Brexit appeal goes to Supreme Court

Britain’s Attorney General Jeremy Wright told the Supreme Court on Monday that the government’s plan to use executive powers to trigger European Union divorce proceedings was not a breach of parliamentary sovereignty.

At least, that must be the view of the UK Government, which is so desperate not to have its objectives for the upcoming Brexit negotiation dissected by MPs that it has taken a legal challenge over who gets to trigger Article 50 to the Supreme Court, in an appeal many legal experts believe is un-winnable.

“[Labour are] seeming to make clear that they want to frustrate the will of the British people by slowing down the process of leaving and trying to tie the government’s hands in this negotiation”, the prime minister’s spokesperson told the parliamentary lobby.

Politicians argue the government has the executive powers to set Brexit in motion, but the High Court last month ruled that the matter requires an act of parliament and must go to a vote of MPs.

The Supreme Court case begins at 11am on Monday 5th December. “However, those wider political questions are not the subject of this appeal”.

In a reflection of the constitutional importance of the case, all 11 Supreme Court judges are hearing the appeal, the first time the full court has sat since it was founded in 2009.

“Our case has nothing to do with politics – it concerns legal process and the constitution”. But the government says they have misinterpreted the law.

The chief legal adviser to the Northern Ireland Executive said there is no provision in Northern Ireland legislation that “purports to limit, or has the effect of limiting, the powers of the UK Government in worldwide affairs”. It was self-evident that withdrawal from the European Union would affect the rights and obligations of individuals in a serious way, said Mr Eadie.

Attorney General Jeremy Wright will lead the case for May’s administration in its bid to overturn a High Court decision made earlier this year, which secured Parliament the right to vote on launching Brexit talks.

In an unusual move reflecting the strong emotions sparked by the case, Lord Neuberger criticised the online trolling suffered by the businesswoman who is among those who brought the original case.

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.

Wright said the government had authority over foreign affairs, including the right to withdraw from treaties, under so-called “royal prerogative powers” derived from the monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Even so, lawmaker approval could open the process to greater scrutiny and delay.

Other interested parties and intervening groups – who will be making oral arguments before the court – include citizens of EEA countries living in the United Kingdom known as AB parties and Grahame Pigney’s crowd-funded People’s Challenge. The referendum had happened, he argued, in the “universal expectation” that the government would implement the result.

In his address, Neuberger also made veiled remarks about Brexit-supporting newspapers like the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail, which have been questioning the legitimacy and motives of the judges involved in the case.