UK Supreme Court to decide if government can trigger Brexit process

May on Monday said the government was confident of its case for the appeal.

“Parliament will be closely involved in the process of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union over the coming months and years”.

The High Court decided that the government could not push the Brexit button without approval of Parliament.

Three lower court judges ruled last month that the British government can not trigger Article 50 of the EU’s key treaty, launching two years of exit negotiations, without lawmakers’ approval.

And in a different twist, the Welsh and Scottish Authorities are granted permission to intercede in the case to set up issues of constitutional and legal principle that was significant, for example, foundation which the Post 50 procedure may have to be sanctioned by their devolved legislatures.

The Scottish government, which strongly opposes Brexit and has been seeking ways to keep Scotland in the European Union, will also put forward its arguments.

He told the judges: “Our case fully respects, and offers no affront, to Parliamentary sovereignty”.

Mr Eadie agreed, saying: “Parliament can look after itself”.

One of them is that Parliament must also hold a vote on the same. The complainants say only parliament has the power to do this.

James O’Brien on the Brexit protests at the Supreme Court: “I thought they wanted British judges in British courts enacting British law?”

UK Prime Minister Theresa May stated that the country would trigger Article 50 of the EU Lisbon Treaty by the end of March 2017, thus starting withdrawal negotiations.

The government lost the first round of the fight over Article 50, with the High Court in London ruling last month that Brexit would irrevocably change domestic United Kingdom laws, demanding a vote of Parliament under the nation’s constitution.

The challenge had been brought by a group of businesses led by investment manager Gina Miller, whose lawyers argued that the government can not trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty unilaterally despite a public referendum in favour of leaving the European Union (EU).

The case has been brought by multiple plaintiffs, but is led by investment fund manager Gina Miller.

This case is considered so important that it is being heard by all 11 Supreme Court justices, the first time that has happened since the court was established in 2009. If the government loses, a bill could be put before parliament in the New Year, proposing the triggering of Article 50.

On the second day of a four-day hearing, Eadie argued that Parliament has already had its say, by passing the EU Referendum Act of 2015, which made June’s referendum possible.

In written arguments published before Monday’s hearing, government lawyers say the use of royal prerogative to start the talks is “constitutionally appropriate and lawful”.

Eadie argued: “Prerogative powers may be exercised to create worldwide legal effects on the global plain”.

Lord Advocate James Wolffe argued the Scottish Parliament was entitled to a voice on the issue, which involved the serious loss of European Union rights for Scottish people.

“Its silence is consistent and compelling”.