Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

As it happenedended

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

Siobhan Fenton
London
Thursday 08 December 2016 10:06 GMT
Comments
Lead claimant in the Article 50 case, Gina Miller arrives at the Supreme Court in London
Lead claimant in the Article 50 case, Gina Miller arrives at the Supreme Court in London (EPA)

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:

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.

(This is the bit of his written case that Eadie is developing.) http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy6WoRgWIAAnCtI.jpg

JolyonMaugham5 December 2016 12:16

Crucial q asked of the government's lawyers now- Was 1972 European Communities Act neutral about whether UK member of European treaties?

Siobhan Fenton5 December 2016 12:23

The 1972 European Communities Act was the legislation which brought the UK into the EU

Siobhan Fenton5 December 2016 12:26

Eadie now takes us to De Keyser's Hotel and this section. http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy6Y71gW8AAYDFO.jpg

JolyonMaugham5 December 2016 12:30

In football terms:Can government exercise prerogative - still in own half.Can prerogative be used to affect rights - in opposing half.

davidallengreen5 December 2016 12:31

Eadie shows the SC these passages from De Keyser. http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cy6aPXIWIAAgR98.jpg

JolyonMaugham5 December 2016 12:32

Eadie trying to make this be all about de Keyser's - wholly irrelevant IMO. This case is *not* about whether prerogative removed by Parlt

Gavin Phillipson5 December 2016 12:36

It's about whether the prerogative can be used so as to frustrate the purpose of a statute or remove rights granted by or under statute.

Gavin Phillipson5 December 2016 12:36

De Keyser case referred to in court is a case from 1920 when a hotel owner sought compensation for the army occupying his hotel during WWI

Siobhan Fenton5 December 2016 12:39

Governmentt officials took possession of the hotel under 'Defence of the realm' laws, the hotel owner sought compensation for financial loss

Siobhan Fenton5 December 2016 12:40

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in