The Supreme Court May have the Key to Brexit – but the voters have the final say
On the 23rd of June 2016, UK voters made a historic decision to exit the European Union, which many call Brexit. The citizens want to have a full control of the immigration rates into their country. There is also this desire to be in charge of what goes on in the country – including setting laws. But as you would expect, there must be opposing forces. It is these forces that are out to see to it that the whole process crashes, even before Article 50 is triggered in March 2017.
The Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling of the Brexit legal challenge in January. But it has already stated that it will not “overturn the result of the EU referendum.”
With such a statement, the case has no importance and it will be best if it is just dropped all at once.
Even if the judges were to be pitted against the government, Article 50 would still have an easy sailing. The government’s lawyer, James Eadie, has already picked on this narrative and has referred to the House of Commons vote as a significant one.
He says that the vote will return confidence that the government is not out to “trample over parliamentary sovereignty.”
Eadie goes on to acknowledge that if the government loses the Brexit challenge case, it will have to find ways to convince parliament on passing a new law.
So what’s contained in the Supreme Court Case?
This is a case of supremacy battle. It is not out to block Brexit from happening. But rather, it seeks to ensure that the process occurs in a legal way. Who should notify the EU that Britain seeks to trigger Article 50?
The government is of the opinion that it can do so without having to be approved by the parliament. All it needs is royal prerogative. However, the Supreme Court seems not to concur with this.
All this confrontation is triggered by the 1972 European Communities Act and the understanding that royal prerogative cannot overturn rights deriving from an act of parliament.
The government’s argument is that these rights were issued on the “international plane” and the same should be used to withdraw them. That effectively blocks the act of parliament (which is domestic) from impacting Brexit.
Was the House of Commons significant?
Yes it was. It basically indicated that the MPs were in agreement with the government’s Brexit timetable.
According to Sebastian Payne in the Financial Times, the Commons vote has basically taught us “how not to deal with Brexit.”
Theresa May enjoys an overwhelming support from the government to trigger Article 50. However, it is feared she may not have the same support from the MPs.
The Labour Party holds the position that it will amend the bill on Article 50. Such amendment is meant to cause a modification of what the referendum was all about.
Laura Kuenssberg says that it seems “As soon as May’s plans hit the floor of the House, she’ll have to compromise.”
For that matter, the government has put up a hard fight in the Supreme Court to prevent MPs from having a say. There is a possibility that the PM may not get a majority on the EU issue.
The people have the final say on Brexit
This possibility of parliament having to vote Brexit has caused a lot of tension from all quarters.
It’s no secret that there are people who voted Brexit-at-any-cost and there are also some who voted Brexit-at-no-cost that they were promised by Boris Johnson, Gove, Fox, name them all. After all, when buying anything from the market, the buyer has an option of saying he needs it not.
It is with this consideration that the MPs have to back off from finding ways to sneak in their interests. The Supreme Court and all the stakeholders have to give the people exactly what they voted for – “Clean Brexit.”