THE question of whether Brexit can proceed unhindered by those who say it breaks UK constitutional law and the devolved settlement in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will require to be decided by the Supreme Court in London.
That is the outcome of a crucial court case in Northern Ireland yesterday which has implications for the whole Brexit process.
Judge Mr Justice Paul Maguire concluded it could be triggered under Article 50 using the Royal Prerogative, but would need Parliament to pass laws to bring about the withdrawal from the EU.
Sitting in the High Court in Belfast, the judge backed the UK Government’s view that it can use the prerogative.
He stated: “It is the court’s view the prerogative power is still operative and can be used for the purpose of the executive giving notification for the purpose of Article 50.
“This, however, is said without prejudice to the issues which have been stayed and which are under consideration in the English courts.”
The judgement stated that once Article 50 had been triggered “the process necessarily will be one controlled by parliamentary legislation, as this is the mechanism for changing law in the UK.”
Maguire rejected claims by a cross-party group that Northern Ireland, which voted 56 per cent to remain in the EU, should have a veto on an exit, and also rejected a claim that the Stormont Assembly should have a say on whether to trigger Article 50.
Maguire did say, however, that the question on whether the devolved parliament in Edinburgh could have a veto should be a matter for the Scottish courts.
He also rejected claims by victims’ campaigner Raymond McCord, whose son was murdered by Loyalist gunmen, that the Good Friday peace agreement could be at risk.
Business chiefs seek talks with Home Office in Scottish post-study work visas row
Economy still strong despite Leave vote, says expert
McCord’s lawyers had argued that the 1998 agreement had created an expectation that there would be no change to Northern Ireland’s constitutional status without the consent of its people.
The judge ruled there was nothing in the Good Friday agreement to prevent the UK Government triggering Article 50.
The judge himself immediately allowed an appeal to the Supreme Court and Raymond McCord said he will definitely take his case there.
“The judge has left the door open,” he said. “We’re right in what we’re doing for the people of this country.”
In his judgement Maguire said: “While the wind of change may be about to blow, the precise direction in which it will blow cannot yet be determined so there is a level of uncertainty, as is evident from discussions about, for example, how Northern Ireland’s land boundary with Ireland will be affected by actual withdrawal by the UK from the EU.”
Yesterday’s verdict is being seen as a victory for Brexiteers, but the court battles are far from over. This month, the High Court in London heard the need for parliament to give its approval for the Brexit process is a matter of huge constitutional importance, with campaigners saying MPs should have a vote on Article 50.
That case, too, is heading for the Supreme Court, as both the Government and those who took the case have said they will appeal should they lose in the High Court.
A UK Government spokesperson said: “We welcome the court’s judgement, which agrees with us that the government can proceed to trigger Article 50 as planned.
“As we have always made clear, we stand by our commitments under the Belfast agreement and the outcome of the EU referendum doesn’t change this.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here