Brexit Article 50 Supreme Court ruling LIVE: Gov ready to start exit even if it LOSES case
ARTICLE 50 should be invoked without the need for parliamentary consent – that is the case the Government is trying to make in today's Supreme Court hearing.
By PATRICK CHRISTYS
PUBLISHED: 09:35, Tue, Dec 6, 2016 | UPDATED: 13:03, Tue, Dec 6, 2016
Supreme Court judges are hearing the Article 50 Brexit case
KEY POINTS SO FAR:
• The Lords deliberate whether the 2015 Referendum had legal or political significant (legal and gov't wins, political and Gina Miller wins)
• Brexit is going to happen anyway, even if Government loses it'll put a quick fire bill through parliament
• Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland CANNOT BLOCK BREXIT because devolved powers do not give them the right
• Royal prerogative powers have been used many times before on issues involving EU rights
LUNCH – ADJOURNED UNTIL 2PM
12.55 UPDATE: COULD SCOTLAND STOP THE BREXIT FREIGHT TRAIN?
Professor Gavin Phillipson, of Durham University's Law School, seems to think so.
He admitted the argument by the Scots expected to be outlined later this afternoon was "a long shot", but maintained there is a chance it could work.
Prof Phillipson said: "If it succeeded it would actually throw a huge spanner in the works. If the Supreme Court was to hold that the Scottish government had to give its consent, we know the Scottish government wouldn’t give its consent. That would actually stop Brexit in its tracks so this is actually an argument that could have huge ramifications if it succeeded."
Lord Keen is, well, just that. He is adamant Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have no devolved powers to stand in the way of Article 50 being invoked by the British Government.
He said: "Parliamentary sovereignty can legislate at any time on any matter and that's played out in the devolution agreement.
"I think the Lord Advocate is plainly wrong to suggest that the UK parliament is constrained by devolution."
The debate then got a bit farcical. The judges, who have repeatedly called for the Government to speed up their case while persistently interrupting the Government's case, interjected once again on a pedantic point relating to the Sewell Convention.
The Sewell Convention relates to the devolved relationship between Westminster and the rest of the UK. It states: "One would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament."
"It depends what you mean by 'normally'", said one of the lofty Lords from over the top of their glasses.
Keen shot back: "Well then it depends what you mean by 'recognised as' or 'with regard to', doesn't it?"
Silence from the bench...
12.26 UPDATE: SCOTS, WELSH AND NORTHERN IRISH SLAPPED DOWN
The notion that leaving the EU would negatively impact on the devolved nations is total rubbish, Lord Keen states.
He makes the sound point that remaining in the EU means the Westminster-based Government has the capability to adhere to EU rules or laws that override Scots law, for example.
So as things stand, Scottish autonomy is already threatened, Brexit makes it no worse.
He said: "There is no substance in this point of view."
Article 50 Supreme Court Brexit devolution
Devolution is being discussed at the Supreme Court hearing
12.05 UPDATE: DEVOLUTION DISCUSSION BEGINS
Lord Keen is Advocate General for Scotland, the UK government’s legal adviser on Scotland. Not to be confused with the Lord Advocate.
He is here to deal with the issues surrounding the referendum and devolution.
He believes the Foreign Affairs prerogative is the same as what Scotland is under – basically, on an issue of such significance, the Government's decision in Westminster applied to Scotland too.
But this is a can of worms for the Government, another grey area to overcome.
11.59 UPDATE: EADIE CONCLUDES
Eadie makes the point that since the High Court ruling no opposition MP has come forward and called for primary legislation to enact Article 50.
He goes on to say the judges have a big decision to make, adding: "It's at best controversial and not a proper basis for imposition.
"The courts will be imposing a new control of a most serious kind in a highly controversial and considered area."
11.46 UPDATE:
James Eadie QC: "What will gowhen we go is our obligation to comply with EU directives."
Good news for Brexit supporters everywhere. No more having to comply with laws about funny shaped bananas!
He also said it was entirely normal and "orthodox" behaviour in domestic and international law for the Government to use prerogative to make and break international agreements.
Mr Eadie used a Canadian case to illustrate his point – the case involved parliament scrapping a treaty on climate change relatig to the Kyoto agreement.
He says this sets a precedent that the Government can use precedent to alter international agreements.
11.26 UPDATE: THIS SHOULD HELP CLEAR THINGS UP
The British government could put forward a one-line bill to give it the authority to trigger formal European Union divorce talks should it lose a Supreme Court fight over who can start the Brexit process.
Government lawyer James Eadie told the Supreme Court: "If the Supreme Court decides against our arguments here then the solution in legal terms is a one-line act.
"Maybe that would lead to all sorts of parliamentary complication and possible additions and amendments and so on, but that's the solution."
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
