UK's Johnson: Court ruling won't interfere with Brexit plans
Nov 06 2016
Mr Clegg and Baroness Wheatcroft spoke out after the Prime Minister accepted an Act of Parliament will be necessary to win the right to trigger Article 50 - unless the Supreme Court overturns the judgment. This, in turn, could force her to soften her declared strategy of controlling immigration, even if that means leaving the European Union's tariff-free single market - the so-called hard Brexit that was widely perceived as a threat to the British economy.
However, a prime minister's spokesperson said May told the leaders there was no change in the March 2017 deadline she had set to invoke Article 50 that would set off a two-year process to leave the EU.
If the court's ruling is upheld - the government immediately vowed to appeal - that plan would be thrown into disarray, analysts said, as Mrs. The government hoped to get the talks started without a major parliamentary debate and potential interference, especially in the House of Lords, where the Conservatives do not have a clear majority.
Another Conservative legislator, Zac Goldsmith, resigned last week in disagreement with the government's support for a third runway at Heathrow Airport.
Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: "What the government was seeking to do was to impose a deal that absolutely nobody voted for, that most people who voted to leave wouldn't be happy with and most people who voted to remain wouldn't be happy with, without any kind of Parliamentary scrutiny".
Miller's victory on November 3 means that the process can not begin until United Kingdom lawmakers vote, a decision that has added more frustration and delay to a government that has yet to lay out its Brexit plan.
"Clearly we are disappointed by yesterday's decision".
The government will appeal against the ruling in the Supreme Court, which is expected to consider it early next month.
Mr Clegg added: "If were to be able to marshal opinion behind that approach then people will vote in favour of Article 50 triggered on that basis".
"We've been very clear in our position that we don't agree with the court's view and that's why we are appealing it". "I'm not alone in standing up for the 48 percent who also have the right to be heard and listened to", said Anna Soubry, a pro-EU lawmaker from May's ruling Conservative Party.
Speaking on the Daily Politics show, he said he would push for the "fullest possible explanation" from the Government "as to what their vision is for a post-Brexit world, what they want to try and achieve".
Anger among Cabinet ministers at the High Court ruling that MPs should be given a vote was laid bare when Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary, attacked the case brought by anti-Brexit campaigners as "an attempt to frustrate the will of the British people and it is unacceptable".
"It is very important to recognize that the British people voted to leave the European Union, leave the treaties of the European Union".
The ruling raises many more questions than it answers - leaving the certainty of whether Brexit will take place, its shape and timeline hanging in the balance.
"I think we could be at the beginning, with this ruling, of a process where there is a deliberate, willful attempt by our political class to betray 17.4 million voters", he said in an interview on BBC Radio, promising he would return to politics in 2019 if Britain has not left the European Union by then.