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

My answer to Lord Clarke's point, I am grateful to my Lord, can I accept that the Lord Reed political and our remove the clamp are pretty much different ends to the same thing, although they do involve, in my remove the clamp thing, the interposition of the court in what might be thought to be in a constitutionally difficult or inappropriate manner, so that is the distinction between those two legal punch lines.

To come to my Lord, Lord Clarke's point, true it is, and I will let my learned friends develop this if they want to, that in relation to the AV, alternative voting referendum, there was the legal consequence set out, but that was because there needed to be. It needed to be set out in that way, because they had to, as it were, prescribe what would happen as the next step, and the law needed to be changed, and so they set it up in that way. Whereas here, we submit, nothing more is needed to give effect, by way of express statutory language or express statutory provision, to give effect to the outcome of the referendum, if the answer was to withdraw.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech