The Official Brexit Supreme Court thread.

[Paddy]

The Government has been careful to avoid asking the Supreme Court to interpret the revocability of Art 50, which is of course part of an international treaty. They know the SC would have no choice but to refer the matter to the CJEU in Luxembourg for a ruling,
That would take months, possibly years. (That may not stop the other side bringing it up!)

However that leaves the Govt trying to reanimate the argument (which failed in the High Court) that "we've always used the prerogative to enter (and leave) international treaties", and that international affairs and domestic affairs have always been separate, ignoring conveniently that the European Communities Act 1972 is a somewhat unique piece of legislation that, in pegging EU law with domestic law, was designed to bridge the two legal planes.

Messrs Wright and Eadie are quite easy to listen to, but it does not seem they have said anything so far that would excite the SC enough to rethink the legitimacy of the High Court's decision

...

[BlasterBates]

It looks like Nigel Farage's call to protest at the Supreme Court has been heeded, and an elderly couple are holding up a banner outside the court.

Brexit legal challenge: Elderly couple and a few friends march on Supreme Court | The Independent

This demonstrates the depth of feeling in favour of Brexit.

[Platypus]

This demonstrates the depth of feeling in favour of Brexit.

It demonstrates the depth of feeling towards having to go to work on a Monday vs. standing in the cold in some futile gesture.

[Platypus]

But here's the rub - if the EU realise that there will be a second referendum, then there will be no deal

That's a good point.

[GB9]

Potentially, the Supreme Court has to refer it to the ECJ to get a clarification as to whether Article 50 is irrevocable. Ultimately, the SCOTUK cannot determine without question whether we would be able to trigger Article 50 and then change our minds further down the line, only the ECJ can do that.

If it isn't revocable, then an Act of Parliament is required to trigger it. If it is revocable, then an Act of Parliament is not required to trigger it, but may well be required in order to approve the terms of the agreement. Parliament may then choose to defer this to a second referendum.

Ladbrokes are offering 3/1 on a second referendum by the end of 2020, or Evens on the UK still being a full member of the EU on 1st January 2020.

But here's the rub - if the EU realise that there will be a second referendum, then there will be no deal - it'll be the hardest of Brexits or no Brexit.

In the minds of Farron and other lowlife, saying 'no' to the deal equates to staying in the EU. He still can't accept the result.

[VectraMan]

It looks like Nigel Farage's call to protest at the Supreme Court has been heeded, and an elderly couple are holding up a banner outside the court.

Brexit legal challenge: Elderly couple and a few friends march on Supreme Court | The Independent

This demonstrates the depth of feeling in favour of Brexit.

I really don't understand why the government is persisting with this. Just accept that Parliament has a role in the running of the country and get on with it. It's not like Parliament is going to overturn the referendum result; it might just be the one LibDem MP that votes against. Article 50 by the back door is just going to create more division; much better to do it honestly and openly. IMO.

[d000hg]

Appeal will be overthrown. MPs will overwhelming vote in support of Article 50. Boring.

[Paddy]

Appeal will be overthrown. MPs will overwhelming vote in support of Article 50. Boring.

HMG not doing well at the Supreme Court, too much waffle without evidence.
Now stuttering…

[OwlHoot]

I really don't understand why the government is persisting with this. Just accept that Parliament has a role in the running of the country and get on with it. It's not like Parliament is going to overturn the referendum result; it might just be the one LibDem MP that votes against. Article 50 by the back door is just going to create more division; much better to do it honestly and openly. IMO.

Maybe it's mainly delaying tactics.

But also let's not forget that although the HoC will probably nod it through, the HoL might be a lot more obstructive. Most of them are fanatical Europhiliacs and many have already said they will vote against invoking Article 50.

[vetran]

I really don't understand why the government is persisting with this. Just accept that Parliament has a role in the running of the country and get on with it. It's not like Parliament is going to overturn the referendum result; it might just be the one LibDem MP that votes against. Article 50 by the back door is just going to create more division; much better to do it honestly and openly. IMO.

This.

May could say "yes good point Judges can you draft a framework for us. No need to waste government money on lawyers arguing obvious stuff".