Brexit case sees starkly different views of UK constitution

His itinerary through legal precedents included references to an 1892 dispute over lobster fishing factories in Newfoundland in which the government tried but failed to use prerogative powers to enforce an worldwide treaty.

Both the government and the opposition say the motion is does not affect a case at the Supreme Court over whether the government has the authority to start negotiations without legislation in Parliament.

About 19 percent of people who said in May that they backed “Remain” didn’t vote, compared with 11 percent who backed “Leave”, the National Centre for Social Research said on Wednesday.

On the second day of a four-day hearing, Pannick, representing financial entrepreneur Gina Miller, said an act of Parliament the European Communities Act of 1972 took Britain into the EU’s predecessor, the European Economic Community.

John Larkin QC, Attorney General for Northern Ireland, agreed with Lord Keen that the triggering of Article 50 by the UK Government fell within the royal prerogative.

May is facing a rebellion from her own lawmakers on Wednesday when parliament debates whether the government should set out its Brexit plan before triggering Article 50.

The main opposition Labour Party said it would accept the amendment, making the motion nearly certain to pass.

The House of Commons is likely to vote for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, according to calculations of parliamentary voting intentions.

There had been speculation that in the wake of a Supreme Court defeat May might seek to get lawmakers’ approval by a parliamentary motion which could be brought forward quickly and avoid the detailed scrutiny that a new bill might elicit.

Article 50: what did the high court rule? “Can we say that’s not good enough, it has to be that one-line bill?”

The QC for another campaigner, hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, is now addressing the court.

Lord Pannick QC, representing the claimant who won a historic High Court ruling in November, made the submission as he countered the Government’s case that it does have such a power.

Even though it was emphasised to a packed court in London that they were deciding “a pure question of law” and not expressing any view about the merits of leaving the European Union, they faced fierce criticism from Leave campaigners and an accusation that they were “enemies of the people”.?

The devolved nations are also making representations at Westminster, with Scotland’s Brexit minister Michael Russell appearing before the Scottish Affairs Committee later.

The government’s lawyer has already addressed the court, saying there is no need for Parliament to be consulted in advance.

“You have given two diametrically opposed answers to the same question”, one of the justices, Lord Sumption, said.

“It would be a bit surprising if the referendum act and the referendum had no effect in law”, he said.

“We respectfully agree”, Pannick said.

David Pannick said it would be “quite extraordinary” if rights and duties created by Parliament when it took Britain into the European bloc “could be nullified by ministers”.

The suspect has been released on bail while prosecutors consider whether to charge him.