Public ‘w ill f ind legal wrangling odd'

THE Supreme Court’s top judge yesterday said the public would find it ‘odd’ that a simple parliamentary vote in favour of Brexit was not enough to begin the process of leaving the EU.

In an apparent boost to the Government, Lord Neuberger said it could be argued that the authority to leave had been ‘ceded to the people’ by the referendum.

On the third day of Theresa May’s Supreme Court appeal, Britain’s 11 most senior judges debated the significance of Parliament passing a motion in support of triggering Article 50 – the formal EU exit process.

Last night, MPs voted 461 to 9 in favour of beginning the two-year process by the end of March. Before the result was known, Lord Neuberger said: ‘To the average person on the street it sounds a bit odd if one says to the Government, “You have to go back to Parliament and have an Act of Parliament passed to show what Parliament’s will is”, when you have already been to Parliament and had a motion before both houses which serves the notice. It does seem a bit odd, doesn’t it?’

The suggestion was dismissed by lawyers for the two lead claimants, investment manager Gina Miller and hairdresser Deir Dos Santos. They say Parliament must pass a legislative act on Brexit.

The pair won the explosive High Court case against the Government last month that set up what is considered the most important legal appeal in recent history.

A motion is a simple vote in the Commons, declaring that it is in favour of something. It is a oneoff and usually symbolic

This is different to an Act of Parliament, which goes through full scrutiny and a series of votes before becoming law.

Dominic Chambers QC, for Mr Dos Santos, said of the idea that a second vote would be required by Parliament, in addition to last night’s motion: ‘It might seem

strange to the man on the Clapham omnibus but not for lawyers.’ Lord Pannick QC, for Mrs Miller, said nothing would be altered ‘by a motion’.

He added: ‘Only an Act of Parliament could lawfully confer power on the appellant to notify. Why is that? Well, because notification will nullify statutory rights and nullify a statutory scheme. The law of the land is not altered by a motion in Parliament. This is a basic constitutional principle.

‘As the court knows a motion may be approved in the House of Commons today. Our submission is that a motion in Parliament can’t affect the legal issues in this case.’

He also said Brexit would ‘frustrate or render insensible’ a large number of UK laws, and this is a reason why Parliament must be involved. Scotland’s top legal officer said the Scottish Parliament’s consent was also needed before the UK triggers Brexit.

Lord Advocate James Wolffe said he was not arguing Holyrood had a veto, but that its consent was required because of the ‘significant changes’ Brexit would make to its powers.

The case will finish today. A final verdict is due in mid-January.

Whitehall insiders say that, if the Government loses, a one-line Bill will be published immediately asking Parliament to give authority for the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50.

Mrs Miller came into court flanked by bodyguards. Yesterday a man from Bath, 55, was arrested on suspicion of making racist threats against her.