Britain's supreme court will not "overturn the result of the EU referendum" when it rules on whether Theresa May needs parliamentary approval before starting formal Brexit talks, the court's president, David Neuberger, has said. Lord Neuberger was speaking at the end of four days of arguments in the Conservative government's appeal against a high court ruling that MPs must legislate before Ms May can trigger article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
“We are not being asked to overturn the result of the EU referendum. The ultimate question in this case concerns the process by which that result can lawfully be brought into effect. As we have heard, that question raises important constitutional issues and we’ll now take time to ensure the many arguments which have been presented to us orally and in writing are given full and proper consideration. We appreciate this case should be resolved as quickly as possible and we’ll do our best to achieve that,” Lord Neuberger said.
The supreme court also heard interventions from the Scottish and Welsh governments and two cases from Northern Ireland, one brought by a group of politicians and civil society groups, and the other by Raymond McCord, a campaigner on behalf of victims of violence. Richard Gordon QC, representing the Welsh government, told the court on Thursday that using the government’s prerogative powers to trigger article 50 without adequate consultation with the devolved administrations would undermine the basis of devolution in the UK, which he described as a dialogue between legislatures.
“If the prerogative powers can be used to short-circuit this dialogue, it’s to ignore the modern dynamic which we now have. A convention is a very important force in our society and it’s like the glue which can only hold an unwritten constitution together,” he said.
The government argues that the 2015 Referendum Act, which authorised June's EU referendum, also gave ministers the authority to start the process of leaving the EU, but Mr Gordon dismissed the legislation as irrelevant.
“The Referendum Act has nothing to do with the issues in this case. It’s a statute that has died. It has fulfilled its purpose. You cannot revive a corpse by tearing up the death certificate,” he said.
The government appealed to the supreme court after Gina Miller, a businesswoman, and Deir Dos Santos, a Spanish-born hairdresser, successfully argued in the high court that MPs must approve the triggering of article 50 because leaving the EU would remove rights conferred on British citizens when parliament voted to join the Common Market in 1972. Speaking after the end of the proceedings on Thursday, Ms Miller, who has received death threats, said she hoped the supreme court would side with her.
“Our case is that prerogative powers end where domestic law begins. Only parliament can grant rights and only parliament can frustrate, nullify or displace rights,” she said.
