Today’s Supreme Court hearing did, for once, live up to its billing as being a ‘landmark case’. The court’s 11 judges – sitting together for the first time – will hear four days of evidence before ruling next month on the government’s appeal against the decision that Parliament must be given a say on triggering Article 50. Here’s the full coverage from today’s Supreme Court case:
4.30pm: Eadie finishes off his argument with a simple point. He urges the Supreme Court judges to measure their decision based on a test of asking the ‘man in the street’. Would the average person think that the referendum outcome gave the Government the right to kick start Brexit? Eadie argues that they would. We can expect to see a return to this line of argument in the morning when the court returns at 10.15am.
4.15pm: Was the referendum vote merely advisory? Not so, says Eadie, who argues that the government did not intend to hold the vote only to then throw the decision back to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. He told the Supreme Court:
3.50pm: One of the Attorney General’s arguments from this morning was that Parliament is capable of sticking up for itself. Eadie has repeated Wright’s point to that effect just now: he says that when Parliament wants to control the power of the executive, it ‘says so and it does so’. Effectively he is arguing that Parliament’s silence over Article 50 backs up the Government’s argument that it alone has the right to pull the trigger. 3.30pm: Eadie tells the court that starting Article 50 isn’t a question of taking away rights from British citizens. Instead, he argues on behalf of the Government that Brexit will mean that these rights ‘expire’. 2.50pm: Lord Wilson, one of the 11 judges sitting in the Supreme Court, tells Eadie he has made a convincing argument for the fact that Britain’s decision to join the EU involved both Parliament and Government prerogative. But he seems less taken with Eadie’s claim that the process of kickstarting Brexit is a matter just for the Government. 2.45pm: The Supreme Court has released a transcript of this morning’s proceedings. You can read it in full here. 2.30pm: Eadie tells the Supreme Court that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act makes the triggering of Article 50 a matter for the Government not Parliament. This argument hinges on the 2010 Act’s Section 20, which spells out occasions when Parliament does not have to ratify new treaties. 2pm: James Eadie is back on his feet in the Supreme Court. He begins by saying Parliament has made a ‘considered decision’ to leave the triggering of Article 50 to the Government. He suggests that while Parliament can step in to limit prerogative powers when it sees fit, it hasn’t done so on this occasion. This, Eadie suggests, means the power to trigger Article 50 should remain with the Government. 1pm: After a drawn out discussion on prerogative powers, in which Eadie argues the Government has the general power to make treaties, the court breaks for lunch. Up at 2pm is the mouthwatering prospect of the ‘principle of legality’. 12.20pm: We’ve heard of the ‘Norway model’ and even the ‘Albanian model’ for a blueprint of what Britain’s Brexit deal might look like, but could the ‘Greenland model’ help the Government win its Supreme Court case? Eadie points to the example of when Greenland left the European Economic Community in 1995 – saying the country carried out changes to treaties using executive, rather than parliamentary power. 12.10pm: Eadie, who is arguing the Government’s case, makes the point that rights from being a member of the EU are formed internationally – and can change without the say-so of Parliament. He goes on to say that the hypothetical scenario of Greece leaving the European Union would affect UK citizen’s EU rights. Midday: Away from the Supreme Court, the Government is ‘confident’ about its appeal, according to Theresa May’s spokeswoman, who has said ‘the Government is getting on with respecting what the British people decided. 11.45am: Eadie says the UK’s political system is a dualist one, meaning that power is shared between the executive and the legislature. He goes on to point out that treaties are not ‘self-executing’: in other words, they don’t automatically become a part of domestic law when they are made. 11.35am: James Eadie QC is putting the meat on the bones of the government’s case. He argues that the British constitution is far from alone in the way that treaties can be made or broken by the Government rather than the legislature, pointing out that Canada, Australia and New Zealand have similar systems. 11.25am: The Attorney General picks up on the motivation of those who brought the case in the first place. He says the argument that those challenging the Government are doing so to defend Parliament are fighting an unnecessary fight. Wright says, instead, that if the case is ‘all about standing up for Parliament, I say Parliament can stand up for itself’. 11.20am: Parliament will not be shut out of the Brexit process, Wright says, but instead will be ‘closely involved’ in negotiations. He points out that MPs will ‘continue to exercise its sovereignty’ when the agreement brought about by Article 50 is finally reached. And he finishes by saying that Parliament has had lots of opportunities to block the triggering of Article 50 if it wanted to – but chose not to. 11.15am: The Attorney General is the first to take to his feet. Jeremy Wright says the Government is making three submissions. He says that, firstly, the government’s foreign affairs prerogative – including the power to make or break treaties – is not a relic of the past but a ‘contemporary necessity’. He says this is essential for the effective conduct of public business, and points out that the government has signed 31 treaties on a range of subjects in the past year – without the direct say-so of Parliament. Wright says this makes it clear the government has a clear role in implementing – and breaking – treaties using its prerogative power. Wright goes on to say that this prerogative ‘operates as part of a ‘dualist legal system’. And finally, he says this prerogative is ‘wholly in accordance with parliamentary sovereignty’. Wright says Parliament can choose to limit the prerogative – but where it has done so, says Wright, it has done so ‘sparingly’. 11am: Lord Neuberger, the president of the Supreme Court, starts the morning’s proceedings by saying that people involved in the case have been threatened‘The 2015 Act posed a question and put to a vote of all the people of the UK that the divisional court (High Court) and the respondents say has to be reput to Parliament. That prompts the question was Parliament really in 2015 doing no more than simply reserving to itself the right to decide whether to leave or not as it saw fit? Not merely is that highly improbable but it runs counter, we submit, to the repeated statements by ministers and the government both in the debates leading to the act in Parliament and statements outside Parliament.’
Comments