Parliament’s Approval Needed to Begin Brexit Process - AP

[TomSea]

Parliament’s Approval Needed to Begin Brexit Process

LONDON—Britain’s government must get parliamentary approval before starting the process of leaving the European Union, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, potentially delaying Prime Minister Theresa May’s plans to trigger exit negotiations by the end of March.

The 8-3 ruling from the judges forces the government to put a bill before Parliament, giving pro-EU politicians a chance to soften the terms of Brexit—Britain’s exit from the EU. “Leave” campaigners had objected, saying Parliament shouldn’t have the power to overrule the electorate, which voted to leave the bloc in a June 23 referendum.

Continued: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2214044-parliaments-approval-needed-to-begin-brexit-process/

[EC]

We don't have a Supreme Court. We have never had a Supreme Court. It is the High Court.

Get the bleep terms right.

[TomSea]

We don't have a Supreme Court. We have never had a Supreme Court. It is the High Court.

Get the bleep terms right.

British Supreme Court rules that 'Brexit' can't begin without an act of Parliament
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-brexit-british-supreme-court-20170124-story.html

AP again, so could be the same article.

London (CNN)Britain's Supreme Court has ruled that the UK government must hold a vote in parliament before beginning the process of leaving the European Union.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/europe/brexit-article-50-supreme-court-ruling/index.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-brexit-article-50-case-verdict-gina-miller-theresa-may-mp-vote-2017

http://uk.reuters.com/video/2017/01/24/supreme-court-rules-pm-may-must-get-parl?videoId=370984690   <---- UK.reuters.com  I've always wondered where Reuters came out from, I thought maybe the UK originally.

Perhaps they are using the term in a way to convey the highest court in the law.

[TomSea]

@EC :

http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/01/christopher-howarths-guide-to-brexit-a-supreme-court-ruling-against-the-government-would-be-a-minor-irritant-at-most.html

Our Supreme Court is a curious creation. It is supreme yet, unlike its US counterpart, has no written constitution to limit its powers. Nor a legislature to confirm its appointments. Like most of the constitutional innovations of the last 20 years its creation was ill-conceived. Its exalted and unchecked role in interpreting often wooly European and Human Rights legislation is destabilising the traditional relationship between Parliament and Court

- Christopher Howarth

It may be a pedantic or semantic point at that.

I've read a few times, British Conservative Blogs. This one above appears to be one, another website to bookmark.

[EC]

Not British. The Europeans have a Supreme court. We don't - we can't. The supreme arbiter of the law of the land (legally) is not the courts, it's the monarch.

It may be semantics, but it is as irritating as calling all Americans Yankees. 

[TomSea]

Not British. The Europeans have a Supreme court. We don't - we can't. The supreme arbiter of the law of the land (legally) is not the courts, it's the monarch.

It may be semantics, but it is as irritating as calling all Americans Yankees. 

I don't know, that expression doesn't offend many, I have heard it said.