Advertisement

Brexit judges at Supreme Court warned not to cross 'over the line' against Government

The Supreme Court has been warned it will step "over the line" and have a "new serious control" over Whitehall if it backs a High Court judgement against the Government.

James Eadie QC warned of the long-term implications if the Government lost the landmark case and accused the rival camp of walking a "tight rope" and creating a "serious constitutional trap".

He said the Supreme Court would be "imposing, in effect, a new control of the most serious kind in a highly controversial area" if it were to rule against the Government.

The High Court last month ruled that Prime Minister Theresa May must have Parliament's approval to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - the formal process to begin EU divorce proceedings.

Businesswoman Gina Miller and another claimant, hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, went to court to argue that leaving the EU would remove some of their rights, including free movement within the bloc, and that should not be done without MPs' say.

:: PM facing Tory Brexit rebellion

The 11 Supreme Court justices are considering the contentious question of whether the Government or Parliament has the power to formally start the divorce proceedings from the EU.

On the second day of the the Government's historic appeal, Mr Eadie also told the court the idea that Parliament would not be involved in the Article 50 triggering of Brexit "cannot possibly be sustained".

He said opposition motions were due to be debated in the House of Commons this week, and MPs would also be involved in subsequent questions of legislation.

:: EU sets 18-month Brexit deadline

Wrapping up the case for the Government, he argued the use of prerogative powers - meaning MPs do not have to vote on the matter - did not undermine Parliament and that the 23 June referendum on EU membership had been held in the universal expectation that the Government would implement its result.

He told the judges: "Our case fully respects, and offers no affront, to Parliamentary sovereignty."

The QC added: "Parliament is already deeply involved, and unsurprisingly involved, in the whole process of withdrawal."

However, he also revealed the Government would submit a short bill - "a one-line act" - to Parliament to seek MPs' approval to begin the process of Britain's exit from the EU were it to lose the case.

"It may be that it would lead to all kinds of parliamentary complications and possible additions and amendments but that is the solution," he added.

Lord David Pannick QC, representing Ms Miller, then began his argument - trying to convince the judges that her dramatic High Court victory against the Government was right.

He said her case "is that the prerogative power to enter into and terminate treaties does not allow ministers to nullify statutory rights and duties".

"In any event," he added, "Parliament did not intend that the rights and duties that it had created by the 1972 Act (the European Communities Act) could be nullified by ministers acting in the international plane."

One of the main elements of the case is whether the government has the power to trigger Brexit using the royal prerogative, or whether Parliament needs to be involved.

"There is no relevant prerogative power in this context," Lord Pannick said.

Submissions are also being made by other parties, including Northern Ireland and the Welsh and Scottish Governments.

:: There will be a special programme on Sky News, including highlights from the second day of this historic challenge, at 9.30pm.