UK Supreme Court says Parliament must rule on Brexit

The media in the UK and across Europe mostly react positively to the Court’s decision, and argue that it will not hinder Brexit. The Times backs the Supreme Court ruling, arguing that as Brexit will remove rights from British citizens, Parliament needs to be involved in writing the referendum result on to the statute book.

The Financial Times also welcomes the Supreme Court decision, arguing that it puts Parliament at the heart of the debate about the country’s future. In Süddeutsche Zeitung, Christian Zaschke moreover notes that, with the approval of the Upper and Lower houses, the Brexit will receive the necessary legitimacy.

Writing in The Guardian, Rafael Behr argues that yesterday’s judgement does not make Brexit less likely, but was healthy for democracy. Most political commentators believe it is ‘unlikely’ that legislators will reject the will of voters, Katrin Bennhold writes in The New York Times International Edition. Indeed, now that the Court has decreed Parliament be more involved in the process, The Daily Telegraph says that MPs have a duty to act in the interests of the country and not re-run the referendum campaign.
Wolfgang Hansson writes in a column in Swedish Aftonbladet, that the majority of British MPs do not have the courage to vote against the public will. Erik de la Reguera further writes in Dagens Nyheter that a vote against triggering Article 50 and Brexit would be political suicide for any MP. “We can almost certainly rely on enough MPs being sensible and honourable enough to respect the referendum result,” The Daily Express adds.
However, Luxemburger Wort and Lëtzebuerger Journal report that the Court’s ruling is a bitter setback for Theresa May. Dagens Industri reports that according to Henrik von Sydow at Carnegie Private Banking, the verdict could delay the negotiations with the EU as well as inhibit the British plans for a hard Brexit. Moreover, Lawyer Francisco Mendes da Silva writes in Jornal de Negócios that the UK may soon be in a standstill, as Theresa May’s proposal of a hard Brexit may overcome the referendum’s legitimacy.
An analysis in Dutch De Volkskrant points out that there is still some discord in the Parliament about the question of whether the UK should aim for a hard or a soft Brexit. Those in favour of a hard Brexit are having the upper hand, but this may change if Brexit negotiations do not go as smoothly as expected. Meanwhile, European Commission Chief Spokesperson, Margaritis Schinas said, he wouldn’t comment on issues pertaining to legal and constitutional order of Member States, the Wall Street Journal Europe reports.
Within the next days, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports, the British government will initiate legislative procedures in order to secure the Brexit in Parliament, according to UK Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union David Davis.
The Irish Times reports that David Davis told MPs yesterday, that the legislation would be “as straightforward as possible”, but would not be drafted in such a way that substantive amendments would be impossible. The Guardian indicates that Mr Davis and Mrs May will have to fight off several attempted amendments, including from MPs in their own party, who want more say over the specific decision to leave the single market and customs union.
Despite the judgement, one should not believe that the Brexit is not coming, but there might be delays, Chairman of the foreign office in London of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation Hans-Hartwig Blomeier notes on German radio RBB3. Indeed, La Croix reports that the Labour party has announced they may seek to introduce amendments into the proposal and that the House of Lords may delay the triggering of the article by a year.
Writing in The Guardian, Rafael Behr suggests that MPs may focus more of their efforts on the proposed “great repeal bill,” which will migrate the entire edifice of European law on to the statute books. If the bill contains the proper checks and balances, the Parliament will be bogged down for years, but if it is designed for efficiency, it will
give the executive sweeping new powers.
In the same ruling, the Supreme Court noted that approval from the regional parliaments in Scotland and Northern Ireland was not required for Britain’s EU exit, media outlets like El País report.