Brexit legal challenge live: British citizens will lose rights through EU withdrawal, Supreme Court told
A third day of arguments has been made in the Brexit Supreme Court appeal
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.Gina Miller's legal representative has outlining the case against the Government in day three of the four day Supreme Court appeal on Brexit.
Lord Pannick QC represented Ms Miller and told the court Theresa May does not have sufficient authority to trigger Article 50 and instead the case must go to MPs.
Representing fello claimant Deir Dos Santos, a hairdresser born in Brazil, QC Dominic Chambers told the court only parliament has the power to take away British citizens' rights, which EU withdrawal would inevitably do.
The court was also told both Scotland and Northern Ireland must approve triggering Article 50 before the Government does so. A majority of people in Scotland (62 per cent) and Northern Ireland (56 per cent) voted to Remain.
The day before, while the court was sitting, Ms May announced during a visit to the Gulf that she will reveal her Brexit plans before triggering Article 50, in what appears to be a signifcant U-turn on her previous position.
Catch up on everything that happened in court today:
The Prime Minister has previously said she plans to trigger Article 50 by the end of this Spring.
If MPs are entitled to vote on Article 50, it could delay Brexit considerably or ensure it is a 'soft Brexit' rather than a 'hard Brexit' as politicians could insist protectionist clauses are inserted before EU withdrawal.
The Supreme Court case is expected to last four days.
A judgment is anticipated for early in the new year.
So the question is whether Good Friday Agreement trumps EU referendum in essence, as it outlines relationships with Republic (an EU country)
and was not only a referendum, but one which was lodged with the UN as a treaty, potentially elevating it above the EU referendum
Larkin is representing the central Government's position and arguing MPs shouldn't get a vote on Article 50
Larkin says consent elements of Good Friday Agreement relate to Northern Ireland's place in the UK, not the EU
Says Good Friday Agreement "is a political agreement, not an international agreement"
I'd respectfully suggest that is demonstrably not the case as the Republic of Ireland also held a referendum on it and it was lodged with UN
Unless Larkin is trying to diminish distinction between Northern Ireland & Republic of Ireland to win the case, which would be controversial
"No provision in the Northern Ireland Act... limits the powers of the [central British] government in international affairs" Larkin says
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments