LONDON — Last June, 52 percent of United Kingdom voters opted to pull their country out of the European Union. But while the outcome was close, it was also clear. And there’s no turning back, right?
Well, probably not. But, then again …
As it happens, hearings wrapped up this week in Britain’s High Court in a case that could ultimately result in leaving the door open — just a crack — for Parliament to quash the referendum result. The case is a power struggle between Parliament and the Conservative government of Prime Minister Theresa May.
For the British exit, or Brexit, from Europe to happen, the process has to be triggered by the U.K. formally notifying the EU that it’s leaving, according to Article 50 of the union’s constitution.
May says the government has the power to do that without Parliament’s approval. Lawmakers can debate the issue, she says, but not vote on it. (Although on Tuesday, the government said it was “very likely” that Parliament could vote on any final treaty it reaches with the EU. But that’s not the issue that’s before the court, because even if Parliament rejected the treaty, by then it would be too late to stop Brexit from going ahead.)
May says she’ll kick-start Brexit at the end of next March. The decision and timing is the government’s, Downing Street says, thanks to royal prerogative, an ancient process that ultimately devolved non-legislative powers from the monarch to the government on areas such as negotiating treaties. Or in this case, un-negotiating one.
Parliament begs to differ, although the court case was actually filed by two members of the public. Several high-powered law firms are arguing the claimants’ case — which cites the 1689 Bill of Rights — that leaving the EU affects statutory law. Hence, the government cannot trigger Brexit until Parliament says it can.
It’s a complicated issue in part because the U.K. doesn’t have a written constitution. “The verdict will be as political as it is legal, as the law’s not clear,” says Michael Dougan, a University of Liverpool law professor.
The High Court is expected to issue a ruling early next month. It’s highly likely that the case will then go directly to the nine-member Supreme Court, which will probably rule around mid-December.
Jo Eric Khushal Murkens, an associate professor of law at the London School of Economics, suspects the government could lose. “This is not rocket science. The courts have ruled on royal prerogative before, and it’s not gone the government’s way.”
[READ: The Unlikely Brits Who Caused a Revolution]
But Matt Williams, a politics lecturer at the University of Oxford, calls a government victory “very likely. It would be too politically sensitive for the courts to get in the way of a referendum result,” even though, legally, the vote was advisory.
If Parliament does win the right on whether to trigger Brexit, would lawmakers — who are mainly pro-EU — void the referendum? Probably not. That’s because, Murkens says, too many of them come from constituencies whose voters backed Brexit.
Still, requiring an act of Parliament would get lawmakers more involved in shaping Britain’s negotiating terms. And that whole process would take time — perhaps as much as a year. So the end result may not kill Brexit — just delay it.
More from U.S. News
The U.K. Wrestles With Hard and Soft Brexit Choices
‘Turning Back the Clock on Trade’ to Handicap Economic Growth, IMF Says
The Unlikely Brits Who Caused a Revolution
Can the British Parliament Stop Brexit? originally appeared on usnews.com
