The Official Brexit Supreme Court thread.

[jamesbrown]

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.

The appeal is really about the wider constitutional question surrounding the Royal Prerogative. Really, HMG was out of its mind to pursue this case after the HC, because the outcome is all but guaranteed, but they wanted to resolve the wider question. In doing so, they've exposed themselves to a heap of ugly possibilities, such as a full Act that can be amended in both houses, one that must be approved by the devolved administrations, and possibly even a deferral to the ECJ on whether A50 is reversible. As I say, there's scope for a constitutional crisis, because so much of our constitution is unwritten. It's bloody frustrating, but they need to be allowed to do their jobs now that HMG has pursued it. I'd expect that a short Act will be sufficient, but then I thought they'd win at the HC too....

[jamesbrown]

A rarely good interview on Newsnight tonight with Oliver Letwin. About 25 mins in. Spot on with all of his analysis (including the clear implications of what HMG has already announced). Boris made a similar point on Marr, but Letwin (as always) is much more lucid.

BBC iPlayer - Newsnight - The Forgotten Shipwreck

[Paddy]

Oh dear. Upset of wherever you are.

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

When and what? It seems that you have difficulty in understanding what you read.

[GB9]

When and what? It seems that you have difficulty in understanding what you read.

Your memory is poor.

The appeal is really about the wider constitutional question surrounding the Royal Prerogative. Really, HMG was out of its mind to pursue this case after the HC, because the outcome is all but guaranteed, but they wanted to resolve the wider question. In doing so, they've exposed themselves to a heap of ugly possibilities, such as a full Act that can be amended in both houses, one that must be approved by the devolved administrations, and possibly even a deferral to the ECJ on whether A50 is reversible. As I say, there's scope for a constitutional crisis, because so much of our constitution is unwritten. It's bloody frustrating, but they need to be allowed to do their jobs now that HMG has pursued it. I'd expect that a short Act will be sufficient, but then I thought they'd win at the HC too....

But the court can't tell the Government how to do the job. They can tell them to pass an Act but not how detailed it should be etc. If they do then all hell breaks lose.

[jamesbrown]

But the court can't tell the Government how to do the job. They can tell them to pass an Act but not how detailed it should be etc. If they do then all hell breaks lose.

No, I'm afraid they can. The two things aren't connected (scope of the ruling and what happens afterwards, i.e. fubar). In the absence of a written constitution, the SC fills in the blanks from case law. Unfortunately, there's are a lot of blanks. In other words, when Lady Hale opined on the possibility that the EC 1972 Act might need a comprehensive replacement before A50 is triggered, she wasn't bluffing. There's a non-trivial risk that the SC ruling will result in, as you put it, "all hell breaking loose". This is why HMG was taking such a severe risk in pursuing this, especially with such a comprehensively rejected argument at the HC. One can only assume that the wider principle was more important to them (TBH, it probably is, because it has massive implications for future Executive actions on the international plane).

[PurpleGorilla]

No, I'm afraid they can. The two things aren't connected (scope of the ruling and what happens afterwards, i.e. fubar). In the absence of a written constitution, the SC fills in the blanks from case law. Unfortunately, there's are a lot of blanks. In other words, when Lady Hale opined on the possibility that the EC 1972 Act might need a comprehensive replacement before A50 is triggered, she wasn't bluffing. There's a non-trivial risk that the SC ruling will result in, as you put it, "all hell breaking loose". This is why HMG was taking such a severe risk in pursuing this, especially with such a comprehensively rejected argument at the HC. One can only assume that the wider principle was more important to them (TBH, it probably is, because it has massive implications for future Executive actions on the international plane).

Maybe they want all hell to break loose Hotel California style.

[NotAllThere]

...This is why HMG was taking such a severe risk in pursuing this, especially with such a comprehensively rejected argument at the HC. ...

Like the risk they pursued in having the referendum. Usually incompetence is a better explanation of government actions than conspiracy, but with this lot - surely no-one is that incompetent.

[SueEllen]

No, I'm afraid they can. The two things aren't connected (scope of the ruling and what happens afterwards, i.e. fubar). In the absence of a written constitution, the SC fills in the blanks from case law. Unfortunately, there's are a lot of blanks. In other words, when Lady Hale opined on the possibility that the EC 1972 Act might need a comprehensive replacement before A50 is triggered, she wasn't bluffing. There's a non-trivial risk that the SC ruling will result in, as you put it, "all hell breaking loose". This is why HMG was taking such a severe risk in pursuing this, especially with such a comprehensively rejected argument at the HC. One can only assume that the wider principle was more important to them (TBH, it probably is, because it has massive implications for future Executive actions on the international plane).

Well then the government has to pursue it otherwise you will get the likes of the SNP deciding the Act is not the right type and starting another court case, and so on for years.

[SueEllen]

Like the risk they pursued in having the referendum. Usually incompetence is a better explanation of government actions than conspiracy, but with this lot - surely no-one is that incompetent.

To be fair it was Camoron and Osbourne who wanted the referendum. If any one else had been in charge they would have managed to do like Gordon Brown and his economic tests.

[GB9]

No, I'm afraid they can. The two things aren't connected (scope of the ruling and what happens afterwards, i.e. fubar).

My understanding (can't find the article) is that the Government believes the Court does not have the authority. This is the A9 of the Bill of Rights I keep referring to.

If the Court specifies how things are done it is effectively appointing itself as the Government.