maybe the Brits should vote whether to remove the UK Supreme Court.

[Gay State Conservative]

In recent years haven't California voters passed several propositions that were stopped by the courts? IIRC homosexual "marriage" was one of them.

Terrorists in black robes! Britain's got 'em too.

[Little Ray]

This looks like a good opportunity to put the Supreme Court in its place: “The Supreme Court has made its decision. Now lets see them enforce it.”

[KC_Lion]

So what is the way around this then?

I thought the mechanisms were already in place for the Prime Minister to invoke Article 50. As in Parliament already gave their approval one way or another.

[1Old Pro]

Blocking the will of the people.

[pepsi_junkie]

They ruled that a vote by Parliament is more democratic than a vote by the voters. Funny logic to that one.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[Silverity]

Article 50 will still be invoked as the Tories have a majority, but the Scots Nats and Lib Dems will vote “No”.

It’s Parliament voting on the negotiated terms of the Brexit that will be more contentious. The globalists will try and stall this as much as possible.

[Winniesboy]

This was a widely expected ruling, and won’t mean any delay. The Government had already announced that there will be a Parliamentary Bill to trigger Article 50, and this will happen before the end of March - the timetable May announced last summer soon after she took office.

This ruling simply reaffirms the constitution - Parliament is sovereign, and it would have been very strange if a major constitutional change had happened without reference to the sovereign Parliament. Had that been the case, one of the fundamentals of the constitution would have been weakened.

There’s no doubt that the vote will pass - most of the MPs who backed ‘remain’ have made it clear they will respect the wishes of the people and vote for Article 50. The people voted for Brexit: but the (necessarily reductionist) referendum gave the Government no mandate on how Brexit should happen and which of the many possible interpretations of Brexit would be applied. The initial hopes of the May government that it wold be able to do all this without reference to Parliament were always far-fetched. This ruling simply reasserts the constitutional proprieties.

[Cronos]

NO, she's not. Brexit is about limiting the ability of EU citizens to come to Britain to work

People who are non-EU citizens cannot go to the UK without a Schengen and cannot work there without a valid work permit

People from Guyana, Pakistan, Jamaica, the US, New Zealand etc. need work permits to work in the UK, Brexit had nothing to do with theis

[Cronos]

No, they ruled as per the British constitution where the Parliament acts on behalf of the Crown and is a check on the government. This is not the same as the US constitution

[pepsi_junkie]

Well I was referring to the BBC which cited the petitioners to the court as arguing that, in fact, an referendum of the voters was less democratic than a vote of the MPs: From the BBC: During the Supreme Court hearing, campaigners argued that denying the UK Parliament a vote was undemocratic and a breach of long-standing constitutional principles.