Brexit legal challenge: 'A six year old child could see flaws in Government's Brexit plans', Supreme Court told
Fourth and final day of the Supreme Court Brexit legal challenge has been heard and the judges have now retired to consider their decision
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.The Government's Brexit plans are so flawed "even a six year old child could see it", the Supreme Court has been told.
The claims were made by Richard Gordon QC, Law Officer of the Welsh Government, who told the court Welsh politicians should be allowed to approve plans to trigger Article 50.
The Supreme Court was hearing final arguments in the Brexit legal challenge as the case entered its fourth and final day.
Opponents to the Government's Brexit plans outlined their case; with representatives of Wales, Scotland, ex-pats and children's rights putting their case to judges.
The Government's lawyers then had their final opportunity to refute the claims and make their case that Theresa May has sufficient authority to trigger Article 50 without a vote from MPs. The argued the 2015 Referendum Act which outlined the terms of the EU referendum did not specify who could trigger Article 50.
Latest updates:
- Theresa May admits EU leaders will try to 'punish' UK in Brexit negotiations
- Welsh Government's lawyer tells court Brexit 'has split the UK into four parts' and is 'one of the most divisive political events in decades'
- Labour hit by backbench revolt over Article 50 Tory 'trap' fears
- EU judges to decide on UK cases for years after Brexit
- Scotland and Northern Ireland must approve Article 50, Supreme Court told
Please wait a moment for the live blog to load:
All 11 of the Supreme Court justices, who are the most senior judges in the UK, heard the case and have now retired to reach their decision.
A judgment is expected to be announced early in the new year.
Chambers is suggesting entering EU was, while the exact opposite, clearest example we have of what to do now for Brexit (just in reverse)
This morning Supreme Court exploring the legal impact of the Commons motion. This afternoon Commons debate referred to legal impact of Court
Chambers compares UK system to Republic of Ireland, which has provisions for referendums in its constitution e.g 2015 same sex marriage vote
"The only point for this court is whether the referendum has any legal effect, and our position is it has no legal effect- consistent with..
...the wording of the [EU referendum] Act and the position of the law at that time"
Chambers draws court's attention to 2011 AV referendum- the ill fated attempt by Lib Dems in early coalition days to reform voting system
Government could still win this appeal. But if i were still a government lawyer I would be telling government to brace itself for losing.
Judge "A referendum is the people speaking to politicians- instructing them. That's one way of looking at it"
Judge Carnwarth asks if a motion in Parliament would be enough alone to trigger Article 50?
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments