Article 50 ruling ‘as soon as possible’

The last day saw a lawyer for the UK government reiterate its case that EU membership relates to matters “on the international plane” and it is suitable for ministers to act on these with ‘prerogative’ powers without asking parliament.

Arguments were also made that the Scottish and Welsh governments should be consulted before article 50 is triggered, as well as submissions on behalf of ‘The People’s Challenge’ crowdfunded campaign and on behalf of EU citizens in the UK, with a strong plea from Manjit Gill QC about the need to safeguard expats’ rights.

The court’s decision is expected in January; in the meantime, the government is bound by the High Court’s ruling that parliament will have to pass legislation to trigger article 50, referring to a formal decision to notify the EU that the UK wishes to leave.

This would be above and beyond what happened this week when MPs agreed to a Labour ‘motion’ in which they said they would ‘respect’ the Prime Minister’s intention to trigger article 50 by the end of March, 2017, and also called on the government to reveal an outline of its negotiating plan before this happens. The motion was passed by a large majority, with opposition from 51 SNP MPs, 23 from Labour, five Lib Dems, Green Party leader Caroline Lucas and one Conservative – Ken Clarke.

However, lawyers for the main claimant in the court case, Gina Miller, said the motion was irrelevant because it is not binding on the government and a full act of parliament is needed to actually trigger article 50.

One of the stronger submissions of the final day of the court hearing was that of Manjit Gill QC, who spoke of the seriousness of the decision to trigger Brexit with regard to EU nationals in the UK (which, by implication, also applies to Britons in the EU).

He argued that the government must not simply trigger article 50 without MPs’ input and without efforts to arrange ‘safeguards’ for EU (or the wider EEA) nationals first.

He said: “What does it mean for EEA nationals if you don’t put in place a protective scheme for them as to what their position will be on the day of withdrawal? What it means is: ‘be ready to pack your bags and go on that day’. It is that stark, because we are not going to give you any guarantees, in fact we are going to use you as a bargaining chip’.”

In the worst-case scenario EU citizens could become illegal immigrants subject to “summary removal” at the end of the two-year negotiating period, he said.

Helen Mountfield QC, for the People’s Challenge, said her clients consider their EU citizenship “a fundamental part of their identities” and said if they are to have it removed, their elected MPs must take that responsibility.

Much of the government’s final submissions attempted to rebut arguments from the devolved authorities of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – which have only been considered as part of the article 50 case following the government’s decision to appeal the ruling of the High Court.

If the Supreme Court rules that the Westminster government’s ‘prerogative’ powers are limited by the devolved authorities, this will therefore be something of a ‘self-inflicted constitutional wound’, the Financial Times said.

Ms Miller told the BBC that the week had been “emotionally, physically and mentally quite draining” for her. She also referred to “quite serious” threats against her, which had meant she had to attend court with security guards.

Former UK Prime Minister David Cameron, meanwhile, has told an audience in America that he has no regrets about calling the referendum, saying that the fact there had not been one, despite changes over the years to the nature of the EU “was beginning to poison British politics”.