The government has been forced to hand over legal documents detailing why it is refusing to let Parliament decide when and how Britain should leave the European Union.
High Court judge Mr Justice Cranston made the decision ahead of a hearing next month brought by "concerned citizens" who claim British prime minister Theresa May should not be able to enact Brexit without parliament's approval.
The challenge has been described as the most important constitutional law case in living memory.
Bindmans, a law firm representing some of those mounting the legal challenge, said government lawyers wanted to keep their legal arguments secret ahead of the court case but were forced to make them public following the ruling.
In released documents, lawyers for Brexit Secretary David Davis insist it is “crystal clear” that the government has the power to enact withdrawal from the EU.
The lawyers, led by James Eadie QC, warn against the courts intervening in matters properly for the government and said it was always clear that ministers would follow through on the results of the EU referendum.
The legal argument states: “Prior to the referendum, the government’s policy was unequivocal that the outcome of the referendum would be respected. Parliament passed the EU Referendum Act 2015 on this clear understanding.
“The current prime minister has confirmed that the government intends to give effect to the outcome of the referendum by bringing about the exit of the UK from the EU.
“That is a proper, constitutional and lawful step to take in the light of the referendum result.”
It states that voters cast their ballots on the “basis” that the result would be binding.
Crown imperative
And it says the decision to leave the EU should not be subject to the courts but is “a matter of the highest policy reserved to the Crown”.
The decision to trigger Article 50 and start formal negotiations on leaving the EU is “a matter of high, if not the highest, policy; a polycentric decision based upon a multitude of domestic and foreign policy and political concerns for which the expertise of ministers and their officials are particularly well suited and the courts ill-suited”, it states.
The lawyers dismiss claims the referendum was just “advisory” and said the “making of and withdrawal from treaties are matters exclusively for the Crown” acting through ministers.
And they say devolution does not have an impact on the government’s powers because power over foreign affairs is not devolved.
The legal challenge has been partly mounted by the People’s Challenge group, which crowdfunded to raise money to pay for the case.
John Halford, a partner at Bindmans which represents the group, said: “The court’s order allows a floodlight to be shone on the Government’s secret reasons for believing it alone can bring about Brexit without any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny.”
Robert Pigney, from the People’s Challenge group, said: “After much secrecy the government have been made to show their legal arguments by the High Court – a big step for the public to get closer to the truth of the government’s position and intentions.”
– (PA)