For MPs and Lords, this is a chance to try and get the Government to reveal more of its Brexit negotiating position.
- Kenneth Armstrong
"For some, today’s ruling is a victory for parliamentary democracy. For others, unelected judges stand in the way of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. If the Supreme Court gets the final say, voters may still wonder whether their voice matters at all," says Kenneth Armstrong, Professor of European Law from Cambridge's CELS.
For Armstrong, the key aspects of the judgment are:
- It is impermissible for the Prime Minister to invoke the Royal Prerogative[i] as legal authority for a notification to be sent under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, to begin the process of withdrawing the UK from the EU.
- The effect of withdrawal will be to remove or limit the rights created by EU law and which are given effect in UK law via the European Communities Act 1972.
- Neither as an interpretation of the European Communities Act, nor of constitutional principle can the Executive by Royal Prerogative alone remove or limit rights protected in domestic law.
- The Referendum Act 2015 – in formal legal terms – only made provision for an advisory referendum. It did not give statutory authority for the triggering of Article 50.
Read the full story
Listen to some of the talks that were given as part of the University's 'Brexit Week' series, which took place from 18 - 22 October.
[i] The Royal Prerogative refers to one of the sources of legal authority accepted by the courts through which the Crown and Ministers of the Crown may take decisions. In modern times, these prerogative powers are typically exercised by government ministers but over time, they have been removed or limited by Acts of Parliament which instead provide the legal authority for ministers to act. The power to make and ratify treaties falls within the Royal Prerogative.
Reproduced courtesy of the University of Cambridge
_________________________________________________