Top UK judges grill government lawyer on Brexit plans

Prime Minister Theresa May plans to launch European Union exit talks by the end of March using ancient powers known as royal prerogative, which enable decisions about joining or leaving global treaties to be made without a parliamentary vote. The lower court backed the claimant, finding that parliament should give the final approval to begin the process.

Lord Pannick QC, who is opposing an appeal by the Government against a High Court ruling over Britain’s exit from the European Union, told the court’s 11 justices that a Brexit motion debated in the Commons can not alter the “law of the land”.

“We have already won in the High Court so we have proved to the rest of the world that we are right and she [May] is wrong”.

Now it’s up to the U.K. Supreme Court, which this week began hearing arguments in a case that could complicate May’s plan to set in motion Britain’s exit by the end of March.

He said her case “is that the prerogative power to enter into and terminate treaties does not allow ministers to nullify statutory rights and duties”. “If you declare the exercise of [the government’s] prerogative powers to be unlawful, you are in effect requiring primary legislation”.

It was a vote, he said, to force the government to offer a plan with “enough detail and clarity to end the circus of uncertainty” over Britain’s future ties to the EU’s single market of 500 million consumers. Our case has nothing to do with politics – it concerns legal process and the constitution. “We will now take time to ensure that the many arguments that have been presented to us orally and in writing are given proper consideration”. The justices are expected to give their judgment in January.

The government’s argument is essentially that under Britain’s unwritten constitution, it can make or leave worldwide treaties without parliamentary assent.

Richard Gordon QC insisted that Wales is not trying to block Brexit, but put forward an impassioned case for why Theresa May must secure parliamentary approval before initiating Britain’s formal departure from the European Union. The June referendum, Wright said, was conducted “with the universal expectation that the government would implement the result”.

But a last minute amendment from the Prime Minister said she WOULD put out some plans, but challenged MPs to back triggering Article 50 too.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom parliament voted, December 7, to back Theresa May’s plans to trigger Article 50 by the end of March 2017, as she has promised, provided that she gives parliament the details of her overall plans to exit the EU. However, if she loses, the Brexit process will become much more arduous.

Earlier this week, Lord Keen, the Advocate General for Scotland, argued that Westminster was sovereign and could not be prevented from legislating on the matter.

He said the case was about “who has the power to change the law of the land”.

Salman Butt took his case to the High Court accusing the government’s Prevent strategy of breaching free speech rights.

“What I do say is that the question of whether the Scottish parliament consents or does not consent to the effects of withdrawal with regards to devolved matters is, by virtue of the legislative consent convention, a matter of constitutional significance”.