JUDGES WRONG ABOUT EU EXIT
Attorney General hits out in court battle over referendum vote
BRITAIN’S most senior lawyer told the highest court in the land yesterday that judges who tried to derail Brexit were “wrong”.
Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC slammed a High Court ruling for calling the referendum result “legally irrelevant” to whether MPs should vote on the EU exit.
Mr Wright said the Government had every right to forge ahead with the Leave plan backed by the country’s voters – without involving Parliament.
He said ancient “prerogative powers” being used to sever ties with Brussels had been called on many times without Parliament stepping in.
He told the Supreme Court that Prime Minister Theresa May was entitled to trigger Article 50 without further permission from MPs.
As the historic case got under way, placardwaving protesters for and against Britain’s EU exit swapped insults outside court. Gina Miller, a
51-year-old investment banker who is challenging Brexit, arrived surrounded by supporters after claiming she had received death threats.
Opening the Government’s case that the referendum result does not need to be ratified by MPs, Mr Wright said the whole point of the vote was to decide whether to stay or go.
He argued that the Referendum Act 2015 – part of David Cameron’s manifesto at the last General Election – set out a pathway to Brexit.
Mr Wright said: “It has one clear purpose, to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.
“A majority of those who voted in the referendum wanted the UK to leave the European Union, and Article 50 provides the specific legal mechanism to begin doing so.”
But, he said, when the move was challenged at the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court by Ms Miller, judges ignored the Act.
They did not take into account that Mrs May could use the “prerogative powers” which evolved out of the ancient “royal prerogative” held by the Monarch.
The Attorney General went on: “The divisional court treated all of that as legally irrelevant.
“It concluded that the process could not lawfully be begun by the Government using prerogative powers but only by further legislation in Parliament.
“We say, respectfully, that the divisional court was wrong about that. Use of the prerogative in these circumstances would not only be lawful – it would be fully supported by our constitutional settlement, in line with Parliamentary sovereignty and in accordance with legitimate public expectations.”
Appearing officially as counsel for Brexit Secretary David Davis, Mr Wright told the 11 Supreme Court Judges hearing the case that the plans were not pursued lightly.
“The triggering of Article 50, we say, will not be an exercise of prerogative power on a whim, or out of a clear blue sky.
“It is the logical conclusion of a process in which Parliament has been fully and consciously involved.”
He said Parliament had “put a clear and decisive question about our nation’s future to the British people” and expected the Government to “act on the answer they gave”.
But Mr Wright added: “None of this means, of course, that Parliament will not be closely involved in the process of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU over the coming months and years.”
The Government is seeking to overturn a High Court ruling last month that Ms Miller and others were right to claim that the Government needs Parliamentary backing for Brexit.
Mr Wright said the respondents had claimed “they have no interest in derailing Brexit but only in defending Parliament’s role in the process”.
But he went on: “If this is all about standing up for Parliament, I say Parliament can stand up for itself.