Interview: Bid by parliament to overturn Brexit to provoke constitutional crisis, expert warns

Attempts by the British parliament to reverse the referendum decision to quit the European Union (EU) would provoke a constitutional crisis, a leading law expert warned Friday.

Advisers insist British Prime Minister Theresa May has the power to trigger the Article 50 mechanism that will lead to Britain leaving the EU.

This week, a powerful group of members from the House of Lords said in a report that parliament should be involved in the process, which would potentially put parliament and the government on a collision course.

In an exclusive interview with Xinhua, Dr. Michael Gordon, a leading expert on constitutional law and the sovereignty of parliament at the University of Liverpool, discussed the hurdles ahead for politicians and 10 Downing Street.

Everything hinges on when the exit process will start, and who will decide when and if the so-called Article 50 will be triggered. That will set in motion a two-year process leading to Britain's final exit.

Gordon said: "It would seem difficult to imagine circumstances in which parliament would not feel bound by the June 23 referendum result from a political constitutional perspective."

"Even if parliament did get a vote on the triggering of Article 50, the entire referendum was conducted on the basis that the result would, in practice, be binding, and for parliament to attempt to reverse this would clearly provoke a constitutional crisis," he said.

To add to the constitutional debate, the High Court in London will rule next month on whether parliament should be involved in the Brexit process. Whatever the decision, the case could move to the appeal court or even the highest court in Britain, the Supreme Court.

Gordon, though, is in no doubt that Theresa May holds the winning cards.

"On the question of whether parliament is required to have a say in triggering Article 50: there are a range of legal arguments which are going to be considered in the forthcoming legal action, and it is a matter about which many constitutional lawyers disagree."

In his view, the government has the legal power to trigger Article 50, and a new Act of Parliament authorizing this is not legally necessary.

"This is because the power to conduct foreign affairs and ratify treaties is reversed to the executive, and parliament has not legislated to displace this power.

"The domestic legislation which gives legal effect to EU law within the UK will not be directly affected by a decision to trigger the Article 50 process, it will still be legally valid unless or until parliament repeals or replaces it, which surely it will do as we prepare for withdrawal from the EU.

Parliament legislated to authorize the referendum, and could be said to have passed the power to make this decision to Britons, he said.

"Parliament has ultimate power to create the framework through which the decision to leave the EU is made, which it has done."

"Giving both Houses of Parliament the possibility of a debate and a vote on a motion relating to the triggering of Article 50 would seem like 'best practice' in constitutional terms, in my view, and I hope the government will do this before exercising the prerogative power to notify our intention to leave the EU."

However, Gordon said he did not think it was legally required, or about parliament giving legal authority for the decision, but rather, as giving parliament the chance to consider, debate, and approve the government's negotiating strategy and vision for the UK's future relationship with the EU.

Gordon said the legislation which authorized the referendum (the European Union Referendum Act 2015) did not set out any automatic legal consequences of the result.

"A full understanding of parliamentary sovereignty shows that while parliament's law-making power is legally unlimited, in constitutional reality it is limited by a whole range of political, moral and practical considerations," he said. Endit