The UK Supreme Court ruled today that Parliament must act before Prime Minister Theresa May can begin negotiations to leave the European Union. The ruling complicates the process of Brexit, which was approved by UK voters in June, but May's government says it still plans to start talks with the EU by the end of March. Here is Lord David Newburger, President of the Supreme Court, announcing the eight to three
ruling today. The referendum is of great political significance, but the Act of Parliament which established it did not say what should happen as a result. So any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the UK Constitution,
namely by an Act of Parliament. With us to discuss the ruling as well as its implications for Brexit and UK constitutional law are Michael Gordon, professor at the University of Liverpool and Stephen Piers, professor at the University of exit Essex. Welcome to you both, Thanks for joining us. Mike in a nutshell, what was the core of the
reasoning of the UK Supreme Court majority today? Okay, so the so the core of the reason today on the on the primary conclusion at least that there's a need for an Act of Parliament to authorize the government beginning that process as a negotiation of our of our exit from the EU, and the under Article fifty of the European Treaties was that in domestic terms, EU law is what the majority called almost a new source of law
in the UK Constitution. And what the majority has concluded is that the government's royal prerogative powers, the sort of powers that the government possesses to conduct international relations and ratify treaties, can't be used to cut off a new source of law, as they call it, that the nineteen seventy two European Communities Act, an act of Parliament that
brought us into the EU, has established. So it's quite it's quite an interesting argument about EU law being this sort of this new source of law and the UK Constitute and then saying that the legislation of Parliament in nineties two and legislation since then dealing with changes to our EU membership, haven't you know, hasn't given the government hasn't left the government with the power and of the royal prerogative to sort of begin that process of withdrawal,
which they say is different from just change to the treatise, which the Act allows. The process of withdrawal, they say will be would be different because it would cut off this new source of law. That's the essential argument of the majority today, Stephen, there were three in the minority. What was their argument, Well, they started the more traditional view, which is that the government's power to sign up to treatise and announced treaties isn't limited, at least in this
case by Epean community. That because it would still stay on the books, and it even though it didn't create any legal effects, perhaps it would. Nevertheless, the minority felts they wanted to give precedence to the government's power to act over Parliament's powered. Sort of. There are two rules really in conflict with each other here, whether whether you give precedence to the government's power to act or treaties or parliament's power to change its previous Act of Parliament.
And the majority went with the parliament's power having precedents. That minority went with the government's power having precedents. This case, of course, was on appeal a lower court. The UK High Court had had also ruled that Parliament had to act that was a few months ago. Are there material differences between what the Supreme Court said today and what the High Court said a few months ago? Yeah, I think there are. I think I think this this sort
of line about a new source of law. EU law being recognized within the domestic UK constitutional system as a new source of law does does sort of mark a difference from what the what the Divisional Court has said. I don't think the majority in the Supreme Court today have necessarily moved away too dramatically from what the Divisional Court had said in and again reaching the same conclusions
earlier before Christmas. But I think this argument about a new source of law, it's potentially quite a novel one, but it's also potentially quite controversial. I think it's I think it's it's quite It's interesting that only now we are leaving the European Union as a result of the referendum vote, has the Court felt able to make quite strong claims about EU law being itself a source of
law in the Constitution. Obviously, the Act of Parliament that brought us into the EU is still the crucial underpinning for that. But I think this this argument about EU law being a new sources is different. Perhaps the other difference as well is that the Supreme Court seems to have moved away from some of the bigger constitutional claims that the Divisional Court made about, say the constitutional status of the Act of Parliament that took us into the
into the into the European Unions. So there are some materials and some quite interesting differences, I think, even though the result is the same. Stephen lawmakers, including some within Maze Conservative Party, are talking about amending Article fifty, with some roadblocks such as calling for a so called white paper.
Tell us about those, yes, well, especially the three bigger opposition parties, the Liberals of the Scottish Nationalists and the labor parties have all said their proposed amendments, and I think at least a few Conservatives will go along with them. So yeah, if you get a majority, if you get about ten Conservatives jumping over and all the opposition together, you would have a majority in the House of Commons to push to an amendment. So the sort of things
that tabling are different between the different parties. But there are things like a white paper, as you said, so we have a prior discussion before we go ahead and in Vogue articles fifty. It's things like reporting regularly back to Parliament about the negotiations. It's the Liberals want to have a new referendum later on, and maybe the Scottish Nationalists as well, and that's I think would be hard to get enough votes for that. That's a crucial one.
And some of them want to stay in the East Single Market, which you can still do as a non EU country. Um so that might be a big issue as well if they have enough for that, Mike. Much like in this country, with a lot of things going with Donald Trump, they're the politics of various issues have sort of been scrambled. Is there a Conservative Labor split on these issues that that Steve was talking about or are these all issues that kind of kind of cross
the parties. I mean, I think there are very clear Well, there are differences in position between the Conservative government and
the Labor Party. I think one of the things the Labor Party is finding it particularly difficult to quite pin down in relation to its attempts to hold the government to accounts, are how you get that balance that between putting in the kind of amendments to this bill that Steve was was just talking about, you know, amendments that that perhaps make the process of the government negotiating Brexit a little bit more difficult. Try to sort of upsloot will be the wrong word, but but certainly try to
conde and control that legally. And also then the Labor Party's stated recognition that they want to give effect to the terms of the referendum, they don't want to be seen to be obstructing the triggering of Article fifty. So that's quite a delicate balance for them for them to tread.
And again within you know, within the Conservative Party that the government's majority is relatively narrow, so it doesn't take too many Conservatives who would perhaps have preferred to remain in the European Union, of which there are some, if not many, but it doesn't take too many of them to sort of to vote to vote with the opposition
perhaps to try and get some tractions these members. But it's very unclear because of course, I think all the parties that was a vote in Parliament previously, that Parliament and the House of Commons committed. We're talking about today's UK Supreme Court decision requiring an Act of Parliament before Prime Minister Theresa May can start Brexit negotiations. UK Brexit Secretary David Davis moved quickly to try to douse any
speculation that the ruling might derail Brexit. This ugment does not change the fact that the UK we leave in the European Union and it's our job to deliver on the instruction the people of UK have given us. We're talking with Michael Gordon, a professor at the University of Liverpool and Stephen Piers, a professor at the University of Essex. Steve Um, I gather that the UK Supreme Court didn't
decide whether Article fifty is revocable. Um, you tweeted about that, and I want to ask you about the significance of that silence. Is there a possibility that once it is triggered, that Britain may may change its mind. Yes, I wouldn't say it's a big possibility, but certainly some people believe that it's something they want to keep pressing for and arguing that maybe we should have another referendum, more vote
of Parliament on on that issue. Of course, it's an important legal question whether it is even possible to revoke the notice once it's sent, and it is very interesting the Supreme Court was deliberate in saying we don't take a view on that. Even though the parties to the case decided that it was irrevocable. The Film Court said, well,
we're not going to decide that. The importances of that is that there's another case about should be brought, strangely enough in the Irish Courts asking the Irish Courts to ask the U Court on whether Articles fifty is revocable.
So there are certainly people out there, and I'm sure there's a Preme Court knew about this who are planning somehow to try and get that question on to the argument either way, of course, and if it is revocable, it doesn't need politically that it's going to happen that he could do a vote, but I think it does change the political dynamics knowing the possibility is always there to revoke the Article fifty notice is afterwards sent Mike.
We were talking about amendments to Article fifty earlier, and for May's critics, after she pledged last week to leave the e Use Single Market to win control of immigration and lawmaking, essentially a so called hard Brexit, did that lead them to consider amendments even more. I suspect it will.
I suspect that, having heard Theresa May's plan, or so far as it is a plan, in her speech last week, at least her identification of her negotiating priorities, I suspect that will raise the stakes for those parties who who are who are opposed to Brexit, you know, I mean, I suspect many of them would have tried to advance the kind of amendments were likely to see anyway, Whether it means that those amendments in the context of Theresa May certainly going for quite a full blooded Brexit withdraw
from the Single Market and probably from most aspects of the Customers Union as well. I suspect that will raise the stakes and perhaps go on a more support for those amendments. Stephen, There's one other aspect of the ruling I want to ask you about. The courts said that Theresa May did not need to consult with the regional governments of Scotland, Wales in Northern Ireland. How significant is
that part of the ruling. Well, in one way it lets her off the hook because Scottish Parliament would certainly have voted against it. In all of an Ireland Parliament is sort of suspended at the moment. It's not quite clear when we'll get it back because a separate political crisis. There is not quite clear whether the Welsh government will go along with it either, because they have their own plans they announced yesterday which don't really match the truth
Amazed plan. So she's avoided all of that. But the way in which Supreme Court decided that, I think creates further political problems of a different sort, because it's said basically that Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland can ignored, and given that Scotland and Orban Islands voted to stay, and given that to the Welsh government's taking a different view from the Wesdensity government, it's obviously going to irritates
them a great deal. And obviously the Scotts government, particul that, being a Scottish nationalist government, is going to try and use this as part of it political arguments to try again for Scottish independence. It doesn't mean they will get anywhere on that, but it's certainly an argument they can try and make. So it sounds like she may have some political reasons to consult with those regional governments, even
if she doesn't isn't legally required to do it. I want to thank our guests Michael Gordon at the University of Liverpool and Stephen Pierce at the University of Essex. Uh. That's a word I keep having trouble saying today. They are two people we always rely on when we have developments in the court fight over Brexit in the UK.