Lawyers argue over exit trigger

They told the Supreme Court that the powers were not an “ancient relic” and that there had been a “clear expectation” that the government would directly act to implement the result after June’s referendum vote.

Much of the proceedings in the opening day of the UK government’s appeal against a High Court ruling that MPs must vote before the EU’s exit clause (‘article 50’) can be invoked revolved around the nature of these powers, which date from the days of absolute monarchy.

Lawyers for the claimants who brought the original High Court case, notably investment manager Gina Miller, are expected to reiterate their argument that parliamentary sovereignty means MPs must have the final say. They are likely also to remind the court of the ‘advisory’ nature of the referendum vote.

However government lawyers said today that parliament could have explicitly limited use of the prerogative powers (for example in the wording of the EU Referendum Act 2015), but it had not.

Furthermore, they said, it was “highly improbable” that in passing the referendum act which put the question of EU membership “to a vote of all the people of the UK”, parliament was “doing no more than simply reserving to itself the right to decide whether to leave or not as it saw fit”.

One of the judges, Lord Wilson, however, referring to how the UK entered into the then EEC in 1972, said this was "the result of a joint effort," between the government and parliament - which passed the European Communities Act. "Should our departure also not be so?", he asked.

Prime Minister Theresa May has said she intends to notify the EU that Britain is leaving – called triggering article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty – by the end of March 2017, however the claimants say MPs must vote for this first.

Opening today’s hearing Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger noted that the appeal was strictly about legal issues, not political ones. He also ordered that some of the names of people involved in the case should not be published, nor their addresses, including that of the main claimant, Ms Miller (who Connexion interviewed for our December edition).

He said: “We have made this order largely because various individuals have received threats of serious violence and unpleasant abuse in emails and other electronic communications.

"Threatening and abusing people because they are exercising their fundamental right to go to court undermines the rule of law. Anyone who communicates such threats or abuse should be aware that there are legal powers designed to ensure that access to the courts is available to everybody.”

He added that everybody involved in the case had been asked if they wished any of the judges to stand down, and all parties had said they had no objections to any of them sitting on the appeal.

Lawyers for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assemblies are also to be allowed to speak during this week’s four-day hearing; and the court will also consider arguments from Northern Irish campaigners as to whether triggering article 50 with prerogative powers affects the Northern Irish peace agreements.

You can follow the proceedings live at: Supreme Court