UK govt agrees to reveal details of Brexit talks plan

The answer from government was clear – it was offering information when it could and it would produce a plan.

He said if judges ruled against the government, “the courts would be imposing in effect a new control of a most serious kind” on the government’s ability to make global treaties.

“It would be a bit surprising if the referendum act and the referendum had no effect in law”, said Neuberger. They won convincingly in the High Court in November.

He said that all parties to the appeal had stated that they had no objection to any of the justices sitting on the appeal.

Britain’s Supreme Court will reveal early next year the result of the government’s appeal against a ruling that it can not unilaterally trigger Brexit, the court said on Thursday.

“But if we start bickering about them before we’ve even begun our journey to leave the European Union, we will never take the first step”, said Penrose, who has introduced a motion to parliament calling for it to support triggering Article 50.

Brexit Secretary David Davis is leading the Government’s historic legal action.

Wrapping up the Government’s case, he argued that the use of prerogative powers did not undermine Parliament – and that the 23 June referendum on European Union membership had been held in the universal expectation that the Government would implement its result.

The government is challenging an earlier court ruling in favor of parliamentary approval in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is expected to meet next week to discuss the issue in private.

“The reason why they are trying to make it very hard and putting their five counsel in the position of contortions where they are saying one thing one minute and another thing the next is because nobody ever thought that the 2015 (Referendum) Act was ever meant to confer any prerogative power at all”. Two other top judges – Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and Lord Justice Sales – agreed. The Daily Mail has branded the justices “enemies of the people”.

Following the motion, Gina Miller, who is one of the chief claimants bringing the case against the Government, said in a statement: “Parliament debating and voting on a motion or resolution simply won’t suffice”.

Stressing how during the debate on the 1998 Scotland Bill MPs were told the Sewel Convention would be in statute, Mr Wishart said Lord Keen’s arguments showed “massive disrespect to the views of Scotland”.

May’s office said the vote does not affect the Supreme Court case.

“The Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum”.

But by agreeing to the government’s demand for parliament to endorse May’s timetable for Article 50, Labour lawmakers were accused of falling into a trap – allowing ministers to begin the divorce without consultation.

May has said she will give formal notification of Britain’s departure in March – – a timetable that was backed overwhelmingly by MPs in the House of Commons on Wednesday night.

Counsel General for Wales Mick Antoniw said: “The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union”.

Lord Pannick said that only legislation could repeal the legislation that got Britain into the European Union in the first place.

Mr Chambers added: “In the absence of such parliamentary authorisation, by triggering Article 50 the Government will be acting contrary to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, and so the Government will be acting unlawfully”.