High Court Throws a Spanner in the Brexit Works

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

A high court judge has ruled that Brexit cannot go forward without a vote of Parliament. In a nutshell, the court ruled that since Parliament passed the 1972 law joining the EU, only Parliament can make the decision to leave the EU:

The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses….The Government of the day cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament.

….In the present case, however, the Government accepts, and indeed positively contends, that if notice is given under Article 50 it will inevitably have the effect of changing domestic law…The Court does not accept the argument put forward by the Government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it.

Prime Minister Teresa May said this ruling would be appealed to the Supreme Court, which will hear the case in early December. If the Supreme Court upholds the decision—which seems likely—it could lead to further court cases that end up giving the Scottish Parliament a veto over withdrawal. That would kill Brexit completely.

But even if only a vote of Parliament in London is needed, it’s not clear what will happen. The New York Times passes along the conventional wisdom that the court decision may delay things but not derail them: “Few observers believe that Parliament would go so far as to block a departure from the bloc, as lawmakers themselves voted overwhelmingly to hold the referendum and pledged to abide by the results.”

I guess. Maybe. But once Parliament plunges into this, and the government is forced to unveil its negotiating stance, I could see public opinion changing fairly dramatically. I also can’t help but think that there are a lot of MPs who say they’re for Brexit but would welcome an excuse to kill it. Remember: the referendum passed by only 52-48 percent. It wasn’t exactly a landslide.

If I had to lay a bet, I’d guess that one way or another, Brexit will somehow not happen. Stay tuned.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend