Don’t dismiss will of the people

On first day of Supreme Court’s hearing, law chief says Brexit vote mustn’t be seen as ‘irrelevant’

THE Government’s top law officer yesterday accused the judiciary of dismissing the EU vote as ‘legally irrelevant’.

On day one of one of the most important appeal cases in UK legal history, Attorney General Jeremy Wright urged the Supreme Court to overturn this ‘wrong’ decision.

He said the intensity of the referendum campaign meant nobody can have been in any doubt that the verdict of the people alone would be binding.

And he argued it was only after the Remain camp had lost on June 23 that they began to claim the result would need to be ratified by Parliament.

In a packed courtroom, Mr Wright led the Government’s appeal against last month’s explosive High Court verdict on Brexit in a case brought by investment fund manager Gina Miller.

He said the lower court’s ruling that the Government does not have royal prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 – the formal process for leaving the EU – was an error.

If ministers lose the appeal, MPs will get the chance to delay Brexit and possibly force the Government to reveal its negotiating hand, making a good deal from Brussels less likely.

About 20 Tory rebels are already plotting with Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP to hold a vote this week aimed at forcing Prime Minister Theresa May to reveal some of her negotiating strategy.

Mr Wright told the Supreme Court:

‘Definitive answer on our future’

‘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.

‘The divisional court treated all of that as legally irrelevant and concluded 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 … use of the prerogative in these circumstances would not only be lawful but fully supported by our constitutional settlement … and in accordance with legitimate public expectations.’

He said Remainers – represented in large numbers in the court – were only now suggesting Parliament is required to vote on the referendum verdict.

‘At the heart of the referendum campaign … was the proposition that the referendum would provide the definitive answer to the question of our future inside or outside the EU, and the assumption that this was so was surely clear from the vigour with which the campaign was fought by both sides.’

He added: ‘Parliament passed the 2015 Referendum Act in the clear knowledge, and expectation, that the process by which the exit from the EU would take place was set out in Article 50 … It knew what would happen … and it took no step, made no provision, imposed no constraint, to prevent the Government giving notice to do so in the usual exercise of prerogative power.’

Criticising the Remain case, Mr Wright said: ‘ The position of the respondents and others in this case has always been that they have no interest in derailing Brexit but only in defending Parliament’s role …

‘I say Parliament can stand up for itself … Parliament has had full capacity and multiple opportunities to restrict the executive’s ordinary ability to begin the Article 50 process and it has not chosen to do so.

‘However much they may wish it had, those who support parliamentary sovereignty should … respect this exercise of parliamentary sovereignty too.’

Mr Wright’s submission was heard without interruption by the 11 judges. However, Government QC James Eadie was grilled repeatedly during more than three hours of evidence.

The justices hinted they may seek to specify the type of legislation the Government needs to introduce to trigger Article 50. The nightmare scenario for ministers, who are planning a bill of only 16 words, is that the Supreme Court demands detailed legislation which would take months.

It is unprecedented for all 11 Supreme Court judges to hear a case. A final verdict is expected in January. Mrs May has made it clear she intends to trigger Article 50 by the end of March, regardless of the verdict.

Comment – Page 16