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.
The Supreme Court has just published a draft transcript of everything said in court this morning, here supremecourt.uk/docs/draft-tra…
"It is no answer... to say parliament will later be involved... The fact of the matter is [Brexit] will cause nullification of rights"
"The 2015 Act said nothing whatsoever about the consequences of the referendum" Lord Pannick
"If parliament meant the 2015 Act to have legal effect, it could and it would have said so" Lord Pannick
"The government resisted an amendment to give legal force to the referendum" Lord Pannick
Judges are dipping in and out, challenging Pannick's comments frequently
"The referendum is plainly an event of political significance, but the political significance is not a matter for the courts because...
...it is irrelevant to the legal issue of whether ministers enjoy a prerogative power to set aside the 1972 Act"
I'm at Supreme Court where lawyers from the Brexit legal challenge have just begun arguments against govt. Updates: independent.co.uk/news/uk/politi…
Hansard extract presented to Supreme Court by Pannick QC. David Lidington told Commons EU Referendum Bill did not d… twitter.com/i/web/status/8…
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments