UK Supreme Court begins hearing on Brexit

With passions inflamed by the June vote to leave the European Union, demonstrators gathered outside the court as it began hearing the government’s appeal against a ruling that ministers needed parliament’s assent before triggering the complex process.

The legal battle over whether Parliament should be involved in the triggering of Brexit, continued on Monday as the eleven justices of the Supreme Court began hearing the government’s appeal against the High Court ruling last month.

Three senior judges have already said Theresa May lacked power to use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 and start the two-year process of negotiating Brexit without the prior authority of Parliament.

The Supreme Court in central London is made up of 11 justices who are hearing the government appeal against last month’s High Court ruling.

However, lawyers leading the challenge against the government argue that only a new law authorising the government to trigger Article 50 would suffice because citizens would lose rights granted by the parliamentary act by which Britain joined the EU.

The Welsh Government has been allowed by the Supreme Court to have its case heard at the appeal, alongside a number of other parties including the Scottish Government.

In a statement on the Supreme Court website, the justices said they were “aware of the public interest in this case and the strong feelings associated with the wider political questions of the UK’s departure from the European Union, which we stress are not the subject of this appeal”.

“We’re not on any side”, she said.

Meanwhile, the government’s main legal adviser, Attorney General Jeremy Wright, outlined the opposing case.

Meanwhile, opposition Labour Party lawmakers forced a Wednesday debate in Britain’s House of Commons on a resolution that calls for the government to publish its plan for leaving the European Union before it triggers Article 50.

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

Eadie’s submission was abruptly interrupted by Lord Carnwath, who suggested that the logic of the government’s case means that the prime minister could have triggered Article 50 without either parliamentary approval or even the mandate of a referendum result. In the weeks since the initial decision, Miller has received numerous death threats, abuse and hate mail.

“We have argued that the government can use the powers it has to enact what the public has decided”.

Who is presenting the case for the Government? Scotland’s top legal officer Lord Advocate James Wolffe claimed the Scottish Parliament’s consent would also be needed before the United Kingdom could begin leaving the EU.

James Eadie, another lawyer representing the government, urged the court to make a decision that “the ordinary man and woman” would understand, when it delivers its verdict in January, suggesting there was an understanding the government would implement the referendum decision.

“The ultimate question in this case concerns the process by which that result can lawfully be brought into effect”, he said.

Lawyers from Scotland and Northern Ireland argued Wednesday that their legislatures also must give consent before the government can act, creating another potential obstacle.