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.
Judge asks government's lawyer- what actually is the Great Repeal Bill? Can we have more information about it?
Judge says he heard Great Repeal Bill mentioned at Conservative Party conference but no details since- asks if a white paper was published?
Govt lawyer says that as Article 50 did't exist in 1972 there couldn't have been an intention to abrogate power to trigger it
3 hours into the Supreme Court Brexit case:- Men have spoken for 2 hours, 59 minutes, 14 seconds- Women have spoken for 46 seconds
EadieQC under pressure. Lords Wilson, Mance & Sumption challenge him over assertion that ministers have power to sweep away EU membership
Lord Mance says there's a "huge difference" between changes to the rules of the club and deciding not to be a member of the club.
My reading: SC (taken together) instinctively thinks the Government can't do what it wants to. But Eadie is not helping them figure out why.
(That, of course, is a great compliment to Eadie. His style is less dynamic than Pannick's but he's every bit as brilliant an advocate).
Judges challenging govt lawyer- saying his arguments may apply to amending EU relationship, but not withdrawing from it altogether
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments