UK High Court Rules That Parliament Must Trigger Article 50

The High Court ruled that the UK government cannot trigger Article 50 to leave the EU without Parliament's approval, challenging the Prime Minister's executive powers. This decision, led by Gina Miller, emphasizes the sovereignty of Parliament. Brexit Secretary David Davis plans to appeal, arguing the referendum's result must be respected. The case highlights the constitutional debate over statutory rights and executive authority, with significant market and political implications. The Supreme Court will hear the appeal, with a final verdict expected in the New Year.

What was the main legal argument against the government's ability to trigger Article 50?

• The Prime Minister has executive powers to do so.

• Parliament must approve the revocation of statutory rights.

• The High Court has no jurisdiction over Brexit matters.

• The referendum result automatically triggers Article 50.

Who was the key figure leading the legal challenge against the government's Brexit plans?

• David Davis

• Boris Johnson

• Theresa May

• Gina Miller

What was the government's main reason for appealing the High Court's decision?

• To gain more time for negotiations

• To delay the Brexit process

• To respect the referendum result

• To avoid a general election

What could be a potential consequence if the government fails to overturn the High Court's decision?

• Immediate triggering of Article 50

• Closer scrutiny of the Brexit process by MPs

• Automatic approval of the Brexit deal

• Cancellation of the Brexit process

What did Brexit campaigners argue was irrelevant in the legal challenge?

• Legal technicalities from centuries ago

• The role of the Prime Minister

• The economic impact of Brexit

• The democratic will of the people