Brexit legal challenge live: MPs don't actually want to vote on Article 50, government lawyer claims
The appeal against MPs voting on Article 50 is now in its second day
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.Here are the latest updates:
- Theresa May performs U-turn and now will reveal Brexit plans before Article 50 vote
- Government rejected an opportunity to make EU referendum legally binding, lawyer claims
- MPs don't actually want to vote on Article 50, government lawyer claims
- Judges accuse the Government's lawyer of contradicting himself "twice in five minutes"
- Amber Rudd reveals EU citizens living in Britain will need identity cards after Brexit
- EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier says Brexit deal could be reached by October 2018
Please wait a moment for the live blog to load:
The Supreme Court is today hearing the second day of arguments in the Brexit legal challenge.
11 of the most senior judges in the UK are hearing the government's appeal to a High Court ruling that Theresa May must let MPs vote on whether to trigger Article 50.
Yesterday, the court heard from government lawyer James Eadie QC and Attorney General Jeremy Wright. The lawyers argued the Prime Minister has authority to trigger the mechanism and begin EU withdrawal processes.
However, the judges questioned why more details haven't been provided about what will be in the Great Repeal Bill, the legislation through which the government intends to legislate for life outside the EU.
The judges also said serious threats have been made to claimants in the case and warned they must be stopped.
The case is expected to last four days in total, ending on Thursday.
(Section 20 provides as follows) http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy6x5cEW8AAR0eJ.jpg
James Eadie tells the court that CRAG (Constitutional Reform and Governance Act) leaves the issue of withdrawal for the government to decide
Judges seem quite sceptical about this and are pushing him to explain in clear detail
Lords questioning Eadie on the origins of CRAG and whether it really is comparable for Brexit. He promises he'll give a full reply tomorrow
Lord Sumption keeps pushing this point with the government's lawyer- does the crown ever have power to use its prerogative to affect laws?
This is a crucial point as, of course, this case doesn't just impact on Brexit but looks at the fundamental principle of who holds power...
Another key q from judges- if entering EU was a joint enterprise between executive and legislative, shouldn't leaving it be too?
Government's lawyer seems to be stumbling on this point, hasn't offered a compelling response twitter.com/SiobhanFenton/…
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments