Supreme Court ruling

[Peanuts]

Supreme Court in session today...

and guess what, head line of the Daily Mail today.. What happened to the gay judges...:lol:

Did Nicole just upstage Gigi on her own night? Scherzinger outshines the supermodels at the British Fashion Awards 2016

You know when it is going wrong for Brexit...

[Peanuts]

Not of to a good start>

Jstce to Eadie: "You seem to have given 2 diametrically opposed answers in past 5 mins. We'll have to choose which answer we accept"


The Great Repeal Bill

There was a back and forth about the Great Repeal Bill. The justices were presented with some details about the bill in their bundles this morning - but Mr Eadie told them it wasn’t going to make up much of his argument today.

The Justices pointed out that in deciding on a matter of law one has to consider the law as it is, and not based on bills which may or may not be passed by parliament in the future.

But Eadie first agrees with Lord Sumption that there the repeal bill has “no legal significance”...but then a few minutes later argues the Government does not consider it “legally irrelevant”, because it will allow parliament to have input on the Brexit process.

Sumption replies with a typically dry: “I think you’ve given two diametrically opposed answers to the same question in the last five minutes.”

- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -

Lords Reed and Clarke are questioning whether the 2015 referendum had legal or only political significance.

This is the crux of the argument going on in this court case. - if it has legal significance, then presumably the Government can act through prerogative powers.

If it only has political weight, it would need to go back to parliament at least for a one line bill.

- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -

The Supreme Court is very interested in a 1920 case between the Attorney General and the De Keyser’s Royal Hotel.

In the First World War the Government used the Royal Prerogative to requisition this 300-bed hotel on the Victoria Embankment to house hundreds of troops.

Crucially, they refused to pay any compensation. The hotel then took the Government to court demanding it cough up.

The court ruled that the Government had abused its prerogative powers.

“If the whole ground of something which could be done by the prerogative is covered by the statute it is the statute that rules,” it judged.

The question the judges have to decide is if this sets a legal precedent.

[Peanuts]

The case in a nutshell!

Lord Pannick QC addressed the court's 11 justices on Tuesday afternoon for the first time since the appeal got underway on Monday morning.

The lawyer reiterated the point that led the High Court to rule against the government last month – invoking Article 50 without parliamentary approval will nullify rights which parliament passed and only parliament can repeal.

One of the arguments put forward by government's legal team on Monday was that using royal prerogative powers in order to trigger Article 50 would not usurp parliamentary democracy, because MPs will have a say on Brexit once it is triggered. Pannick dismissed this argument.

He said: "It is no answer... to say parliament will later be involved... The fact of the matter is will cause a nullification of rights that only an act of parliament can authorise."

In the High Court, Pannick argued that triggering Article 50 would result in statutory rights enjoyed by Brits as EU citizens — like the right to vote to in EU elections and refer a legal dispute to the European Court of Justice — being destroyed in an instant. These are rights that MPs passed into domestic law in the European Communities Act (1972).

He repeated this line of argument on Tuesday, saying: "However flexible our constitution, it cannot be bent so that ministers through the exercise of the prerogative can take away that which Parliament has created."

[B]Pannick went onto to remind the court that June's EU referendum was merely advisory, and added that the Tory government had turned down opportunities to give the result of the national vote a legal trigger.

"The government resisted an amendment to give legal force to the referendum," the lawyer said. "If parliament meant the 2015 Act to have legal effect, it could and it would have said so."

This for me is the winner!

This is why Mayhem is already reacting today:

Theresa May will present a Brexit plan to MPs before starting official talks on quitting the EU in a U-turn aimed at averting a Tory rebellion today. The Prime Minister had insisted she would not provide a 'running commentary' on her Brexit tactics and as late as this afternoon No 10 ruled out publishing plans.