And Now … The Brexit Lawsuits

Should we be surprised that the legal gears have started to turn in the wake of last month’s Brexit vote?

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday (July 19) that the very first shot across the judicial bow came this week with a hearing in the United Kingdom’s High Court. The argument seems on its face a basic one, with the assertion that only the nation’s Parliament, not the prime minister, can trigger the true Brexit process. So the question remains: Who actually gets the ball rolling? The cleaving of the U.K. from the E.U. will actually span two years and of course that is open to extension.

The case is actually composed of seven separate actions that had been filed in attempts to keep the U.K. in the E.U. The eventuality is a bit farther out, as it is predicated by Article 50, with the timeframe for the beginning of the process being stretched out beyond the end of this year. The Journal noted that the movement to actually divorce is a complex one, with formal notification of all other nations in the E.U., which number 27.

The U.K. case hinges on a few bones of contention, tied chiefly to the “royal prerogative,” wherein executive authority is wielded by ministers so that they can govern, The Journal noted, on the behalf of the monarchy. Then there’s the newly ascendant prime minister Theresa May, who is charged with carrying out the mandates of the Brexit vote itself. But according to the suit, the prime minister has to get parliamentary consent in place before carrying out those actions and invoking Article 50.

Among the claimants (plaintiffs) in this case are a series of investment firms, a hairdresser and a property firm.