Brexit legal challenge live: MPs don't actually want to vote on Article 50, government lawyer claims
The appeal against MPs voting on Article 50 is now in its second day
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Here are the latest updates:
- Theresa May performs U-turn and now will reveal Brexit plans before Article 50 vote
- Government rejected an opportunity to make EU referendum legally binding, lawyer claims
- MPs don't actually want to vote on Article 50, government lawyer claims
- Judges accuse the Government's lawyer of contradicting himself "twice in five minutes"
- Amber Rudd reveals EU citizens living in Britain will need identity cards after Brexit
- EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says Brexit deal could be reached by October 2018
Please wait a moment for the live blog to load:
The Supreme Court is today hearing the second day of arguments in the Brexit legal challenge.
11 of the most senior judges in the UK are hearing the government's appeal to a High Court ruling that Theresa May must let MPs vote on whether to trigger Article 50.
Yesterday, the court heard from government lawyer James Eadie QC and Attorney General Jeremy Wright. The lawyers argued the Prime Minister has authority to trigger the mechanism and begin EU withdrawal processes.
However, the judges questioned why more details haven't been provided about what will be in the Great Repeal Bill, the legislation through which the government intends to legislate for life outside the EU.
The judges also said serious threats have been made to claimants in the case and warned they must be stopped.
The case is expected to last four days in total, ending on Thursday.
Following yesterday, when one judge asked for more information about what will actually be contained in the Great Repeal Bill...
... Eadie agrees with one judge that the Great Repeal Bill will have no legal significance for this case, but then appears to contradict...
... himself by saying the opposite, that the court cannot suggest the Great Repeal Bill is legally irrelevant
Lord Sumption spots this and says "I think you’ve given two diametrically opposed answers to the same question in the last five minutes"
Another judge quips they'll have to check the transcript of court proceedings when it's published later today
Eadie responds, "I will try not to give too many inconsistent answers in the same 5 mins" and moves on
Lack of any detail about what is in Great Repeal Bill could be a real sticking point for this case- it will require MPs' involvement to pass
so govt could argue MPs will get to be involved in EU withdrawal that way, rather than by voting on Article 50 necessarily
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments