The Official Brexit Supreme Court thread.

[Platypus]

The government who said that is different from the government of today.

Did I miss the GE ???

[Platypus]

No implications for the Supreme Court case, per se

If the motion is passed, with the amendment, doesn't it effectively mean that the govt has sought and obtained approval to pass A50? Thereby rendering the supreme court case irrelevant?

[SueEllen]

Did I miss the GE ???

May went to the Palace to ask the Queen's "permission" to form a new government when Camoron resigned, so there was no GE.

[SueEllen]

If the motion is passed, with the amendment, doesn't it effectively mean that the govt has sought and obtained approval to pass A50? Thereby rendering the supreme court case irrelevant?

In theory yes but in practise no.

[GB9]

You state a load of bollox, I am merely reporting what was said.

Oh dear. Upset of wherever you are.

You're happy to quote Hansard when something favourable was said but anything unfavourable doesn't count.

[GB9]

Confirmation that the result was not, and could not be, legally binding. Nothing in there to suggest that the government's intention to "respect" the result indicates anything more than that it would put the matter to Parliament, where sovereignty resides in accordance with the Constitution.

Awwww bless you.

You know as well as the rest of us that it means the Government would implement the result. In the same way as they did in the leaflet to 23m properties.

This whole case is based purely on technicalities which is why so many people are angered by it.

[DimPrawn]

God and I thought the Brexit thread was dull and never ending, this one is going to roll on and on no doubt....

[jamesbrown]

If the motion is passed, with the amendment, doesn't it effectively mean that the govt has sought and obtained approval to pass A50? Thereby rendering the supreme court case irrelevant?

No, for exactly the reason you mention. It's simply a motion, not a Bill (for assent to an Act). Of course, it does depend on what the Supreme Court decides about the Parliamentary process, but the working assumption is that they'll rule on this, and that the ruling will require an Act. They may even go so far as to indicate the type of Act (e.g. whether a short one would be sufficient). There's real scope for a constitutional crisis, depending on what the Supreme Court decides about the necessary and sufficient process.

[jamesbrown]

In theory yes but in practise no.

Probably not even in theory. The working assumption is that an Act will be required.

[GB9]

No, for exactly the reason you mention. It's simply a motion, not a Bill (for assent to an Act). Of course, it does depend on what the Supreme Court decides about the Parliamentary process, but the working assumption is that they'll rule on this, and that the ruling will require an Act. They may even go so far as to indicate the type of Act (e.g. whether a short one would be sufficient). There's real scope for a constitutional crisis, depending on what the Supreme Court decides about the necessary and sufficient process.

And I think that's really what this appeal is about.

The appellant has already stated that a one liner will do.

The other side has gently prodded at whether or not the Government needs more.

If you follow article 9 (iirc) of the Bill of Rights that the Remnants love, the judges can specify what the Government can do but not HOW they do it. If they try then that's war.