The High Court in London has stated that the British government requires approval from parliament to trigger 'Brexit' - the process of exiting the European Union.
The government said it would appeal against the decision and a spokeswoman for Theresa May said the prime minister would press ahead with planned talks on the Brexit terms by the end of March.
Lord Chief Justice John Thomas stated, "The most fundamental rule of the UK's constitution is that parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses."
Parliament now is able to block Britain’s exit from the European Community in the face of 52% of the British people having voted in the June referendum to leave the EU.
The ruling puts at risk Theresa May's deadline for triggering Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty, the formal step that needs to be taken to start Britain’s withdrawal.
A spokesman for the British Prime Minister said this morning, "Our plan remains to invoke Article 50 by the end of March, we believe the legal timetable should allow for that."
Nigel Farage stated on Twitter that he feared the ruling might evolve into an attempt to avoid Brexit altogether.
"I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand. I now fear every attempt will be made to block or delay triggering Article 50. They have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke."
Farage feared a betrayal of the 51.9% of voters who backed leaving the EU in June's referendum and voiced concern at the prospect of a "half Brexit".
The other 27 member states have said negotiations about the terms of the UK's exit, due to take two years, cannot begin until Article 50 has been invoked.
The Lord Chief Justice declared, "The government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union."
The three judges looking at the case found that triggering Article 50 would fundamentally change UK people's rights and that the government cannot change or do away with rights under UK law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so.
Calling the case "a pure question of law", Lord Thomas said, "The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union - that is a political issue."
But Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: "Ultimately, the British people voted for a departure but not for a destination, which is why what really matters is allowing them to vote again on the final deal, giving them the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs."
Comments
Seems there are a lot of undemocratically minded people out there, or are their comments from a purely selfish point of view? Welcome to the dictatorship of the EU that has little or no regard for the 'man in the street'.
So you don't read the newspapers either? See this from today's:
"This week’s rise in sterling was accompanied by the biggest drop in the FTSE 100 since January. A fall of 97 points on Friday to 6,693 points brought the cumulative loss over the week to 301 points – a 4.3% decline. The FTSE 250, which includes more domestically focused companies, posted a smaller 1.8% weekly fall."
And if I am wrong, Margaridaana, precisely where am I wrong? The fall in the value of sterling? The uncertainty surrounding inward investment in Britain? The economic recession in Britain? The ability of voters to change their minds?
Sorry Peter, this time you are very wrong.
The whole Brexit campaign was a tissue of lies and obfuscation, and will not stand detailed analysis. The slide in the value of sterling; the movement of business out of Britain; the bribes which companies such as Nissan require to stay in Britain; and many more factors are coming to light.
Immediately after the vote on 23 June, a leading economic analyst wrote that the poor people of Britain have voted for Brexit, and now they will pay for it. How right he was, and is.
Oh, and the will of the people? 51.9% is scarcely overwhelming. And in democracies, people change their minds if they do not like what they voted for. Theresa May has certainly changed her mind about the sovereignty of Parliament since her paper of 2007. The whole Brexit campaign was founded on the sovereignty of Parliament over Brussels (was this statement also a lie?). If Parliament is sovereign, then the issue should be put to the parliamentary vote.
Fast forward now to the UK Supreme Court hearing in early December which can more imaginatively interpret the various players intentions and wishes. Given the UK's importance to much of the EU as a trading partner and politically and militarily - will Brexit result in some form of Flexi hours arrangement? And which EU member states then also see mileage in this? Will Greece, Portugal or Italy, for substantially different reasons, be the next to break ranks?