Britain’s High Court brought government plans for leaving the European Union screeching to a halt Thursday, ruling that the prime minister can’t trigger the U.K.’s exit from the bloc without approval from Parliament.
The government said it would go to the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling, which has major constitutional as well as practical implications.
The pound, which has lost about a fifth of its value since the June decision to leave, shot up on the verdict, rising 1.1 percent to $1.2430.
Britons voted by a margin of 52 to 48 percent to leave the EU, a process known as “Brexit.” Several claimants challenged the plans for Brexit in a case hinging on the balance of power between Parliament and the government.
Prime Minister Theresa May has said she will launch exit negotiations with the EU by March 31. She is relying on a power called the royal prerogative that lets the government withdraw from international treaties.
Claimants argue that leaving the EU will remove rights, including free movement within the bloc, and say that can’t be done without Parliament’s approval.
Three senior judges ruled that “the government does not have the power under the Crown’s prerogative” to trigger the official exit process.
The British government immediately said it would appeal the judgment. The government said in a statement that Britons voted to leave the bloc in a referendum approved by an Act of Parliament, “and the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum.”
The Supreme Court has set aside time to hear the appeal before the end of the year.
The case is considered the most important constitutional matter in a generation.
Underscoring the importance of the case, May put Attorney General Jeremy Wright in charge of the legal team fighting the claim. Wright argued that the lawsuit was an attempt to put a legal obstacle in the way of enacting the result of the EU referendum.
May wants to use royal prerogative, historic powers officially held by the monarch, to trigger Article 50 of the EU’s treaty, which starts two years of talks before Britain’s departure from the EU. The powers, which have in reality passed to politicians, enable decisions to be made without a vote of Parliament and cover matters as grave as declaring war or as basic as issuing passports.
Historically, royal prerogative has also applied to foreign affairs and the negotiation of treaties.
Financial entrepreneur Gina Miller, a lead claimant in the case, said the result “is about all of us … It’s about our United Kingdom and all our futures.”
She backed the losing “remain” side in the EU referendum, but has said the lawsuit is not an attempt to stop Brexit — just to ensure that Parliament is sovereign.
Still, the pound’s rise signaled that the ruling boosted the hopes of the financial sector, which is largely opposed to Brexit.
Many in the markets hope the judgment will delay the Brexit process or diminish the government’s ability to push through a so-called “hard Brexit,” which would see Britain leave the European single market. The hope is that lawmakers won’t give their backing if the government intends to push for that sort of deal.
The ruling angered pro-Brexit campaigners, who fear politicians might try to block or delay Britain’s EU exit. U.K. Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, who helped lead the campaign against the EU, tweeted: “I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand.”
David Greene, lawyer for claimant Deir Santos, said the government must accept the “the constitutional reality that Parliament must have early involvement in the process.”
Greene, a senior partner at the firm Edwin Coe, says “democracy has been reaffirmed and now very much needs to show it is alive and kicking.”
Andrew Kidd, a lawyer who wasn’t involved in the case, said the ruling was a resounding victory for a claim that “was seen as a longshot.”
He said the claimants had made “very clear, cogent arguments,” while the government’s case was “kind of like a shotgun firing pellets, hoping one would hit the target.”
The Associated Press contributed to this article.
where were the courts when we went into this deal and gave away all the control of our country and laws in the first place ,it should have never happened and the common market was as far as it should have gone , the worst thing was we virtually gave up the commonwealth for this piece of shit called the eu which is almost bankrupt and several countries would leave and will when UK is free from them
Absolutely correct !!!
Time For the Pro Brexit movement To pull those hidden away firearms out of the closet .Dust them off, Clean them up, oil them up load them up. Then take back by force if nessasary Your democracy. Kill the government rats. BEFORE their infectious nature destroys your chances for freedom ,for Britain’s sovereignty.
To me it appears that this Brexit deal is very similar to the situation in the USA, where the majority of voters have made their wishes known to the government that we do not need/want more immigrants, yet the government continues to import them by the barrel full. The British Government seems to be only lukewarm to the idea of Brexit. Whatever happened to democracy?
THE PEOPLE HAVE SET BACK AND LET THE GEORGE SOROS’S OF THE WORLD TAKE CONTROL AND NOW IT IS TIME TO SHOW THE RICH SONSABITCHES THAT THE Y CAN WIPE THEIR ASS’S ON THEIR MONEY !!! WE WILL NOT BE RULED BY THEIR GREADY ASS’S !!!!!! SHOW THEM ALL THE DAMN EXIT !!!!
ETERNAL VIGILANCE IS THE PRICE OF LIBERTY. WE EACH HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AND ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST TO BE INVOLVED. IF WE WORK TOGETHER INTELLIGENTLY WE CAN TAKE TURNS SHARING THE EFFORT.
BREXIT WAS A BACKWARD MOVE. I AM GLAD TO READ COOLER HEADS MAY PREVAIL IN THE U.K.. 52% TO 48% IS NOT A MANDATE ANY MORE THAN THE GRIDLOCK GOING ON IN THE U.S. THAT WILL LIKELY RESULT IN AN EVEN CLOSER MARGIN BETWEEN WIDELY APART OPPOSING SIDES. THAT IS LIKE SAYING THE U.N. HAS NO REDEEMING VALUE BECAUSE IT IS NOT PERFECT. WE ARE AN INTERCONNECTED GLOBAL COMMUNITY WHO ARE BETTER OFF TOGETHER THAN APART, MORE ALIKE THAN DIFFEENT.
THE CURRENT MAIN EXASERBATING PROBLEM OF UNCONTROLLED FLEEING, MIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION FROM TERRORIST AREAS THAT WE LET FESTER FOR 50 YEARS HAS TO BE SOLVED BUT QUITING THE 6 DECADES OF WORK TO GET ALONG IN THE E.U. WAS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE ECONOMICALLY AND SECURITYWISE. MANY COUNTRIES OF THE E.U. NEED TO TAKE SOME OF THE BLAME FOR THE REFUGEE PROBLEM.
I HAVE MET OR HAVE HAD CONTACT WITH MULTIPLE PEOPLE FROM MOST OF THE COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD AND I AND MOST BROADLY LIFE EXPERIENCED PEOPLE HAVE FOUND 85% ARE GOOD REASONABLE PEOPLE WHO I AND MOST OTHERS CAN GET ALONG WITH RATHER THAT GO BACK TO THE CITY STATE MENTALITY OF THE 18TH, 19TH AND 20TH CENTURIES.
THERE ARE DOZENS IF NOT HUNDREDS OF IMPORTANT CHOICES THAT HAVE TO BE MADE EACH YEAR THAT WE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER ON EACH COMBINING OUR TIME AND EXPERTIZE TO BE ABLE TO REACH THE BEST CHOICES AND CORRECT PAST ERRORS MORE QUICKLY. THE MOST EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE AND FASTEST WAY WE CAN EVOLVE OUR REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM OF SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS MANAGEMENT TO GOVERNMENT OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE IS BY ONE 6 YEAR TERM LIMITS FOR ALL OF OUR REPRESENTATIVES/MANAGERS WORLDWIDE STARTING WITH THE U.S. CONGRESS.. EVEN THE POWERS THAT BE WILL BE BETTER OFF BECAUSE FREE PEOPLE, ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, PRODUCE MORE, KEEP MORE AND SHARE MORE. http://WWW.ONE6YEARTERMLIMITS.ORG
IT IS THE SYSTEM OF MULTI TERMS IN OFFICE AND SENIORITY CONTROL OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES THAT ALLOWS A VERY VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF POWERS THAT BE TO OWN CONTROL OF THE MAJORITY OF OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND THROUGH THAT THE LACK OF OBJECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF MOST OF THE NECESSARY SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS FOR THE COMMON GOOD. YES WE NEED NEW IDEAS AND CAN TRY NEW IDEAS TO SEE IF THEY ARE BETTER BUT AND UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELD OF INJUSTICE AND LACK OF EQUAL RIGHTS IS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.
DO WE REALLY THINK THAT WE DO NOT NEED WORLDWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SOCIETAL INSTITUTIONS OF OUR AIR WATER AND WASTE TREATMENT ESPECIALLY NUCLEAR (AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROLIFERATION) AND HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS AND EVALUATION AND PLANNING FOR RISING SEA LEVELS AND OTHER NATURAL PHENOMENON, STANDARDS IN FOOD, DRUGS, MEDICINE, BUILDING CODES, SERVICES, ZONING CODES, JUDICIAL CODES, OVERSIGHT OF EVERY AGENCY? THE KINGS AND DICTATORS OF OLD IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD AND IN MOST OF THE DEVELOPING WORLD KNOW THEY KNOW BEST. NOW WE HAVE PROGRESSED TO LESS VIOLENT AND POWERFUL POWERS THAT BE BUT WHAT IS DOABLE IN THE INFORMATION AGE OF THE 21ST CENTURY IS BEYOND THE MAJORITY OVER 40 YEAR OLDS ABILITY TO COMPREHEND.
DO YOU KNOW THAT THE MEDIAN AGE OF THE WORLD POPULATION OF 7.8 BILLION IN 2016 IS 25 AND GETTING SLIGHTLY YOUNGER YET? IN AFGHANISTAN WHEN THE U.S. WENT IN 2001 09 IT WAS 14 AND AS OF 2016 IT IS 18. WE ARE ALL INTERCONNECTED IN THE 21ST CENTURY LIKE NEVER BEFORE IN HUMAN HISTORY. OTHER DEVELOPING COUNTRIES HAVE THE YOUNGEST POPULATIONS.
THE RIGHT, ONE 6 YEAR TERM LIMITED, LIFE EXPERIENCED MAJORITY ELECTED REPRESENATIVES / LEADERS DO COUNT FOR BEST USE AND CONTROL OF THE HERD AND MOB INSTINCT NOT EDUCATED OUT, OVERCOME YET OR SUSCEPTIBLE TO CONTROL BY DICTATORS AND DEMIGODS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND IT SEEMS STILL IN SUPPOSEDLY DEVELOPED COUNTRIES. ETERNAL VIGULANCE IS THE PRICE OF LIBERTY. WE EACH HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AND ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST TO BE INVOLVED.
The question is: once MPs are elected to Parliament , whose will is then sovereign, the British people’s voice in the Brexit Referendum or the MPs? The MPs are not representative of the people if they do not carry out the electorate’ s expressed will through the referendum to leave the EU. The MPs must not assume absolute power to dictate to the people they should carry out the people’s instruction to leave the EU. Otherwise there is no true democracy in the UK