Re: Media and entertainment
Yes, it sets precedent - and it's worth noting here that the precedent would be one which granted the government a lot of power to overrule parliament in the future. A very dangerous precedent, in other words.
It doesn't really set a precedent, because this is a unique situation.
So unique in fact that the High Court are already creating precedent, by trying to invent law where there is none - because the law in question was badly drafted.
Basically Article 50 says we leave automatically in 2 years if no deal is unanimously agreed to extend it (or make it quicker). It also says that it's invoked by the government in question, in accordance with their own rules.
But when this was put into UK law as part of the Lisbon Treaty (European Constitution MkII), I don't think Parliament bothered to specify what those rules are, as they didn't expect to be leaving.
So the court had to make up the law, as there wasn't any. It's clear that government gets to negotiate treaties, and so negotiating our leaving deal is down to royal perogative. Parliament can advise, and be kept informed, but get no say until there's a final deal done, to put into UK law.
But the court asked, is A50 irrevocable? The government said yes. Once triggered we're automatically out of the EU after 2 years. I'm sure it could be fudged, but only if all other 27 members agree - and probably the European Parliament too. That's unlikely, so we'd be out in 2 years.
Well in that case, the court said, Aricle 50 is effectively repealing the European Communities Act because it inevitably leads to that, once we trigger it. Hence Parliament has to have its say first, as that effectively will be repealing legislation and removing rights from citizens, which must be done with Parliament's assent.
On the letter of the law, the judgement is dubious - A50 isn't changing UK law at all. It's a use of an exisiting treaty power, already created by Parliament, involving treaty negotiation which is a perogative power. However once the court asked if it was inevitable they went with the logical ruling, that it's effectively changing the law. After all, Parliament could refuse to repeal the act taking us into the EU, but what's the point of that if triggering A50 means they've kicked us out?