It's the fourth and final day of the Brexit appeal case. Judges will decide if MPs should get a say on when the UK triggers article 50. Watch live from the Supreme Court.
SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube channel for more videos:
Follow us on Twitter: and
Like us on Facebook:
For more content go to and download our apps:
iPad
iPhone
Android
Style experts spot a ‘no-no’ inside the Oval Office
Amanpour: Dissent about war in Ukraine in Putin’s circle is ‘silenced’
Cannes Film Festival 2023: The stand-out films and stars this year
Anti-Putin Russians based in Ukraine allegedly stage incursion into Russia
Remember remember the fifth of Novemberπο»Ώ
Meaning what?
google will explain
Trite.
Since the mps have already voted and won in favour still of triggering
article 50 before 1st april.. what is the point of this court hearing now?ο»Ώ
The Supreme Court and indeed all the parties involved have already
acknowledged that if the use of the Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50
is held to be unlawful (ultra vires) by the Court, the only remedy is the
introduction of a Bill in Parliament – probably a single clause Bill,
explicitly authorising the Government to so trigger. The Resolution in the
House of Commons yesterday involved only the House of Commons which, whilst
possibly helpful to the Government’s case here, is by no means conclusive
in law because the House of Commons acting alone is not “the Queen in
Parliament” ie does not constitute “Parliament”, which comprises the
Commons, the Lords and the Sovereign. See the President’s remarks at 5:47:00
Right.. so who in parliament actually makes the bills then? I thought that
any motion put forward in parliament was always voted on in the house of
lords as the mp’s in parliament. So if government and the house of lords
isnt parliament who is.. because it seems as though the court is arguing
that even parliament shouldnt be allowed to put a bill for the article 50
anyway ..its as if theyre just trying to stop article 50 from ever being
started at all which means wed never leave the EU which in turn means the
will of the people will have been overturned by a court hearing.. This if I
am correct will cause an unbelievable situation in where its quite likely
the 17.4 million people will end up rioting everywhere.
Can the Supreme Court’s decision be appealed to theEuropean Court of Human
Rights, in a study of invidiousness?ο»Ώ
“Can the Supreme Court’s decision be appealed to the European Court of
Human Rights.”
Um, no. The ECHR is not a EU body (signatories to the Convention include,
among other countries, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldava, Russia, and
Ukraine).
Further, this case is about domestic UK – not even EU – law. The only
possible EU aspect is the proper interpretation of Art. 50 – in particular,
if an Art. 50 notification once given can be withdrawn. Both sides in the
UK court case have agreed that it cannot.
Mike Summers-Smith I think the OP meant the ECJ. An appeal there is
possible, though highly unlikely as I understand it.
If any citizen affected can prove the decision, either way, transgresses
his Human Rights as particularized in the HR Law, he would be within his
rights, and ethically obliged to file an appeal with Strasbourg. This is
easily and cheaply done, involving form-filling, and rafts of photocopying,
then registered post. When the case comes up, one travels over and argues
the merits. I thought England was chafing under the bit of the Human Rights
legislation, and preferred their own. Empires die hard.
Whats make us angry is that no politician told us, it would have to go to
the Supreme Court. We the people have made the choice, it should not have
gone to these bureaucrats after woods. Lets hope May will pull her finger
out further, before theirs a public backlash.ο»Ώ
What did he “tell us”?
i believe that T May never intends to take us out of the EU, And if they
let this private bill win, then there will be less blame on the government
when every one clearly sees whats happening
i want to know this to
That if the gov didn’t put a clause with the ref that all 4 parts of the UK
must vote leave or it will end up in the courts.He was right.
+ukok kev
he said That!, well then he’s a plonker, becausethe ref was was FOR all of
the UK not just England, the UK (covering us and the other 3 parts)
why else would the gov bother to invite the other 3 which makes up the UK
in the 1st place, it makes not a jot of sense, and this was quoted on the
first day of the supreme court hearing, i didnt hear that, and i watched it
The Scots Parliament of 1706 / 1707 passed one of the Acts of Union.
Today’s Scots Parliament could repeal it.
No need for #indyref2
Protect Scotlands place in the EU & give England her independence she needs
to fulfil her citizen’s desire to BRexit …
As Miss Mansfield warned the judges in code, ” Just because we have never
caught the Loch Ness Monster, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist ”
She is a credit to her great father.ο»Ώ
At 5:45:12 the President of the Court, Lord Neuberger, looks distinctly
irritated (for the first time in these proceedings). I may be wrong, but I
imagine it’s because he saw Treasury Counsel praying in aid the House of
Commons Motions as an egregious attempt to bully the Court. Clearly, given
his subsequent interventions, the President was having none of it. Good for
him!ο»Ώ
I think there’s a chance now that the 11 judges may opt to “bottle it”
because they’ve been thrust right into the middle of a political landmine.
They have to tread very carefully because it’s not just Gina Miller versus
the Government any more, the devolved administrations have also decided to
put their oar in which makes the whole thing much more messy and
potentially dangerous. So in my view, they will probably go for the option
that causes the least damage and is the lesser of two evils. I think they
will find in favour of the government.
All that they have to do is agree (or at least pretend to agree) that the
empty conduit argument with regard to the 1972 act is sufficient to prove
that the government has the authority to trigger Article 50 without
parliament approval because this alone does not take away the rights of the
people (i.e. negate, remove, repeal or undo the 1972 act) but merely leads
to its effect being lessened i.e. emptying the conduit or pipe. Although
it’s a weak argument, Mr Eadie QC reinforced it with the idea that these
particular rights weren’t in the same category as those given for example
by the Dangerous Dogs Act, not least of all because no longer being a
member of the EU means those rights are no longer guaranteed anyway.
The government’s position is weak I have to admit but given that it is
highly unlikely that the government will appeal to any higher court, the
Supreme Court will find a way to accept the argument simply because it is
the decision that causes the least grief and doesn’t plunge the country
into a constitutional crisis especially with Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland also now involved. That’s my view on it.ο»Ώ
This is the next biggest fit up after the Clinton saga. While the puppet
masters tried every dirty trick (and failed so far) to get Clinton elected
as POTUS, here, the scandal is the efforts to scupper Brexit with scare
tactics and knowingly ignoring procedure knowing it will buy them time to
push more lies about just how bad Brexit will be. This is very amateurish
to say the least.ο»Ώ