Judge warns Brexit could be ‘difficult’ to achieve
A SUPREME Court judge has suggested that Theresa May could be forced to unpick every piece of EU legislation before Brexit is triggered, in comments that one critic said could prompt a “constitutional crisis”.
In a speech that raised the prospect of Brexit being delayed by years, Justice Hale said a “simple act of Parliament” may not be enough to ensure the UK leaves the European Union.
Justice Hale is one of 11 Supreme Court judges who will sit next month to rule on whether the Prime Minister must seek the approval of parliament before triggering Article 50.
The Government has appealed against a ruling by High Court judges, who were accused by MPs of attempting to thwart the will of voters who backed Brexit by demanding Mrs May consults Parliament over her plans.
In her speech earlier this month Justice Hale said the case raises “difficult and delicate issues”.
She also stressed that the referen- dum on June 23 was not “legally binding on Parliament”.
Iain Duncan Smith said Justice Hale’s remarks raised serious questions about whether she can be impartial in the ruling on Article 50 appeal.
Dominic Raab MP warned that Justice Hale “risks the perception that she has prejudged a case she is about to hear”. Mr Duncan Smith, a former Cabinet minister, told The Daily Telegraph: “The President of the court should look at this and ask the question, because it seems to me that we may be in a position of her literally ruling herself out.”
He added: “If they were to do this, it’s a constitutional crisis.
“The individual concerned herself has always been opposed to Britain leaving the EU and has made her expressions quite clear about that so her opinions are fine, but generally I do not think they will be the majority opinion in the Supreme Court.”
In her speech, Justice Hale said: “The argument is that the European Communities Act 1972 grants rights to individuals and others which will automatically be lost if the Treaties cease to apply. Such a result, it is said, can only be achieved by an Act of Parliament.
“Another question is whether it would be enough for a simple Act of Parliament to authorise the Government to give notice, or whether it would have to be a comprehensive replacement for the 1972 Act.
“The contrary argument is that the conduct of foreign affairs, including the making and unmaking of treaties with foreign powers, lies within the prerogative powers of the Crown.
“What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our court, so I must say no more.”
A spokesman for the Supreme Court said that Justice Hale was “presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal in an impartial way”.