Summary
Thank you for following the blog, I hope it made some sense at least part of the time. Sorry for the occasional (hopefully only occasional!) typos and incomplete sentences. In my defence, following four days of constitutional law arguments when you are not a constitutional lawyer is pretty tricky (next, I’m going to try my hand at brain surgery).
Here is a summary of the final day:
- The royal prerogative gives the government to repeal international treaties that impact in domestic law but not domestic legislation, the government’s counsel said, closing its case. James Eadie QC said the respondents’ submissions were wrong to suggest that the government sought to repeal UK parliamentary legislation by way of the prerogative.
- The advocate general for Scotland risked the wrath of the devolved nations by describing the convention that the devolved parliament should usually have a say on devolved matters as “a self denying ordinance by a sovereign parliament [Westminster]”. Lord Keen QC said the Sewel convention is not justiciable, i.e. capable of being decided by a court, and so could not create rights.
- The European Communities Act 1972 was an “implementing statue” that made no provision “seeking to control” the government’s actions internationally, said Eadie.
- The parliamentary motion endorsing the timetable for triggering article 50 was “legally significant” even if not legally binding, the government’s counsel argued. But it seemed unlikely that it would influence the outcome of the case after Lord Sumption laughed it off as rendering the court case unnecessary. One barrister described the mere mention of the motion by Eadie as “idiotic”.
- Triggering Brexit without consulting the devolved assemblies in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast would dissolve “the glue” which holds together the UK’s unwritten constitution, the supreme court was told.
-
Helen Mountfield QC, counsel for the crowd funded People’s Challenge, argued that EU laws that have been in force since joining in 1972 are domestic laws - only Parliament can remove them, not ministers.
- Manjit Gill QC, on behalf of certain EEA nationals, argued his clients face the risk of being deported when Brexit takes effect, adding that children are entitled to know their future.
- “We are not being asked to overturn the referendum,” the president of the supreme court said as he adjourned proceedings for the 11 justices to consider their judgement. Lord Neuberger said it would take time but they would do their best to do it as quickly as possible. It is expected next month.
Some expert commentators felt Eadie struggled to do himself justice this afternoon.
Pure genius for Pannick to have invoked the Dangerous Dogs Act as the comparator.
— Law and policy (@Law_and_policy) December 8, 2016
Government losing points with every mention of it.
This is getting really interesting now. Eadie looks on the back foot & having to defend & re-make his core submissions before SC q's. https://t.co/k1jHsBmlZU
— Schona Jolly (@WomaninHavana) December 8, 2016
Having that Commons motion dropped into Reply is like finishing a Shakespeare sonnet on an unstressed syllable. Last thing you hear irks.
— Greg Callus (@Greg_Callus) December 8, 2016
Eadie sits down and Pannick thanks all of the court’s staff
Before adjourning, the president of the supreme court, Lord Neuberger, does the same before stressing:
We are not being asked to overturn the referendum.
It is about the legal process for implementing the result, he says. The judgement will take time but they will do their best to make it available as soon as possible (it’s expected next month).
So that is it. I will post a summary of the final day’s proceedings shortly.
Finally, they are discussing the motion passed last night endorsing the prime minister’s self-imposed March deadline for triggering article 50. Eadie says:
It is highly significant, no doubt it isn’t legally binding but it is legally significant ...Parliament has indicated its view.
This gives a lie to the argument that the government is seeking to trample over parliamentary sovereignty, says Eadie.
If you declare the use of the prerogative unlawful ...you are in effect requiring primary legislation. Primary legislation would thereafter be the only way to go.
Lord Sumption says:
If this is enough for your purposes, you wouldn’t be proceeding with this appeal.
Cue laughter. Eadie suggests the case could have concluded on day three (yesterday, when the motion passed) had the justices indicated they were happy that the motion was sufficient but he suggests Lord Pannick, representing lead claimant Gina Miller, may have had something to say about that.
Eadie continues:
The 2015 [European Union Referendum] act speaks volumes about the intention of parliament ...It left the royal prerogative power to give notice in the hands of the government.
He challenges Lord Pannick’s assertion that the act was of purely “political significance”.
Odd, perhaps, that no one has mentioned that parliament has begun to assert a right that MPs should vote before foreign military action. Surely a further example of executive power being curtailed by parliament?
Government has argued throughout case that the prime minister is free to act on the “international plane”.
The government withdrawal from the European Free Trade Association (Efta) is an example of the government giving notice to withdrawal from a treaty that would have a consequence on domestic rights, without getting consent from parliament, argues Eadie.
The counsel for the government says parliament made provision for the kind of things that require primary legislative authority in the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 and the European Union Act 2011 so it is “inexplicable” why they would not have said it was required to trigger article 50.
Parliament has addressed “what it wanted to control and how it wanted to control it”, Eadie contends.
Updated
Eadie says the European Communities Act 1972 was an “implementing statue” that made no provision “seeking to control [the government on the international plain]”.
It creates rights but they are “contingent and inherently limited”, contingent on the premise which is continued membership of the European Union, Eadie continues.
The character of the Act is not changed by the fact that it introduces a new source of law, he asserts.
It was not a constitutional necessity for the government to legislate for the ECA for ratification, Eadie continues. It was just government practice, he asserts.
James Eadie coming under constant questioning. But nobody has asked him about the Commons vote yesterday and he hasn’t mentioned it himself.
— Joshua Rozenberg (@JoshuaRozenberg) December 8, 2016
Eadie says a minister could alter EU law but not the law of the land.
He’s back on dogs, as Lord Neuberger asks him if his contention is that if there was an EU dangerous dogs directive the minister could repeal that but not the Dangerous Dogs Act because that is domestic law. In other words, suggests Neuberger, you (Eadie) are saying that ministers could trigger article 50 to begin the process of taking the UK out of the EU but could not repeal the European Communities Act 1972 (a UK parliament act).
Eadie broadly agrees.
The opaque language used to capture the complex interplay of executive powers and parliamentary legislation might sound like it was designed to stifle the comprehension of the passenger on the proverbial Clapham omnibus.
Not all of the legalese was Latin, although Lord Neuberger did resort to “de bene esse”. ‘Ambulatory’, suggesting something easily removed, came up frequently.
There was much talk of painful-sounding ‘clamps’ on the royal prerogative and of turning the European Communities Act 1972 into a ‘conduit’ - presumably in order to flush it’s contents into the North Sea.
Since the supreme court always provides lucid summaries of its judgments, the outcome, at least, should be perfectly clear.
Lord Sumption asks Eadie if he accepts that if parliament hasn’t decided whether there is a prerogative power the government loses.
Eadie says if the power hasn’t been taken away, it remains with ministers.
Extraordinary that government QC is now getting bogged down in explaining that government not treating EC Act worse than Dangerous Dogs Act.
— Law and policy (@Law_and_policy) December 8, 2016
The advocate general is seated and back on his feet is the “Treasury Devil”, James Eadie QC, for the government. He begins:
We do not assert and our case does not entail a power to repeal, amend... the Dangerous Dogs Act.
Lord Pannick QC previously said that the government was treating the European Communities Act, which he described as of constitutional importance, as of lesser importance than the Dangerous Dogs Act.
If Eadie was expecting laughs for that retort, he did not get any. He continues, clarifying the point he is trying to make:
We do not assert a power to affect common law rights. We do assert a right to notify article 50 notwithstanding that that will make changes to domestic law ...We are not making the submission that is attributed to us.
Keen is talking about the Sewel convention (in case you still need reminding, this is the convention that dictates that Westminster would not “normally” legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the devolved parliament). He says the convention is not justiciable, i.e. capable of being decided by a court.
The language of the Sewel convention is the language of political judgement ...this is a matter for parliament and parliament’s judgement. It is a self-denying ordinance by a sovereign parliament expressed in qualified terms.
Keen says if there is no remedy - because it is not justiciable - there can be no right.
Hmmm. Interesting that government appears most anxious to address the devolution points in this Reply.
— Law and policy (@Law_and_policy) December 8, 2016
This was not on the schedule but its Lord Keen, advocate general for Scotland before James Eadie QC returns for the government.
Keen is responding to the submissions made by the devolved powers, in particular by James Wolffe QC, Scotland’s lord advocate.
If I’m short, it’s not because I’m dismissive of the arguments made.
Keen says the Scotland Act expressly provides that in making changes under section 2 (2) of the European Communities Act 1972 that function is available to UK ministers and is exercisable regarding Scotland. In other words he says it permits the UK government to make changes regarding to the effect of EU law in domestic law, even if it touches on devolved matters.
It is “utterly unrealistic” to say there has always been a prerogative to get rid of domestic laws, says Green.
Only parliament may authorise notification under article 50.
Green concludes.
Transcript from Thurs AM of Article 50 #Brexit case now online https://t.co/QFatPljpJO
— UK Supreme Court (@UKSupremeCourt) December 8, 2016
Because of the nature of the 1972 act there was no prerogative power to implement a leave result in the referendum, Green says.
The summary of the expats case says: “By enacting the 1972 Act, parliament surrendered aspects of its legislative sovereignty and conferred upon (what are now) the EU institutions. Such conferral cannot be undone by purported exercise of prerogative powers on the international plane and without parliamentary consent.”
The expat’s case is summarised in this pdf.
Patrick Green for the expats says parliament gave its consent to the making of law which would have direct effect within the UK, to European institutions. It gave statutory authorisation to other countries to out vote the UK and legislate.
Conferring legislative competence on the EU institutions was prior to the 1972 act, only parliament’s to confer and exercise, he says. Therefore it is only parliament’s to take back.
Because the 1972 lists treaties, parliament has control on whether additional treaties could be included. This makes the appellants case irreconcilable with the 1972 act, Green says.
“Final shake of the kaleidoscope,” Neuberger says with a chuckle before the last session gets underway.
Paraphrasing from the OJ Simpson trial, David Allen Green quips:
"If the prerogative fits, you must acquit."
— Law and policy (@Law_and_policy) December 8, 2016
The court is settling in for the final stretch now. This will be last two-hour session of the four day hearing.
First up this afternoon is Patrick Green QC who will speak on behalf of Fair Deal for Expats, a group formed by migrants from the UK living abroad in 10 EU states.
After that, government counsel, James Eadie, who outlined the appellant’s case on the first two days will have a right of reply.
At 4pm this afternoon, the 11 justices will leave without reaching a decision on their judgment. They will reconvene in the supreme court - probably next week - to begin lengthy, private deliberations.
Their ultimate written judgment is not expected to be delivered until sometime in January.
Lunchtime summary
- Triggering Brexit without consulting the devolved assemblies in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast would dissolve “the glue” which holds together the UK’s unwritten constitution, the supreme court was told.
-
The 11 justices heard arguments about the significance of the Sewel Convention from Richard Gordon QC for the Welsh government. He argued if Westminster is introducing legislation on issues that have been devolved it ‘normally’ has to seek the consent of the devolved assemblies in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff.
- Helen Mountfield QC, counsel for the crowd funded People’s Challenge, argued that EU laws that have been in force since joining in 1972 are domestic laws - only Parliament can remove them, not ministers.
- Manjit Gill QC, on behalf of certain EEA nationals, argued his clients face the risk of being deported when Brexit takes effect, adding that children are entitled to know their future.
Gill argues that Government’s approach to Brexit “drives a coach and horses” through the rights of people who have lawfully made the UK their home, additionally it “exposes them to criminal liability.”
He says his clients face the risk of being deported when Brexit takes effect, adding that children are entitled to know their future. To the argument that this will be sorted out in due course, he says:
Due course is not good enough for me, or for the children I represent
Gill says his clients are vulnerable. Entitled to know rights/arrangements. Currently, in 2 yrs, they need to be ready to pack bags & go.
— Schona Jolly (@WomaninHavana) December 8, 2016
Manjit Gill QC was given 15 minutes and he's trying to make them count. pic.twitter.com/O4St2tPiPg
— Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC) December 8, 2016
Manjit Gill QC, who is speaking on behalf of certain EEA nationals, is now speaking. He says: “Hard cases make bad law. This is not a hard case. Some people are trying to make it a hard case.” He argues Brexit will affect the “fundamental rights” of vulnerable people.
Manjit Gill QC deals boldly with the point that others avoided: Referendum Act is silent about consequences because nobody expected Brexit.
— Joshua Rozenberg (@JoshuaRozenberg) December 8, 2016
If you haven’t followed every sentence of today’s Brexit hearing at the supreme court, the Guardian’s legal affairs correspondent Owen Bowcott has this useful lunchtime story:
Triggering Brexit without consulting the devolved assemblies in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast would dissolve “the glue” which holds together the UK’s unwritten constitution, the supreme court has been told.
On the final day of the four day hearing, the 11 justices have been hearing arguments about the significance of the Sewel Convention.
The convention says that if Westminster is introducing legislation on issues that have been devolved it ‘normally’ has to seek the consent of the devolved assemblies in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff.
Richard Gordon QC for the Welsh government, told the court: “The force of the Sewel Convention is not it’s legal enforceability but that it’s a dialogue between legislatures.
“If the [the government’s] prerogative powers can be used to short-circuit this dialogue, it’s to ignore the modern dynamic which we now have.
“A convention is a very important force in our society and it’s like the glue which can only hold an unwritten constitution together.”
Gordon dismissed the government’s argument that the Referendum Act of 2015 gave ministers authorisation to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union which formally signals the UK’s intention to leave thd EU.
“The Referendum Act has nothing to do with the issues in this case,” he declared. “It’s a statute that had died. It has fulfilled its purpose. You cannot revive a corpse by tearing up the death certificate.”
And turning to the government’s contention that it relies on residual royal prerogative powers, Gordon said: “There’s no existing prerogative powers.....a child of six could understand this.”
James Wolffe QC, Scotland’s Lord Advocate, also raised the importance of the Sewel Convention, saying it should not be ignored even if it does not amount to a veto that the Holyrood assembly can deploy.
“The convention constrains the UK parliament in order to respect authority of the Scottish parliament,” Wolffe said.
The Westminster parliament might legislate to trigger Brexit without the consent of the Scottish parliament, Wolffe anticipated.
“If the consent would not be given, it would be for the UK parliament to legislate in the face of a refusal of consent. There would be no legal sanction if the UK parliament chose to do so,” Wolffe said.
The hearing continues.
Reference to Loch Ness Monster klaxon!
Mounfield has accused the government of fictional creativity and myth-making in its assertion of its prerogative powers. “It’s much like attempts to catch the Loch Ness monster, “ she suggested. “Because no one has caught it, it must be assumed to still roam free.”
Helen Mounfield compares the prerogative to the Loch Ness monster: just because it hasn’t been caught, you can’t assume it’s still there.
— Joshua Rozenberg (@JoshuaRozenberg) December 8, 2016
Nessie. https://t.co/9N5bRuvrmi
— Law and policy (@Law_and_policy) December 8, 2016
Updated
Mountfield is reaching back into history of prerogative power, referencing the Seven Years War (1754 and 1763) and well as George III’s (reigned 1760 –1820) decision to adopt an act of parliament to end war with colonies.
As the BBC’s Dominic Casciani puts it hr argument is that “ministerial prerogative has been steadily eroded down the centuries and can’t be enlarged.”
Helen Mountfield is making an important argument. Ministerial prerogative has been steadily eroded down the centuries and can't be enlarged
— Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC) December 8, 2016
Mountfield argues that the Crown has not been empowered to change the Common Law since the 17th century.
Seems it may be easier to follow these legal proceedings if you also happen to be a QC. Mountfield is making her submission in a “clear” and Cogent” manner, according to Rachel Crasnow QC.
Clear submissions from the cogent @HelenMountfield in #SupremeCourt https://t.co/UGHioSn5Vi
— RachelCrasnowQC (@RachelCrasnowQC) December 8, 2016
Helen Mountfield QC’s written arguments which relate to the issue of EU citizenship and related rights can be found here.
Mountfield QC says that EU laws that have been in force since joining in 1972 are domestic laws - only Parliament can remove them, not ministers. She asks would triggering article 50 change domestic law, adding “we say it would”.
She argues that Finnis is wrong when he says ECA is a “mere vessel”
Powerful opening words from Helen Mountfield QC for those outside who seek to misportray the role of the judges, or character of the case.
— Schona Jolly (@WomaninHavana) December 8, 2016
Now Helen Mountfield QC is speaking, she is counsel for the crowd funded People’s Challenge. And she is taking issue with Eadie regarding “judicial overstretch”.
She reiterates that she is not asking court to overturn the Brexit vote. But the question is whether ministers have the power to trigger article 50 is, in fact, an orthodox question for the court.
Updated
Gordon argues that a Legislative Consent Memorandum is required for “anything modifying legislative competence of the Assembly”.
Gordon quotes this: Standing Order 29 of Welsh Assembly: LCM required "for anything modifying legislative competence of Assembly" pic.twitter.com/rbKqvWt1ZW
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) December 8, 2016
You can read more about the Sewel Convention on the Scottish Government website.
The BBC also has an explainer:
Here's some more explanation on the Sewel Convention and the debate over whether it has any role at all in Brexit: https://t.co/gMOF60fzDA
— Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC) December 8, 2016
Gordon argues that the Sewel convention (which dictates that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the devolved parliament) envisages a legislative dialogue.
Gordon states: “If prerogative can be used to short circuit, it is to ignore the devolution development on which our constitution is materially predicated now that we have devolution in a very strong form.”
Gordon QC: Sewel Convention requires Westminster Parliament to "have dialogue" with other legislatures. Prerogative short circuits this.
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) December 8, 2016
Updated
Even if the justices disagree with David Pannick QC, representing Gina Miller, on the European Communities, the Sewel convention means they should still find that legislation is needed to trigger article 50, says Gordon.
Neuberger: "you say even if we reject Pannick" this means there should be an Act. Gordon: "Yes - Radical change of legislative competence"
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) December 8, 2016
Richard Gordon QC for the Welsh government declared:
The Referendum Act of 2015 has nothing to do with the issues in this case. It’s a statute that had died. It has fulfilled its purpose. You cannot revive a corpse by tearing up the death certificate.
Shades of Monty Python’s deceased parrot there.
Gordon is a very impassioned speaker.
The Brexit vote split the UK, it split it into four parts. We have absolutely no quarrel with the vote ...but it is the most divisive political event that has happened over the past four decades and who is to determine what happens next ...it must be parliament...
You can’t revive a corpse by tearing up the death certificate ...there is nothing in the 2015 [European Union Referendum] act that can say anything sensible about the prerogative.
Updated
Gordon continues:
We are looking at a situation in which prerogative power is being used to drive through the most major constitutional change in our system at least since 1972...
The prerogative power is residual, it doesn’t mean it’s not important but it is residual.
Gordon says there is no doubt that “the prerogative is declining”, yet what is being said here is that “it can be used to drive through the most major constitutional change ...of the last 40 years”.
Referring to the Sewel convention (which dictates that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the devolved parliament), he says conventions are very important.
Conventions are the only glue that can hold an unwritten constitution together.
Lady Hale: "I've just pulled up the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago, of which we're all very familiar..." #Article50
— UKSCblog.com (@UKSCBlogcom) December 8, 2016
Gordon: "A child of 6 could respect this point" (you can't abrogate a prerogative power that doesn't exist). Lord Neuberger: "Well put"
— UKSCblog.com (@UKSCBlogcom) December 8, 2016
Moving on, Gordon says
A child of six could understand this point
That point is that parliament can’t legislate for an illegitimate power.
Strong words from Gordon, who also says if the government used prerogative powers to unmake laws, it would be “crucifying human rights”.
GordonQC's got 75 minutes to make his case and he's woken everyone up with some really provocative attacks on the government. pic.twitter.com/d19OUiuB6V
— Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC) December 8, 2016
Updated
Wolffe has finished.
Richard Gordon QC, for the Welsh government, begins:
Wales is not here because it wants either to stop or stall Brexit ...it is here because the constitutional issues go far beyond Brexit.
There is a “fault-line” through the government’s case, says Gordon. James Eadie QC for the government claims there is a prerogative power to make and unmake treaties.
But Gordon says “whatever else it may do [the prerogative power] it may not dispense with laws made by parliament”.
There are other legal constraints, they include “the principle that the prerogative may not be used to nullify rights”.
When they leave the courtroom at 4pm this afternoon, the 11 justices will still not have reached a decision on their judgment. They will reconvene in the supreme court - probably next week - to begin lengthy, private deliberations.
Convention dictates that the discussion is led off by the newest member of the court on the panel who, in this case, is Lord Hodge. At 63, he also happens to be the youngest supreme court justice.
Initiating the post-courtroom discussions can be influential, enabling the speaker to shape the debate. Hodge will be followed by other justices in reverse order of seniority. Their ultimate written judgment is not expected to be delivered until sometime in January.
Wolffe says:
Fundamentally, this case is about who has the power to change the law of the land.
Wolffe says the court can interpret the words “with regard to devolved matters” in the convention (see previous update for convention wording) but it is for politicians to decide what is “normal”.
Lord Neuberger says if the justices accept that notification does not require parliamentary legislation, “plainly the convention does not apply” but if they decide it does require legislation then the convention will apply.
He therefore suggests that the justices’ decision on the “primary” argument - i.e. who has the authority to trigger article 50 - will determine their decision on Scotland.
James Wolffe QC, the lord advocate for the Scottish government, resumes.
He’s again discussing the Sewel convention, which dictates “that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament”.
He says:
A bill to withdraw the UK from the European Union would engage the convention because of the effects it would have with regard to devolved matters.
Updated
An FT editorial this morning says this case could easily have been avoided:
The judges are hearing the case because of the government’s opaque handling of Brexit. If Theresa May had introduced a simple bill granting MPs a vote on Article 50, the November high court case and the appeal to the supreme court would not have happened. The prime minister is right that too much time has been spent debating the process of Brexit. But it is her strategy that means more has not been said on what it will look like...
The main lesson of the supreme court case and the Commons debacle is about how not to deal with Brexit. As Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, said, the negotiations will be a complex and politically sensitive process. Further complications resulting from obfuscation and parliamentary jousting will further hinder progress. If the government had been clear and honest about its Brexit strategy from the start, these complications could have been avoided.
After three days of the hearing, William Hill are offering odds of 5/2 (28% chance) that the government will successfully win their appeal.
I’m not sure how common it is for bookies to offer odds on constitutional law cases - not very, I’m guessing.
Proceedings are due to being at 10.15am
A smiling Gina Miller, wearing a black suit with red piping and flanked by two bodyguards, has performed her morning photo call in front of the doors of the supreme court.
Soberly dressed lawyers are arriving for the last day of the four day hearing. Most are ignored or not recognised by the banks of television cameras and photographers camped out on the pavement outside the court.
Summary
Welcome to live coverage of the final day of the crucial supreme court hearing, which experts believe could determine whether there is a hard or soft Brexit.
The 11 justices heard yesterday that the formal consent of the Stormont assembly would be required before Brexit because the process would “drive a wedge” between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
James Wolffe QC, the lord advocate for the Scottish government told the court that the consent of the Scottish government is required but he stressed that it is not claiming a veto over the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. He will resume his arguments this morning.
He will be followed by Richard Gordon QC, for the Welsh Assembly. The Welsh government has accepted the decision to leave the EU, after Wales voted narrowly in favour of Brexit. But Mick Antoniw, counsel general for Wales, has said the article 50 hearing “raise[s] issues of profound importance” for the devolved nations.
Next up will be Helen Mountfield QC for Graham Pigney, who lives in France. He is part of the People’s Challenge, a crowdfunded initiative. It is the first fully-funded claim on CrowdJustice to reach the supreme court. Pigney wants the decision to trigger article 50 to go to parliament.
Then Manjit Gill QC will represent unnamed parties and their children, whose right to residence in UK depends on their EU treaty rights.
After lunch, Patrick Green QC will speak on behalf of Fair Deal for Expats, a group formed by British expatriates living abroad in 10 EU states.
Finally, government counsel, James Eadie, who outlined the appellant’s case on the first two days will have a right of reply.
It will be interesting to see whether he and/or the justices refer to the motion passed last night. Yesterday, two of the justices seemed to suggest that the motion might preclude the need for legislation. They hypothesised that it may seem strange to non-lawyers if the will of parliament was expressed by a motion but legislation was still needed. That was counter to the position put forward by David Pannick QC and Dominic Chambers for the main two respondents.
Updated
