This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-supreme-court-ruling-theresa-may-article-50-eu-referendum-mps-a7456031.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Brexit: Government's most senior lawyer issues stark warning against Supreme Court judges Brexit: Government's most senior lawyer issues stark warning against Supreme Court judges
(35 minutes later)
The Attorney General is to warn Supreme Court judges that they should steer clear of getting involved in political decisions as the Government goes to the Supreme Court in the latest stage of the legal battle over Brexit. The Attorney General is to warn Supreme Court judges that they should steer clear of getting involved in political decisions as the Government goes to the Supreme Court in the latest stage of the legal battle over Brexit.
The highest court in the land is being asked to overturn a High Court ruling that the Prime Minister must seek MPs' approval to trigger the process of taking Britain out of the European Union. Attorney General Jeremy Wright will lead the case for Theresa May’s administration in its bid to overturn a High Court decision made earlier this year, which secured Parliament the right to vote on launching Brexit talks.
In a decision that infuriated Brexiteers, three senior judges said Theresa May lacked power to use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and start the two-year process of negotiating Brexit without the prior authority of Parliament. Ms May has made clear that regardless of the outcome, she intends Article 50 to be invoked by the end of next March to start talks with EU countries aiming for a 2019 Brexit.
Eleven Supreme Court justices - a record number to sit on an appeal - will have their say regarding one of the most important constitutional cases in generations. A paper submitted to the Supreme Court in advance of today’s case sets out the Government’s argument – that the original High Court ruling implies Parliament would be able to ‘micromanage’ negotiations to leave the European Union.
Jeremy Wright, the Attorney General, has now warned in a written submission: "The Court is being invited by the Lord Advocate and the Counsel General to stray into areas of political judgment rather than legal adjudication. The Court should resist that invitation, particularly where the underlying issue is one of considerable political sensitivity." And it urges the Supreme Court judges not to "stray" into areas of political judgment.
Mr Wright says warns: "The Court is being invited by the Lord Advocate and the Counsel General to stray into areas of political judgment rather than legal adjudication. The Court should resist that invitation, particularly where the underlying issue is one of considerable political sensitivity."
"The premise of the 2015 [referendum] act was the continued existence of the Government's prerogative powers to act on the international plane - including, specifically, to give Article 50 notice as the first step to implementing a "leave" vote. That was the clear understanding of all concerned and the basis on which people voted in the referendum.""The premise of the 2015 [referendum] act was the continued existence of the Government's prerogative powers to act on the international plane - including, specifically, to give Article 50 notice as the first step to implementing a "leave" vote. That was the clear understanding of all concerned and the basis on which people voted in the referendum."
If the appeal is unsuccessful, and any potential further appeal to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg also fails, the Government's plans for Brexit could be thrown into disarray. The paper adds: "Suppose that the Government wished in the negotiations to preserve for UK citizens one part of EU law rights but not another part – that position could have a direct impact on the continued enjoyment of current statutory rights.
But Mrs May has made it clear she still intends to give an Article 50 notification by the end of next March to start the leave negotiations with 27 other EU countries. "On the Court’s analysis, the Government could not adopt that position and reach agreement on that basis without specific approval in an act of parliament. Parliament would be put in the position of ‘micromanaging’ treaty negotiations."
Brexit Secretary David Davis is leading the Government's historic legal action. His team of lawyers will argue in the four-day Supreme Court hearing that the three High Court judges erred over Article 50 and its use was legally justified by the June 23 referendum vote in favour of quitting the EU. The Independent first revealed last month that the Government would also argue that actions taken at an international level had no impact on rights in the UK, and so triggering Article 50 in Europe would not need a Commons vote domestically.
Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, gave the ruling blocking the use of Article 50. Two other top judges - Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and Lord Justice Sales - agreed. The High Court ruling was won by Gina Miller, an investment fund manager and philanthropist. She reported that her high-profile role led to death threats and she spent £60,000 on security, but she is returning to the battle represented once more by Lord Pannick QC.
Even though it was emphasised to a packed court in London that they were deciding "a pure question of law" and not expressing any view about the merits of leaving the European Union, they faced fierce criticism from Leave campaigners and an accusation that they were "enemies of the people".
Against that background, the Supreme Court has already stressed that its judges will only be concerned with questions of law and not making political decisions.
The Scottish and Welsh governments and the Attorney General for Northern Ireland are all intervening in the case.
Scotland's Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC is to argue that it would be unlawful for the Article 50 process to start without a legislative consent motion (LCM) from Holyrood.
The High Court ruling was won by Gina Miller, 51, an investment fund manager and philanthropist who was selected to bring the lead case.
She reported that her high-profile role had led to death threats and she had spent £60,000 on security, but she is returning to the battle represented once more by Lord Pannick QC.
Her case is being supported by "concerned citizens" drawn from all walks of life, including London hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, 37, who helped start the legal battle over Brexit but, say his lawyers, has been forced underground after receiving "vile" hate mail.Her case is being supported by "concerned citizens" drawn from all walks of life, including London hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, 37, who helped start the legal battle over Brexit but, say his lawyers, has been forced underground after receiving "vile" hate mail.
The Attorney General said: "The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum provided for by an Act of Parliament. In a decision that infuriated Brexiteers at the start of November, three senior High Court judges said Ms May lacked power to use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 without the prior authority of Parliament.
"The Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum. The Government's case is that it does have legal power to trigger Article 50 on the timetable set out by the Prime Minister. We do not believe another Act of Parliament is necessary." Eleven Supreme Court justices – a record number to sit on an appeal – will have their say regarding what has become one of the most important constitutional cases in generations.
Counsel General for Wales Mick Antoniw said: "The people of the UK voted to leave the European Union. I respect that decision and we will not work against the referendum result."
He said: "Leaving the EU will lead to significant changes to the devolution settlement in Wales - only the UK Parliament can make those changes, which should be with the agreement of the National Assembly for Wales."
The Welsh Government's legal team "will argue that the judgment of the High Court should be upheld, and that an Act of Parliament is required for the UK Government to give notice under Article 50".