Interview: Challenger to Brexit expects Supreme Court to clarify UK parliament's role: advisor

The chief challenger to the British government's exit plan from the European Union (EU) expects the Supreme Court to clarify the parliament's role in the exit process, an advisor to the challenger told Xinhua in an exclusive interview.

The Supreme Court announced on Nov. 8 that the crucial Brexit hearing will start on Dec. 5 in London and last four days.

The Supreme Court set the timetable after it received a formal notification of the British government's intention to appeal a ruling of the High Court over the triggering exit process from the EU.

The High Court ruled on Nov. 3 that British Prime Minister Theresa May's government cannot use a royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that starts the Brexit process.

The lead claimant in the case against the government is investment fund manager Gina Miller, who has insisted that she took the case to court because she believes it should be the parliament that triggers Article 50.

"Our expectations are that the Supreme Court will provide legal clarity about what consulting the parliament means," said Ivo Ilic Gabara, advisor to Gina Miller, adding that "we anticipate a ruling in early 2017."

"Do not forget that the ruling of the Supreme Court will clarify the role of the UK parliament for the entire process, even during the negotiation with the EU after Article 50 is triggered," Gabara noted.

Article 50 sets out the procedure to be followed if an EU member state decides to leave the bloc. Once the article is triggered, a two-year clock running starts.

"We want to ensure that Article 50 is invoked in full respect with the rule of law," Gabara said.

Asked about a possible overturn of the ruling of the High Court, Gabara said: "it would be surprising because the ruling was unambiguous and it left no margin of uncertainty rejecting the government's defense on all grounds."

According to the London-based advisor, one possible ruling the Supreme Court will give is that the lawmakers should hold a two-day debate in the parliament and then a yes-or-no vote.

He said another possible ruling is that the British parliament tables a bill on invoking of Article 50. This process entails a proper debate and a possibility that some lawmakers would submit amendments to the bill.

For Gabara, the worst-case scenario would be that the prime minister triggers Article 50 and in the future somebody challenges the legal basis.

"This would be bad for the UK and for the EU," he argued.

Theresa May has indicated that she believes the government can start the process without seeking a decision in the parliament.

May said she still aims to stick with her timetable to trigger Article 50 by the end of next March.

Miller's legal battle against May's government won support from Scotland.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon decided to join the legal case as an intervener and the Supreme Court on Nov. 19 announced that Scotland's most senior law officer, Lord Advocate, had been granted permission to intervene in the case.

In the June 23 referendum, the majority of people in Scotland voted to remain in the EU, but the overall vote across Britain was in favor of leaving by a 52-to-48 margin.

Gabara underlined that Miller and her team do not want to question whether the Brexit or the outcome of the referendum is good or bad for the country.

"what we want is to be strictly committed to the legal certainty," he insisted.

"After the ruling of the Supreme Court, in any case the UK government will be in a stronger position to negotiate with Brussels,"he said. Endit