Just in:
Taiwan International Plant-Based Festival Launches in Singapore: High-End Culinary Partnerships and Diplomatic Exhibitions Shape Premium Agri-Product Branding // Bid To Rebuild Bengal To Its Old Glory Is Welcome, Though Difficult // Tehran blocks French role in Hormuz clearance // Bracell Welcomes Fernando Branco’s Appointment to Lead ABAF and Reinforces Commitment to Sustainable Forestry Development in Bahia // Most UAE expats under-insured, reveals survey // OpenAI limits Sol launch amid cyber risks // XRG and Eni deepen Argentina LNG push // World’s First Commercial Multimodal LLM for Cultural Tourism Enters Broad Application // Why your AI transformation can fail — and it’s not the technology // Beijing widens Japan curbs as Takaichi row deepens // DSQ Real Estate Highlights Post-Purchase Advisory as a Growing Need for Overseas Dubai Property Owners // Payments giants back shared Open USD stablecoin // Afogreen Build Highlights Growing Adoption of Building Performance Modelling in Australia’s Sustainability-Driven Construction Sector // ClawHub breach exposes agent marketplace risk // Save the Children Hong Kong’s Play to Thrive: Prioritising Personal Growth Over Competitive Success // PRHK 2026 Benchmark Report highlights how Hong Kong’s IPO revival, AI, and the GBA are reshaping the SAR’s PR industry // Where Minds Meet to Launch Space Economy Association Off the Ground // Bangladesh-China Joint Statement On Teesta Cooperation Poses A Big Challenge To India // 5 Law Firms Making a Difference in Cincinnati // Abu Dhabi starts new Saadiyat arts landmark //

UK Supreme Court to decide Brexit trigger case as quickly as possible

By Estelle Shirbon and Michael Holden
| LONDON

ADVERTISEMENT

LONDON Britain’s Supreme Court will decide as quickly as possible whether Prime Minister Theresa May can trigger Britain’s exit from the European Union by the end of March without parliament’s assent, its president said on Thursday.

Last month, the High Court decided that May could not invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU’s exit clause, using executive powers known as the “royal prerogative”.

“We are not being asked to overturn the result of the EU referendum,” Supreme Court President David Neuberger said at the end of a four-day appeal in which the government sought to overturn the High Court ruling.

“The ultimate question in this case concerns the process by which that result can lawfully be brought into effect,” he said.

The case could potentially hamper May’s Brexit plans, and investors believe involving lawmakers would lessen the chances of a “hard” Brexit, where Britain gives up access to the single European market in order to impose tighter immigration controls.

Pro-Brexit critics have cast the legal battle as an attempt by a pro-EU establishment to thwart the result of June’s referendum, when Britons voted by 52-48 percent to leave the EU.

The judges in the High Court case were dubbed “enemies of the people” by one newspaper while Gina Miller, the investment manager who brought the challenge, has received death threats and a torrent of online abuse.

The government’s argument is essentially that under Britain’s unwritten constitution, it can make or leave international treaties without parliamentary assent.

The challengers argue that triggering Article 50 would inevitably mean citizens would lose rights granted by parliament and so only lawmakers could take these away.

NOT IF, BUT HOW

The Scottish and Welsh governments and lawyers for Northern Irish challengers all joined the case against the government. Scotland’s nationalist executive, which opposes Brexit, argued that the Scottish parliament should be consulted.

“(Brexit) is almost the most divisive political event that has happened over the last several decades,” Richard Gordon, law officer for the Welsh government, told the court on Thursday. “Who is going to judge what happens next? According to law … it must be parliament.”

If May wins, she can follow her planned timetable for invoking Article 50. If she loses, she might need to bring in a parliamentary bill, albeit one containing just a single line.

On Wednesday, parliament overwhelmingly voted to back a motion supporting her timetable, which government lawyer James Eadie said was highly significant and “legally relevant”.

“The House of Commons has given specific approval to the government to give (Article 50) notice and indeed has called on them to do so by a particular date,” he said.

Echoing comments made by her lawyer to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, lead challenger Miller said she did not believe the motion in parliament had any bearing on the case.

“Our case has nothing to do with politics – it concerns legal process and the constitution. It is not about if we leave the EU, it is about how we leave the EU,” she said.

(Editing by Angus MacSwan)

-Reuters



Notice an issue?

Arabian Post strives to deliver the most accurate and reliable information to its readers. If you believe you have identified an error or inconsistency in this article, please don't hesitate to contact our editorial team at editor[at]thearabianpost[dot]com. We are committed to promptly addressing any concerns and ensuring the highest level of journalistic integrity.


ADVERTISEMENT
Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com