Read the article and answer the questions
In today's constitution the Royal Prerogative is basically a collection
of executive powers held by the Crown.
They go back to medieval times but are now placed in the hands of
ministers. They're used, for instance, in some areas of foreign affairs which
Parliament has left to the government.
But prerogative powers remain controversial because they're exercised
without any parliamentary authority.
The case has huge constitutional importance and should provide clarity
on whether executive powers can, in effect, trump an act of Parliament.
Those bringing the case argue that legislation can only be altered by
legislation. The government says it intends to give effect to the outcome of
the referendum by bringing about the exit of the UK from the EU.
And that that is a proper constitutional and lawful step to take, using
prerogative powers, in light of the referendum result and the democratic
mandate it has provided.
Ms Miller told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the case raised
"fundamental constitutional" issues.
"We are asking MPs to do the things we pay them for," she
said.
"Did the people who voted to leave really vote... for the prime
minister and a handful of her ministers to bypass Parliament?"
But ex-Conservative minister Dominic Raab said the challenge was fuelled
by a "special kind of arrogance".
Mr Raab, a former government lawyer, told Today: "We have had three
debates already - the idea that Parliament is being side-stepped is
ludicrous."
He added: "But Parliament doesn't get a veto over beginning the
Brexit negotiations."
In July, High Court judges ruled that Ms Miller should be the
lead case in the action.
Other applicants include London hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, 37, as well
as the People's Challenge group set up by Grahame Pigney and a campaign group
called Fair Deal for Expats.
The government, to be represented by Attorney General Jeremy Wright, is
expected to argue it is giving effect to the will of the people provided for in
the 2015 EU Referendum Act authorising the poll and that was "clearly
understood" before June's vote.
According to documents
published this summer, ministers believe the use of prerogative powers once
held by the Sovereign but now residing in the executive to enact the referendum
result is "constitutionally proper and consistent with domestic law".
For
the courts to require Parliament to pass legislation to implement the outcome
of the referendum would be an "impermissible" intrusion on its
proceedings.
"The
decision to withdraw from the EU is not justiciable," they stated.
"It is a matter of the highest policy reserved to the Crown."
The
hearing comes amid growing calls from MPs on all sides of the House for the
UK's blueprint for its Brexit negotiating to be subject to far greater
parliamentary scrutiny.
While
the government has not ruled out giving MPs a vote on the final settlement
reached with the EU, it has said on several occasions that it will not hold a
vote on the timing of Article 50 or its strategy ahead of negotations.
The
losing side in the case is likely to launch an appeal. It has already been
announced that any appeal will be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court to ensure a
final judgement before the end of the year.
Questions
What is the Royal Prerogative?
Why is it controversial in terms of the timing of Article 50?
In five words, what affect does the royal prerogative have
on Parliament?
Summarise both sides of the argument and give your own
opinion on what the result of the case should be. Justify your answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment