The Official Brexit Supreme Court thread.

[VectraMan]

Interesting point raised by Lord Pannick QC (for Respondant). Hansard recorded that the government assured Scotland that a referendum result in favour of Brexit would need an overall majority vote plus a majority votes in each of England-Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

Really? Well that's Brexit over then. Phew. Can all get on with our lives now.

[NickFitz]

That wasn't on the ballot.

Wow, it's almost like you can't believe what politicians say

It also wasn't on the ballot that Brexit would actually happen as a result of the referendum. That idea was just something in a leaflet, so if anything it's even less likely to be considered binding than what was said in Parliament.

[GB9]

I'm sure you Hansard lovers will have seen this.

Confirmation that the Government would respect the result.

[GB9]

Interesting point raised by Lord Pannick QC (for Respondant). Hansard recorded that the government assured Scotland that a referendum result in favour of Brexit would need an overall majority vote plus a majority votes in each of England-Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

But you have already dismissed what the Government has stated as recorded in Hansard so what's your point?

[GB9]

It's been observed on 2 channels the Pannick is getting an easy ride. No need to bother with days 3&4.

Pannick trying to draw the judges into saying what the Government needs in its act of Parliament but that would be overstepping their remit.

[shaunbhoy]

Well the referendum which took place when we went in (or technically just after) was taken as binding enough, what about this one?

Ah well you see, the critical difference is that THIS time we voted for the wrong option. That changes everything seemingly.

[Paddy]

But you have already dismissed what the Government has stated as recorded in Hansard so what's your point?

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

[NickFitz]

I'm sure you Hansard lovers will have seen this.

Confirmation that the Government would respect the result.

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.

[SueEllen]

May is amending a bill so it prevents MPs blocking article 50 being triggered.

linky

[vetran]

we could be spending this money on cancer drugs etc.

Obviously triggering article 50 requires the assent of parliament. why are they arguing it?