LONDON — Britain's top court ruled Tuesday that Prime Minister Theresa May's government must seek parliamentary approval before it can start the formal legal process for withdrawing from the European Union. However, while the judgement is a political blow to the British leader and will complicate the country's route to Brexit, experts say it is unlikely to have a major impact on the process.
The 8-3 majority decision from the Supreme Court justices forces May to hold a vote in Parliament before she can trigger Article 50, the specific legislation that allows Britain to start negotiating its exit from the 28-nation political alliance. May has vowed to enact the legislation by the end of March.
“Withdrawal affects a fundamental change by cutting off the source of EU law as well as changing legal rights. The U.K’s constitutional arrangements require such changes to be clearly authorized by Parliament,"said Lord Neuberger, the president of the Supreme Court.
“Any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the U.K. constitution, namely by an act of Parliament. To proceed otherwise would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries," he added.
Tuesday's ruling means that May is not able to begin EU exit talks until she gets the consent of British legislators, although she has insisted that the March timetable is not in danger of being derailed and lawmakers from the major parties have said they want to abide by the result of the June referendum that saw a majority of Britons vote to leave the bloc.
The legal case against the government was brought by a hair dresser, a plumber and an investment banker. The court also ruled — unanimously — that regional British legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are not entitled to have a say in how and when Article 50 is triggered.
May's office at 10 Downing Street said in a statement: "The British people voted to leave the EU, and the government will deliver on their verdict — triggering Article 50, as planned, by the end of March. Today’s ruling does nothing to change that. We respect the Supreme Court’s decision, and will set out our next steps to Parliament shortly."
Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon said in a statement that the ruling is a is a "damning indictment of a UK Government that believed it could press on towards a hard Brexit with no regard to Parliament whatsoever."
A hard Brexit, which May has promised, will see the U.K. leave the European single market, which allows EU member states to trade with each other without restrictions. Sturgeon has warned of a second independence referendum if the British government rejects her plan to keep Scotland in the single market after Britain leaves the bloc, expected in 2019.
Sturgeon said lawmakers from her Scottish National Party will seek to work with other British MPs "to stop the march towards a hard Brexit in its tracks."
Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, said his party respects the referendum result and "will not frustrate the process for invoking Article 50."
May had argued that she did not need parliamentary consent to implement Article 50 because of executive authority granted to the British government under the "royal prerogative" — difficult to define discretionary powers sometimes used to opt out of international treaties. Opponents argued that parliamentary approval is needed to ward off a constitutional crisis. The British leader last week said she would consult legislators about the terms of any Brexit deal negotiated with the EU.
Matthew Goodwin, a professor of politics and international relations at the University of Kent, said: "While the verdict will embolden activist ‘Remainers’ who want to delay or prevent Brexit altogether, it will anger 'Leave' voters who are likely to feel as though the will of the people is being thwarted by elites in London. Nonetheless, given that a large majority of members of Parliament will vote to trigger Article 50 the ruling is, overall, unlikely to have a major impact on the Brexit process.”
Gina Miller, the businesswoman and philanthropist who was the lead claimant in the case, said in a statement outside the court: "No prime minister, no government, can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged. This ruling today means that MPs we have elected will rightfully have the opportunity to bring their invaluable experience and expertise to bear in helping the government select the best course in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations, negotiations that will frame our place in the world and all our destinies to come."
"There is no doubt that Brexit is the most divisive issue of a generation, but this case was about the legal process, not politics."