Transcripts (perhaps draft) of the Article 50 ‘Brexit’ Appeal hearings at the Supreme Court

Exactly so. Exactly so.

But it reflects at least a symmetry, and to some extent it chimes with the point that my Lord, Lord Reed was making, there are various ways the constitution can react; and we know as Lord Mance pointed out yesterday that on entry, or before we signed up to the treaty of accession, I think it was, there were parliamentary motions.

I am going to take you to the Canadian case that Lord Carnwath mentioned yesterday in due course, but we see that that is exactly reflected in that case when we come to it; but there were parliamentary motions, as it were, before the international act was taken. But those parliamentary motions are non-binding legally, as it were. They have no legal effect. They are simply parliamentary authorities to do the thing, but they don't sound in law, they are not primary legislation, they are not secondary legislation; they are simply Parliament's choice as to how to give its permission and the extent to which it wants to get involved.

So if you do the contrast in terms of symmetry between then and now, it might be thought that now is a fortiori, and now is a fortiori in terms of withdrawal, because the giving of Article 50 notice was preceded by primary legislation, namely the 2015 Act.

So we do respectfully submit that there is real symmetry -- there is real symmetry there.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech