The British government said it will table a “straightforward bill” allowing parliament to vote on triggering formal Brexit negotiations, after the country’s top court ruled on Tuesday that it must consult lawmakers.
“We will shortly introduce legislation,” Brexit minister David Davis told parliament following the supreme court ruling.”This will be the most straightforward bill possible.”
Davis urged lawmakers to help ensure the bill is passed “in good time” and not to “thwart the will of the people” following the majority vote for Brexit in a referendum in June.
Conservative prime minister Theresa May, who commands a working majority of 16 in the 650-seat parliament, has said she plans to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which sets the rules for a two-year negotiating process for a nation leaving the EU, by the end of March.
“Our timetable for invoking Article 50 by the end of March still stands,” Davis said.
The 11 supreme court judges upheld a high court ruling and rejected the government’s appeal by a majority of eight to three, said David Neuberger, the supreme court’s president.
“In a joint judgment of the majority, the supreme court holds that an act of parliament is required to authorise ministers to give notice of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the European Union,” Neuberger said.
“To proceed otherwise [than consulting parliament] would be a breach of settled constitutional principles,” he said the majority of the judges had agreed.
David Greene, a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, welcomed the ruling as a “victory for parliamentary democracy and the rule of law”.
“My client is delighted by today’s judgment,” said Greene, who represented Deir Dos Santos, a London hairdresser.
Dos Santos has reportedly gone into hiding after suffering a barrage of abuse following the launch of his legal challenge.
He did not appear at the court on Tuesday.
The other main plaintiff, investment fund manager Gina Miller, said she was “shocked by the level of personal abuse” she has suffered during the legal action.
Miller said Brexit was “the most divisive issue of a generation”, but said the court case was “not about politics, but process”.
“Today’s decision has created legal certainty based on our democratic process,” she told reporters outside the court.
In a boost to May, the supreme court judges ruled that the government is not legally obliged to consult parliaments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales before she triggers Article 50.
That decision could help the government to avoid potential delays to its Brexit timetable.
But Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon said May has a “clear political obligation” to consult Scotland despite the court ruling.
In a major speech on Brexit last week, May said she planned to negotiate an agreement that involves Britain leaving the EU single market, in what critics called an economically damaging “hard” Brexit.
She promised that parliament will vote on the final agreement to leave the EU, most likely in 2019.
A majority of 52% of voters opted to leave the EU in the Brexit referendum on June 23.
The ruling means the Brexit process is now open to scrutiny from lawmakers, the majority of whom had wanted to stay in the EU.
However, the main opposition Labour Party has said it would not block Brexit although it would try to amend the legislation.
“Labour will seek to build in the principles of full, tariff-free access to the single market and maintenance of workers’ rights and social and environmental protections,” party leader Jeremy Corbyn said.
Media reports have suggested that up to 80 Labour lawmakers (MPs) in the 650-member House of Commons, the lower chamber, would ignore Corbyn and vote against triggering Article 50, while the small Liberal Democrat Party said it would oppose Brexit unless there was a second referendum on the final deal.
Meanwhile, the Scottish National Party, which has 54 MPs, vowed to put forward 50 “serious and substantive” amendments.
However, the opponents of Brexit are still likely to be some way short of the numbers needed to either delay May’s timetable or to stop it.
The upper chamber, the House of Lords, could also seek to amend the plans but ministers are confident that unelected peers would not try to stop Britain leaving the EU after voters backed Brexit by 52-48 % in last June’s referendum.
May’s spokesman said the court’s decision did nothing to change the path of Brexit or her timetable.
Davis said: “The point of no return was passed on June 23rd last year.
This judgement does not change the fact that the UK will be leaving the European Union.”
Last week May set out her stall for negotiations, promising a clean break with the world’s largest trading bloc as part of a 12-point plan to focus on global free trade deals, setting a course for a so-called “hard Brexit”.
Some investors and those who backed the “remain” campaign hope that lawmakers, most of whom wanted to stay in the EU, will force May to seek a deal which prioritises access to the European single market of 500mn people, or potentially even block Brexit altogether.
Sterling initially rose on the news that the government had lost its appeal, but it then fell over half a cent to hit day’s lows against the dollar and euro after the ruling that the devolved assemblies did not need to give their assent.
Those who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU said the vote on triggering Brexit should be a mere formality.
“Any attempt to delay the Brexit process... would be an unforgivable betrayal of the British people,” said Richard Tice, co-chairman of the Leave Means Leave campaign.“The Lords should also follow suit; any delay by them would ensure their abolition.”
While yesterday’s ruling has settled the argument over the role of parliament in starting the Brexit process, other hurdles and headaches await May.
Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the court’s decision on devolved assembles raised the spectre of another Scottish independence referendum because Scots, who voted in favour of staying in the EU, were not being treated as equal partners.
May’s spokesman also stressed that the government’s assertion that Article 50 was irreversible, but another legal case is being prepared to challenge that view in the courts. Page 26
A man arrives at the supreme court in central London yesterday.
