LONDON – The drama of Britain's exit from the European Union was being acted out this week on two of London's grandest stages — the Supreme Court and the House of Commons chamber. The plot is gripping, but the ending is still a mystery.
Inside the Supreme Court building, lawyers argued before the country's top judges about who has the power to trigger the EU exit — lawmakers or the government. In the House of Commons, a stones' throw away on the other side of Parliament Square, British legislators debated when that should happen and how it should unfold.
Almost six months after Britons voted in a referendum to leave the EU, some aspects of the way forward are clear, but many remain uncertain.
THERE'S A TIMETABLE BUT NOT A ROADMAP
Lawmakers voted Wednesday evening to back Prime Minister Theresa May's March 31 deadline to start the U.K's. formal exit from the EU, after the government agreed to publish details of its negotiating plan.
May's Conservative government has been reluctant to reveal much about its strategy or goals, saying that would weaken its hand in negotiations with the EU. But facing defeat on an opposition motion calling for it to disclose more details, the government agreed to publish "strategic plans" — though it's not clear how detailed they will be.
In return, most opposition lawmakers voted to state Parliament's support for triggering two years of EU exit talks by March 31.
Both pro- and anti-Brexit forces are claiming the result as a victory. Labour Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer said the opposition was bringing "clarity, scrutiny and accountability" to the divorce process. Anti-EU Conservative lawmaker Iain Duncan Smith said the Commons had given the government a "blank check" for Brexit.
The vote is largely symbolic, however. The government says the motion is non-binding and does not affect the Supreme Court case.
___
THE BALL IS IN THE JUDGES' COURT
The immediate future of the Brexit process rests in the hands of 11 Supreme Court justices.
In a four-day hearing that ends Thursday, they are being asked to rule on a major constitutional issue: Does the power to take Britain out of the EU rest with the executive — May's government — or with Parliament?
The government argues it can use powers known as royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, the formal trigger for exit talks from the 28-nation bloc. Prerogative powers have been used for centuries — originally by monarchs, now by politicians — to join or leave international treaties without a vote in Parliament.
Lawyers challenging the government say leaving the EU will change Britain's laws and remove citizens' rights, including free movement within the bloc — and that can't be done without legislation in Parliament.
David Pannick, lawyer for lead claimant Gina Miller, said British law contains "scores, hundreds of statutes which implement EU law," and these cannot be wiped away by "a minister acting without parliamentary authority."
The case is further complicated by Britain's regional structure. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own legislatures, and lawyers have argued to the court that they, too, should get a say.
Scotland's top law officer, James Wolffe, told the court Thursday that "fundamentally, this case is about who has the power to change the law of the land."
ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE?
This case is considered so important that it is being heard by all 11 Supreme Court justices, the first time that has happened since the court was established in 2009.
Some pro-Brexit folks think the judges are exceeding their authority by considering the case at all. The Daily Mail has branded the justices "enemies of the people."
Inside the court, the legal argument has been restrained, elegant and intellectual, ranging from the Glorious Revolution of 1688 to a dispute over Newfoundland lobster fishing.
But outside — and online — the case has inflamed the debate over Brexit with venom and vitriol. Miller, one of the claimants in the case against the government, says she has received online abuse and death threats.
Opening the hearing on Monday, the court's top judge, David Neuberger, said the case is about legal issues, not politics.
"As judges, our duty is to consider those issues impartially, and to decide the case according to the law," he said.
UNCERTAIN NEW YEAR
The Supreme Court judges say they will give their ruling in January. If the government loses, it will have to introduce legislation to trigger Article 50 — and it won't have much time to get it through the House of Commons and the House of Lords if it wants to meet the March 31 deadline.
Most pro-EU British lawmakers have said they will not try to overturn the referendum result by blocking Brexit. But they could seek to amend the legislation in a bid to soften the divorce terms and avert a "hard Brexit" in which Britain crashes out of the EU's tariff-free single market in goods and services.
And the unelected Lords, where May's Conservatives do not have a majority, could try to delay the bill.
___
Follow Jill lawless on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/JillLawless
Antisemitism Exposed
Fox News' Antisemitism Exposed" newsletter brings you stories on the rising anti-Jewish prejudice across the U.S. and the world."
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can opt-out at any time.