Will the United Kingdom still be in a position to formally notify its 27 European partners, by the end of March next year, of its intention of leaving the EU, as the country's prime minister, Theresa May, announced in early October? This timetable is looking shakier today, as the High Court of London ruled on Thursday 3 November that the British government must secure the approval of Parliament before triggering the divorce procedure, by means of Article 50 of the Treaty of the EU.
Expressing its disappointment with the verdict, the government immediately announced its plans to appeal. "The government is disappointed by the court's judgement. The country voted to leave the EU in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament. The government is determined to respect the result of the referendum. We will appeal this judgment", said a 10 Downing Street spokesperson. However, he went on to say that he still felt it would be possible to keep to the original timetable to give the EU formal notice, a timetable that has the approval of the rest of the EU (see EUROPE 11637).
The case before the High Court was brought by People's Challenge, a group of anti-Brexit activists, British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reports. During the hearings, the government's lawyers said that the prime minister had powers, under royal prerogatives, to issue the formal notification, which is the irreversible step to allow negotiations on the terms of the divorce to begin. The plaintiffs' lawyers argued that parliamentary approval and legislation were required.
In its verdict, the High Court particularly stressed that the government did not have powers to notify the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, pursuant to Article 50. The judges took just two and a half weeks to reach this conclusion, British daily newspaper The Guardian reported, going on to comment favourably on the ruling, arguing that the separation of powers would have been undermined had the government been authorised to trigger Article 50 on its own initiative. More generally, several major British newspapers commented that this is a slap in the face for the government.
In Brussels, the European Commission declined to comment on the judgment, leaving it to the British players to do so. Margaritis Schinas, spokesperson for the Commission, simply reiterated that under Article 50, the European Parliament would be called upon to take position on the final divorce agreement between the departing country and the other 27 EU member states. The president of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, and May will speak over the telephone on Friday 4 November, "by request of Mrs May", Schinas added.
This initial victory for the plaintiffs, which goes very much in favour of all those who voted on 23 June this year to stay in the EU, has provoked reactions on the part of the Brexiteers, first and foremost one of the original instigators, the UKIP MEP Nigel Farage. Farage, who allegedly told many lies during the referendum campaign, warned the British Parliament of the enormous rage in the population if it should block or delay the triggering of Article 50.
According to the think tank Open Europe, the timetable announced by May could still be feasible. The appeal the government plans to bring against this High Court judgment may be heard on 7 December by the Supreme Court, which may return its verdict in January 2017.
Open Europe feels that if the government wins next time around, the initial timetable may still be observed, with Article 50 to be triggered before the end of March. However, if it loses again – which is entirely possible, according to Open Europe – the British MPs would have to take position on the subject. Voting through legislation and all the work needed on any subsequent amendments could then delay May's proposed timetable.
However, the think tank feels that it is unlikely that the majority of British MPs will oppose the result of the referendum of 23 June and block Brexit, as such an outcome would be incendiary for the country. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)