UK may need new law to trigger Brexit

The Supreme Court is now hearing a case about whether the government must consult MPs before starting the official Leave process.

The Prime Minister has announced that backbenchers and opposition MPs will vote on her timetable for triggering Article 50 later today.

Financial entrepreneur Gina Miller took the government to court, arguing it does not have the power to trigger Britain’s exit from the 28-nation European Union without a vote in Parliament.

The government is challenging that decision at the country’s top court – leaving the 11 justices to rule on the balance of power between the legislature and the executive.

The case was one of “great constitutional significance”, said Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC, opening the case for the government on Monday.

“We have not suggested we wouldn’t set out the position”.

Lord Pannick said it was in fact the view of Brexit Secretary David Davis, who is leading the Government’s appeal against the High Court ruling, that some legislation “simply will not work” on exit from the EU. Only yesterday MPs debated a Brexit motion in the House and the Prime Minister has committed to publishing the government’s plans for leaving the EU. Lawmakers from the Democratic Unionist Party, Ulster Unionist Party, and UK Independence Party, who number 11 in total, will also back it.

The Scottish government is run by the Scottish National Party, which opposes Brexit and is strongly critical of Britain’s ruling Conservative Party. “Our submission is that a motion in parliament does not affect, can not affect, the legal issues in this case”, Pannick said. Neither vote is binding on the government.

In return, lawmakers voted by a large majority to state Parliament’s support for triggering two years of European Union exit talks by March 31.

Lord Pannick was presenting his case during the second day of the UK’s Supreme Court appeal hearing on the government’s right to begin the process of taking the United Kingdom out of the EU.

May fended off a rebellion with a last-minute amendment, accepting the Labour motion on condition that MPs support her timetable for triggering the Brexit talks. And so, he said, an act of Parliament was needed to take Britain out of the bloc. Last week a Liberal Democrat who campaigned on a promise to vote against starting Brexit talks won a parliamentary seat previously held by May’s Conservatives and members of other small parties may also vote against.

Government minister David Lidington warned on Wednesday that any lawmaker voting against the motion would “be seeking to thwart the outcome of the referendum in the most profoundly undemocratic manner”. Some will still try.

The EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, said prior to the vote that if successful, a deal on Brexit could be reached by October 2018.

Lawmakers approved the Labour motion and the government amendment by a substantial margin.

The British leader is already under pressure at home and overseas to reveal – and speed up – her Brexit plans.

It followed a day of often dramatic statements, with Scotland’s Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC referring to the 1707 Act of Union to back the Scottish Government’s assertion that the Royal Prerogative alone can not be used to trigger Article 50.

Investors believe that greater parliamentary involvement would reduce the chances of a “hard Brexit” in which tight controls on immigration are prioritised over European single market access.