Brexit could be STOPPED by Parliament after BOMBSHELL Article 50 ruling
THE High Court today ruled Theresa May DOESN’T have the power to trigger Britain’s EU exit alone.
Brexit campaigners have raised the prospect of an “appalling” subversion of the will of the British people by judges following the historic vote on June 23 to quit the EU.
If democracy and the will of the people is seen to be ignored then this could create a situation where the majority of the people who voted to leave the EU may appeal directly to the Crown and mobilize, causing a constitutional crisis.
Remainers and Remoaners alike were celebrating today upon Social Media, they see this as the first step in halting Brexit and keeping the UK within the European Union.
It is suspected by many, that Gina Miller has been (adopted without asking her) as a figurehead by the undemocratic Remainers and Remoaners – who do not accept the referendum result, but who are trying to back up their own case for remaining by getting behind Gina Miller and this particular case in the Courts in order to stall Brexit.
GINA Miller is leading the challenge that has blocked Theresa May triggering Article 50 without the consent of Parliament. This is Gina Miller’s democratic right to launch this challenge and she is doing nothing wrong.
Ms Miller successfully argued that it would be unlawful for the Government to trigger Article 50 without MPs approval, which she said would go against “the letter of the law and the sovereignty of Parliament”.
She told Sky News: “This is in no way to obstruct the Government’s timetable for Brexit. There is a legal process that needs to be followed to ensure certainty.”
“You can’t have on one hand, Parliamentary sovereignty being won back, [and] at the very same time ignore it. This is much much more fundamental than that.
“This is about saying ‘can a government, any government, take away somebody’s rights or diminish them without Parliamentary scrutiny’, it just can’t happen, that’s what the courts have said today.”
Immediately after the ruling, Ms Miller said that was “absolutely delighted” by the judges’ decision.
“The result today is about all of us – it’s not about me or my team, it’s about our United Kingdom and all our futures,” she said, speaking outside of the High Court.
“It’s not about how anyone voted. Every one of us voted for the best country and the best future.”
Earlier on, she had argued: “The correct constitutional process of parliamentary scrutiny and approval – as well as consultation with the devolved administration in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the Welsh Assembly – needs to be followed.
“Otherwise the notice to withdraw from the European Union would be unlawful and subject to legal challenge.”
The Government’s lawyers had tried to insist that the cabinet has the right to bypass Parliament using the powers of the royal prerogative.
Mrs May has said: “It is up to the Government to trigger Article 50 – and the Government alone”.
The High Court ruling could have lasting impacts on the Brexit process.
Parliament will likely now be given greater powers of scrutiny over EU negotiations and the use of Article 50 could be delayed past March 2017.
What did Gina Miller say about the Government’s appeal?
The majority of the House of Commons backed Remain ahead of the EU referendum, with many desperate to keep ties to Brussels by retaining membership of the EU’s Single Market.
The Government were granted permission to appeal this morning’s High Court decision in the Supreme Court, with a second battle over the case set to begin on December 5.
Speaking to the House of Commons as news of the ruling broke, International Trade Secretary and top Brexit backer Liam Fox told MPs: “The Government is disappointed by the court’s judgment.
“The country voted to leave the EU in a referendum approved by acts of parliament. The Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum.
“This judgment raises important and complex matter of law and it is right that we consider it carefully before deciding how to proceed.”
Acting Ukip leader Nigel Farage expressed his fear “a betrayal may be near at hand”, claiming he has a “distinct feeling that our political class… do not accept the June 23 referendum result”.
He added: “I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke.”
In one of the most important constitutional cases in generations, opponents had argued the Prime Minister cannot use ‘royal prerogative’ to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the legal mechanism for quitting the Brussels-based bloc.
But Government lawyers had insisted prerogative powers are a legitimate way to give effect “to the will of the people” who voted by a clear majority for Brexit.
Following a three-day hearing last month, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas – sitting with the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales – this morning gave their ruling in a historic case expected to go to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
Mrs May declared at the Conservative Party conference she will action Article 50 by the end of March next year.
Those arguing against Mrs May’s power to trigger Article 50 without consulting MPs and unelected peers were led by investment fund manager Gina Miller.
Their teams of lawyers claimed at the hearing in London that Mrs May unlawfully intended to bypass parliamentary scrutiny while taking irreversible steps to remove statutory rights granted to UK citizens under the European Communities Act 1972, which gave EU law supremacy over UK law.
But the country’s top legal officer, Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC, said parliamentary consent for Article 50 was not required following the clear public referendum vote in favour of Brexit.
In a blog post, leading Brexit support Douglas Carswell lashed out at the prospect of judges ruling against the Government.
The Ukip MP wrote: “The prospect of judges subverting the will of the people is appalling. But it’s also a reminder of why it was so important to vote Leave.
“The petitioners for Parliament to vote on Article 50 claim it would be undemocratic to do otherwise. That’s a disgraceful subterfuge.
“Evidently, their aim is not for Parliament merely to rubber-stamp Article 50. What they want isn’t a vote, but a veto. They seriously believe it would be legitimate for MPs to block Brexit, and for judges to collude in allowing them to do so.
“Judicial activism – whereby judges increasingly make the law – is fundamentally anti-democratic. Fortunately, Brexit will constrain it.”