Dr Peter Paul Catterall, Reader in History, Sociology and Criminology in the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities discusses the recent ruling that parliament must vote before the UK Government can invoke Article 50 with ABC News.

ABC News spoke to Dr Peter Catterall to examine what the high court ruling that Parliament must vote on whether the UK can leave the EU means for Theresa May's government and for Brexit.

Explaining that while the British public voted to leave the EU in June, Dr Catterall pointed out that they were not asked about what leaving the EU should entail and how the process should be carried out. 

"People gave consent to leave the EU. They did not say exactly how the government will interpret it," Dr Catterall told ABC News. "The referendum shouldn’t give the government carte blanche to how they interpret it. They’ve been interpreting their mandate to mean a series of other things which people didn’t vote on. How is that democratic?"

"The court ruling stops the government from establishing a very dangerous precedent that they can set up referendums and then interpret them the way they want," he said. 

The British government has now appealed to the Supreme Court, but this begs the question, what happens next?

"I expect the Supreme Court may affirm the judgement of the High Court because from what I’ve seen from the judgment I can’t see grounds on which they will find an alternative interpretation," said Dr Catterall. 

If the Supreme Court upholds the High Court’s decision, the government might be able to appeal the case to the European Court of Justice. 

Read the full article on the ABC News website. 

 

Press and media enquiries

Contact us on:

+44 (0)20 3506 9464 (9am-5pm Monday to Friday)
+44 (0)7970 483 778

[email protected]