Lawyers and academics welcome Supreme Court’s Article 50 ruling which concerns democratic process – not derailing Brexit

Representative bodies and legal academics have welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling which makes it clear that an act of parliament must authorise the government’s future triggering of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which will begin the process of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.

The Law Society has welcomed the certainty provided by the decision, which preserves the sovereignty of parliament – a cornerstone of the country’s ‘unwritten constitution’. Some legal academics have also praised the ruling for preserving democratic process, rather than favouring the archaic and undemocratic royal prerogative which Theresa May and her government attempted to rely on to prevent the Brexit process from being subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It should be stressed that the decision concerned the democratic process and was not an attempt to derail Brexit – it is in fact highly likely that MPs will vote in favour of the bill that the government will put before parliament in due course.

Robert Bourns, president of the Law Society, commented: “The Supreme Court was asked to answer whether, according to British law, the prime minister using the royal prerogative can trigger Article 50, or whether an act of parliament is required. This is a legal question and it is right that it was decided by an independent judiciary…No one is above the law and having the right to challenge government through the courts is something we should be proud of – it is fundamental to our democracy. Our courts and judiciary are respected across the world. The rule of law is arguably the United Kingdom’s greatest export. Our courts play a vital role in giving us the safe, fair and democratic society we all want to live in. [The Supreme Court’s] decision is a textbook example of how our independent judiciary deals with even the biggest of disputes - fairly, impartially, and in accordance with the rule of law.”

Meanwhile, legal academic Trevor Tayleur, associate professor at the University of Law, said: “The majority of the Supreme Court justices adopted the argument that succeeded in the High Court, namely that rights conferred by an act of parliament – the European Communities Act 1972 – can only be removed by another act of parliament and not by royal prerogative powers. However, the government will be able to take considerable comfort from the fact that the Supreme Court said that it was up to parliament to decide upon the form of legislation. Accordingly, a simple bill authorising the service of the Article 50 notice will suffice, rather than the full-scale repeal of the 1972 Act. Moreover, the majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the government does not need the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies to trigger Article 50. Consequently, the government can be confident that it will be able to adhere to its timetable of serving the Article 50 notice in March. Although the judgment is of great constitutional interest, its effect on the Brexit process is unlikely to be significant, as Parliament is likely to give the government the requisite authorisation.”