Brexit legal challenge: 'A six year old child could see flaws in Government's Brexit plans', Supreme Court told
Fourth and final day of the Supreme Court Brexit legal challenge has been heard and the judges have now retired to consider their decision
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.The Government's Brexit plans are so flawed "even a six year old child could see it", the Supreme Court has been told.
The claims were made by Richard Gordon QC, Law Officer of the Welsh Government, who told the court Welsh politicians should be allowed to approve plans to trigger Article 50.
The Supreme Court was hearing final arguments in the Brexit legal challenge as the case entered its fourth and final day.
Opponents to the Government's Brexit plans outlined their case; with representatives of Wales, Scotland, ex-pats and children's rights putting their case to judges.
The Government's lawyers then had their final opportunity to refute the claims and make their case that Theresa May has sufficient authority to trigger Article 50 without a vote from MPs. The argued the 2015 Referendum Act which outlined the terms of the EU referendum did not specify who could trigger Article 50.
Latest updates:
- Theresa May admits EU leaders will try to 'punish' UK in Brexit negotiations
- Welsh Government's lawyer tells court Brexit 'has split the UK into four parts' and is 'one of the most divisive political events in decades'
- Labour hit by backbench revolt over Article 50 Tory 'trap' fears
- EU judges to decide on UK cases for years after Brexit
- Scotland and Northern Ireland must approve Article 50, Supreme Court told
Please wait a moment for the live blog to load:
All 11 of the Supreme Court justices, who are the most senior judges in the UK, heard the case and have now retired to reach their decision.
A judgment is expected to be announced early in the new year.
The Supreme Court has just published a draft transcript of everything said in court this morning, here supremecourt.uk/docs/draft-tra…
"It is no answer... to say parliament will later be involved... The fact of the matter is [Brexit] will cause nullification of rights"
"The 2015 Act said nothing whatsoever about the consequences of the referendum" Lord Pannick
"If parliament meant the 2015 Act to have legal effect, it could and it would have said so" Lord Pannick
"The government resisted an amendment to give legal force to the referendum" Lord Pannick
Judges are dipping in and out, challenging Pannick's comments frequently
"The referendum is plainly an event of political significance, but the political significance is not a matter for the courts because...
...it is irrelevant to the legal issue of whether ministers enjoy a prerogative power to set aside the 1972 Act"
I'm at Supreme Court where lawyers from the Brexit legal challenge have just begun arguments against govt. Updates: independent.co.uk/news/uk/politi…
Hansard extract presented to Supreme Court by Pannick QC. David Lidington told Commons EU Referendum Bill did not d… twitter.com/i/web/status/8…
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments