The government's appeal was against the High Court order dated 7 November 2016 that formally declared: "The Secretary of State does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union." The Supreme Court heard the appeal from 5 December 2016 to 8 December 2016, and, by a majority of 8–3, upheld the High Court ruling, finding that authorisation by Parliament was required for the invocation of Article 50. The Supreme Court also ruled that devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no legal right to veto the act. The case was seen as having constitutional significance in deciding the scope of the royal prerogative in foreign affairs. The Supreme Court's decision was given on appeal from the High Court's ruling that the Crown's foreign affairs prerogative, which is exercised by the government led by the Prime Minister, may not be used to nullify rights that Parliament has enacted through primary legislation. The case is informally referred to as "the Miller case" or " Miller I" (to differentiate with Miller's later Brexit-related case against the Government, Miller II). Two days later, the government responded by bringing to Parliament the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 for first reading in the House of Commons on 26 January 2017. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is a United Kingdom constitutional law case decided by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 24 January 2017, which ruled that the British Government (the executive) may not initiate withdrawal from the European Union by formal notification to the Council of the European Union as prescribed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without an Act of Parliament giving the government Parliament's permission to do so.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |