Court vows unbiased view in suit on EU-exit power
LONDON — Britain’s top judges vowed impartiality Monday as they decide who has the power to trigger the U.K.’s exit from the European Union — the executive branch or Parliament.
The Supreme Court justices acknowledged that the case has aroused strong feelings over how and whether to leave the EU.
The court’s most senior justice, David Neuberger, opened a four-day hearing by condemning the “threats of serious violence and unpleasant abuse” directed at lead claimant Gina Miller and others arguing that Parliament should have a say.
“Threatening and abusing people because they are exercising their fundamental right to go to court undermines the rule of law,” Neuberger said, banning publication of the addresses of Miller and other parties in the case.
Neuberger and 10 other justices on the country’s top court must decide whether Prime Minister Theresa May’s government can invoke Article 50 of the EU’s key treaty, the trigger for two years of separation talks, without approval from lawmakers.
May plans to trigger Article 50 by the end of March, using centuries-old government powers known as royal prerogative. The powers once held by the monarch enable decisions about joining or leaving international treaties to be made without a parliamentary vote.
Financial entrepreneur Miller and another claimant, hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, went to court to argue that leaving the EU would remove some of their rights, including free movement within the bloc, and that it shouldn’t be done without Parliament’s approval.
Last month, three High Court judges agreed. But the government says they misinterpreted the law.
Opening the government’s arguments, Attorney General Jeremy Wright said the use of royal-prerogative powers didn’t undermine Parliament because the legislature had been in the driver’s seat throughout the referendum process.
The case is complicated by the involvement of myriad participants, including politicians in Northern Ireland, who also want a say, and the Scottish government, which argues the Edinburgh-based Scottish Parliament should get a vote, too.