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

Yes. I am grateful, my Lord, yes, and I say, for the reasons I have given, there has to be a clear indication of a departure, not anything less than that.

Section 1, we address section 1 of the 1972 Act in our written case at paragraphs 59 to 63, MS 12421. I say it is very important that section 1, subparagaph (2) provides that, if there is to be an amendment to the treaties, it requires a new treaty; or rather there is a requirement under the Act that the new treaty has to be included in section 1(2) if it is to have any effect in domestic law. It is not left to the executive to take such action as it sees fit on the international plane. What it does on the international plane is irrelevant to domestic law unless Parliament itself has included the new treaty as part of section 1(2), and we have set all this out in paragraph 60 of our printed case and I am not going to take time on that, unless it would assist.

I simply make this point, which is we say the core point. It would really make no sense for an Act of Parliament to be required, as it is, to authorise an amendment to section 1(2), to add a new treaty, when this will alter domestic law, but for no Act of Parliament to be required if ministers are to notify that we are going to leave the EU and destroy the whole of the structure. That makes no sense at all. It means that parliamentary involvement is required for the lesser but not for the greater. It is required for an amendment but not for a destruction.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech