The Plot to Murder Brexit – Part II

Posted on November 20, 2016 by Robert Henderson in Editorial, EU Referendum // 9 Comments

[Ed: Part I of this two-part series was published here, on Saturday November 19th 2016.]

The logic of referenda

Whatever the status of the prerogative there are also the logical implications of holding a referendum. Parliament voted overwhelmingly for the Act (316 for, 53 against) which authorised a referendum on EU membership. There was no question of it only being advisory because the Act which sanctioned the referendum contained no such clause and politicians during the campaign did not say it was only advisory.

Apart from the fact that there is no mention of it being only advisory in the Act which legalised the referendum, there was plenty of evidence to establish beyond doubt that the intention of the government was to treat it as a vote binding on the government. The then Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond opened the second reading debate on the Referendum Bill on 9th June 2015 by stating:

“This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.”

He followed it up with this:

“Few subjects ignite as much passion in the House or indeed in the country as our membership of the European Union. The debate in the run-up to the referendum will be hard fought on both sides of the argument. But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver. For too long, the people of Britain have been denied their say. For too long, powers have been handed to Brussels over their heads. For too long, their voice on Europe has not been heard. This Bill puts that right. It delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised, and I commend it to the House.”

The government reiterated the intention and status of the referendum when they sent a leaflet to every household in the United Kingdom.

The page entitled “A once in a generation decision” ran:

“The referendum on Thursday 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in the European Union.”

And:

“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”

All that being so, logically Parliament surrendered its power to make decisions about leaving the EU after the Referendum Act was passed.

Finally, the claim that Parliament is at present sovereign is clearly a nonsense because Parliament will remain subordinate to the EU, and UK law subordinate to that of the EU until the UK has left the EU. The use of the prerogative is necessary to once again make Parliament sovereign.

The danger of betrayal by the government

An all too plausible scenario is that there will be months of Parliamentary debate of one sort or another, perhaps taking the country well into the New Year with Article 50 still not activated. At some point Theresa May says, well, there has to be compromise – and agrees to attach limits to the negotiations her government can undertake. These will almost certainly include membership of the single market.

Why is that plausible? Because May is a remainer, as are most of her cabinet. Three of the four great offices of state are filled with remainers – PM (May),Chancellor (Hammond),Home Secretary (Rudd) – while the fourth, the Foreign Secretary (Johnson) is a shameless careerist who could turn remainer at the drop of a hat if he thought that would improve his prospects of becoming PM. Such an outcome might well suit a majority of the Cabinet.

Already there are the ominous signs that, despite the vote to leave, attempts are being made to stitch the UK back into the EU: the UK has opted to go back into Europol and Boris Johnson is seeking to retain the UK as the host for the European Capital of Culture in 2023. The danger is that this type of piecemeal tying of the UK back into the EU may continue  without adequate protest because the ordinary British voter may understandably not be aware of the significance of each individual hook which re-attaches the UK to Brussels.

It is true that two of the three ministers who have formal responsibility for the detailed management of Brexit – Liam Fox and  David Davis (Boris Johnson is the third) – do have strong Brexit credentials but they are second rank ministers. Obvious choices of rock-steady Brexiteers to be involved at secretary of state level such as  Bill Cash and John Redwood have been left out of the government.

There is also an almost blanket support amongst the opposition parties for a resistance to leaving the EU. On the Labour side Corbyn has already announced that a commitment to maintaining the UK’s access to the single market is the price for Labour’s support for the Activation of Article 50. (This after saying on 24 June that it should be triggered immediately!) In addition, a senior Labour MP (Hilary Benn, a remainer) is chairing the Select Committee for Exiting the EU. Although he has said he will not try to block the activation of Article 50, he will still have a good deal of power to influence matters.

Most of the rest of the Commons is also opposed to leaving the EU. The LibDems have said that their manifesto at the next election will contain a promise to rejoin the EU if the UK has already left before the election.  TheSNP and the Welsh Nationalists are both intent on either the UK remaining in the EU or having some form of special arrangement for Scotland and Wales to remain in the EU, or some other close relationship.

But the Supreme Court case is not the only attempt using the law to delay and confuse the move towards Brexit. The Crown Prosecution Service stands poised to enter the Brexit fray, viz:

“Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions, is considering a complaint of “undue influence” on the referendum by the Vote Leave and Leave.EU campaigns.‘The complaint centres around a claim that £350 million per week could be spent on the NHS if Britain left the EU and a leaflet which read “Turkey is joining the EU”, along with assertions that “Britain has no border controls whilst in the EU”.

It is truly extraordinary that those with power within our justice system are so pantingly anxious to get themselves involved. This complaint was not made by the police as is the normal way for a prosecution to be laid before the CPS, but directly to Steadman who made the decision to consider the complaint on her own authority.

There are the irritatingly predictable suggestions from the media that “Theresa May will call a general election”. This is no longer in her power. The Fixed Term Parliaments Act schedules the next election for 2020. Unless May would be willing to make something a vote of no confidence in her government and contrive to lose the vote, an earlier election would  require two thirds of the House of Commons to vote for it. That is 417 members out of 650. The Government would need all its MPs plus another 90 or so from other parties to vote for a dissolution of Parliament, something very unlikely because the Labour Party is in disarray and the SNP would gain nothing by having another election. There would also probably be quite a few Tory MPs who would be reluctant to risk losing their seats with only 18 months of the Parliament gone.

What does this solid mass of resentful remainers  mean for UKIP and, indeed, every person who voted to leave on 23rd June? It means that the government must be harried all the way till the time Brexit is achieved in fact as well as name. It means that opposition parties must be left in no doubt that if they attempt to thwart Brexit this will have dire electoral consequences for them. It means that every individual MP with a  constituency which voted to leave should tremble in their boots at the  thought that if they attempt to delay the activation of Article 50 their constituents will eject them at the next General Election.

Nice Win, Victoria!

School apologises to a Christian teaching assistant who was made to feel 'like a criminal' after she told a 14-year-old student she did not agree with same sex relationships 

Brannel School in St Austell, Cornwall, has apologised to Victoria Allen, 51, after it issued her with a written warning when she told an autistic pupil she disapproved of same-sex relationships. Mail.

Ukip Really Might Hammer Labour!

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/737994/New-leader-Ukip-Paul-Nuttall-wipe-out-Labour-Stephen-Pollard

Sir Geoffrey - Tells It Like It Is!

'England’s batsmen need to become more old fashioned – stay in, wear the bowlers down.'

GEOFFREY BOYCOTT.

Dutch Ban The Burka.

Dutch parliament votes to ban the burka on public transport and in public buildings 

The ban on 'face-covering clothing' was approved by a large majority in the lower house in The Hague. The legislation must be approved by the upper house to be passed into law. Mail.

The Campaign For Real Christmas Cards Is Now In Its Second Decade.

Please, please, please do not allow shops to profit from selling cards which ignore Our Saviour's Birth! 
Stuff: robins, Dickensian coaches, yule logs, silly cartoons and tat like the above!

Geert Wilders Heading For Top Job In Netherlands?

http://www.ukipdaily.com/trial-geert-wilders/

Here is a pretty question: Is Wilders more to the right of centre than Corbyn is to the left of it?

This question matters. Corbyn rightly has earned a bad press but for reasons unexplained, his brand of extremism is glossed over by the media and leftist apologists.

Do we really think that a genuine right-winger like Wilders could possibly

be worse for Holland than Corbyn would be for the UK?

The difference, you ask? - Well at least Wilders is on the side of his country whether or not you agree with his policies.

We really cannot make the same argument for Jeremy whose loyalties lie primarily with a failed marxist philosophy which trumps all else!

I am very thankful that Ukip is not cast in the Wilders mould. Those in the party who want to see us move in that direction will be thwarted by Paul Nuttall as leader. You do not have to be hard right to destroy the LibLabCon and its appalling embracing of sickening, liberal left mindsets.

Bathing Bird.

God Is Love.

There are many who seem unable to reconcile a loving God with one who is prepared to punish.
Just stop and think about that for a moment. Why should the two be mutually exclusive in any way?
Add to the picture the fact that He is a God of Righteousness and you will perhaps better understand. 
Broker into the equation that God is the Mercy which he grants to us poor sinners and consider the means by which that was achieved.
Having problems still - look to the cross itself where God The Son DIED for us all!
Let us take a wholly different tack. Let us say that God is NOT Love, as you contend.That is merely your perception and that does not make Him disappear. He is still there - loving someone who has failed to grasp His very nature.
God is. You do not care for the way He does things? - Well put yourself into submission to a God who is 'mean and nasty', then. Coz, if He is powerful and vindictive - wouldn't you be well advised to stay on the right side of Him?
Try that - and it is just feasible that you may experience His Mercy anyway. Not the best route by any means but if once, just once, you encounter God's Love directly - all your silly doubts will evaporate,
Keep God as an intellectual exercise and you are in big trouble. Follow that path but be wholly open and prepared to repent and accept Him into your life and you will encounter Him.
Seek and you WILL find. No half measures - all in!

Kinnock Mark 2 As Bad As Mummy & Daddy? (Is That Even Possible?)

... Sarah Montague then grilled Mr Kinnock on whether he believed recent figures showing net migration into Britain was at 330,000 were too high.

Dodging the question the Labour MP, who campaigned for Remain said: “I would like to see sector by sector dialogue. I would like to business, government, and trade unions coming together on a sector by sector basis.”

An exasperated Montague thundered: “OK but that number – you are not my answering my question which is about the number!

“300,000 plus does not seem too high for you?”

Once again Mr Kinnock dodged the question and instead said the blame lay at David Cameron and the Conservatives’ door for falsely promising to lower net migration to the “tens of thousands”. Express/Radio 4.

Now Support Him!

Labour MP In Deep Poo Answering Questions In Broadcast.

Andrew Gwynn, after being asked the question 10 times by LBC host Clive Bull, eventually gave an answer, with his policy contrasting the views of party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

New Ukip leader Paul Nuttall has vowed his party will provide a real threat to Labour seats in the north of England.

Speaking after his victory on Tuesday, Mr Nuttall said: “My ambition is not insignificant: I want to replace the Labour Party and make Ukip the patriotic voice of working people.”

Discussing his comments on LBC, Mr Gwynn said: “He is not a threat to the Labour Party in areas like the constituency I represent. Mail.

Nigel - Yesterday.

Third Test Catastrophe.

England did reasonably well today and had some high points yesterday too but India were well-deserved winners of the Third Test to give them a position from which the series cannot be lost.
It it is always rather ignominious to lose a test with more than a day to spare, furthermore, an eight wicket defeat is also pretty heavy.
Having won the toss, England's batting was lamentable and bordering moronic in the first innings. It was the worst display for throwing away wickets that I have seen from an England team in years. By the time the second innings came around, the match was already as good as lost and batting 'with backs to the wall' is always difficult. Fewer brickbats from me for the performance.
England: Strengths and Weaknesses.
1) An opening partner for Cook has finally been found. Young Hameed is a dazzling talent but could miss the last two tests with a broken finger.
2) Cook has given his wicket away more than one might have expected.
3) Root is struggling to carry the entire batting lineup on his admittedly broad shoulders. Fortunately, that ever-improving keeper, Jonny Bairstow, is in the best batting form of his career.
4) Ballance and Duckett should not be given a chance in the Fourth Test - so poor have been their recent performances. Duckett will come back, Ballance - maybe not.
5) Ben Stokes remains a quality all-rounder.
6) The seamers have all done as well as can be expected on Indian pitches.
7) India play with three spinners. Each and every one of these is superior to all the three England spinners.
England must replace Batty with a batsman - why play three spinners not up to the task when you can play two? If you want a few extra overs of different spin - why not use Joe Root who is better than competent and woefully under-bowled by the skipper?
Notwithstanding the improvements in Moe and Rashid during these tours, they are still, neither spinners who will strangle the scoring, nor ones who will take large amounts of wickets on a regular basis .
8) Overall, I believe that India have shaded England in the field although both sides have dropped key catches.
9) Geoff Boycott should be brought in as defensive batting coach to shout at and abuse any player who gifts away his wicket!

Jonathan Explains How Paul Is Thinking!

Result Reflections.

Posted on November 29, 2016 by Jonathan Arnott MEP in Editorial // 2 Comments

The result of the Party Leadership election is clear and decisive. Never in the history of UKIP has a candidate received such a high share of the vote as Paul Nuttall did today. There will be no arguments over the result, no complaints of unfairness, that could possibly be justified or justifiable. We can immediately and swiftly move on to fighting the enemy rather than fighting ourselves. That’s the traditional way of winning battles.

When Paul says ‘unity’, he means exactly that. His appointments today demonstrate his commitment to it. This isn’t the leadership of a man who professes to believe in unity, then considers that unity is about slavish loyalty to himself; far from it. It’s about creating a collegiate team which brings together talent from across the board.

The appointment of Peter Whittle, a staunch ally of Nigel Farage as Deputy Leader, sends out a clear message that Paul will not in any way, shape or form be detracting from the legacy of Nigel Farage. The second-in-command remains as Faragista as ever

The one appointee to a very senior position from the Suzanne Evans wing of the Party will be Patrick O’Flynn MEP, who has often got quite an unfair press within UKIP. He’s got impeccable credentials and a CV which exudes experience. Paul has appointed someone from that wing of the Party as his Chief Political Advisor, but stopped short of giving one of the top roles to Suzanne Evans. Paul has indicated he intends to keep Paul Oakden on as Party Chairman, to provide a little stability at a time when much is changing. That’s vitally important.

It’s a clever, well-thought-out set of appointments from someone who’s clearly got a keen understanding of politics. If anyone just has no interest in Party unity, they’ll find ways to moan and snipe. But if they want to work together, there’s something for everyone in Paul’s top team.

I think we’ll see more of that in the days to come as the announcements are rolled out for other positions. There will be a reshuffle, and one or two surprises as people are placed into the roles appropriate for them. I’ve long said that Paul wouldn’t appoint Suzanne Evans as Deputy Leader; I’ve been proved correct. But there will, I’m sure, be some role for her.

I anticipate that there will be good roles for a number of people with support across the Party. I’ve long been one of Paul’s key allies and top supporters. He’s a close personal friend going back over a decade. So if anyone doubts Paul’s shrewdness and political savvy, just wait till you see what job he’s going to give me!

A ‘jobs for the boys’ leader would offer me a big promotion, rewarding my personal loyalty to him. Paul instinctively understands though that there is zero benefit to Party unity in giving me a good position. What would it do, but shore up support that he already has? Watch what job I actually get, and then if anyone doubts Paul’s ability to be ruthless when it’s called for, let them doubt no longer.

What will a Paul Nuttall leadership mean for the Party? Here are my top ten predictions for Paul’s leadership:

1. Expect constitutional change, including regional representation on the NEC to happen over the next 6-12 months. We’re in the process of the NEC elections, and much will depend on how the new NEC functions. If it works well, we can afford for the process to take a little longer – and to make sure that we do it right.
2. Expect Paul to mean what he says about ‘Day Zero’: a tolerant approach to what’s happened in the past, but expect a clampdown on those who continue to breach Party rules under his leadership. He won’t stand for anyone seeking to undermine the Party.
3. Expect us to expand our focus so that we’re speaking out more on constitutional issues (English Parliament, Direct Democracy, House of Lords reform),on crime (getting tough on the blight on our working-class communities),and on extremism (ie. not opposition to Muslims or Islam, but for a robust response to issues such as forced marriage and FGM).
4. Expect Paul to reconstitute the Political Committee in some form. I don’t know how obvious this will be to the wider membership, but this will be part of a broader team-based approach making sure that everyone works together.
5. Expect a ‘reboot’ of the Party so that we’re more elections-focused. Paul is acutely aware that the MEPs are losing our jobs soon, and if we don’t make a significant Westminster breakthrough in 2020 we may never do.
6. Expect a different leadership style, with media appearances being shared around much more under Paul’s leadership. We have a lot of talent in the Party, and Paul’s not afraid to use it.
7. Expect a focus on picking up Labour votes. This isn’t about changing UKIP policies; the ones we have are easily marketable. Whereas the Conservative voters were the easiest pickings a few years ago, that’s no longer the case today. We need to ensure though that we stay true to our principles; after all, working-class Labour voters certainly prefer our principles to Corbyn’s!
8. Expect Paul to spend a lot of time travelling around the country speaking to public meetings and events. He’s got a track record of doing this, having spoken at over 500 events in recent years. That’s his style, and it won’t be changing any time soon.
9. Expect Paul to lead a cost-cutting drive to ensure that the central Party is on a sound financial footing, with an income that substantially exceeds necessary expenditure. We want the maximum amount of money possible available for campaigning.
10. Expect, presuming Paul’s allowed to do the job he’s just been elected to do, UKIP to head upwards in the opinion polls!

Paul has the mandate, and he intends to use it. I truly hope that you’ll be on board as we write the next chapter of UKIP’s history. There is one thing that could jeopardise UKIP’s future, and that is if too many people snipe from the sidelines rather than accepting the democratic voice of the membership. We’ve seen the Remoaners jeopardise Britain’s future and place the People’s Brexit in great peril; let’s show that – even on internal matters – we’re better than them. Let’s work together, and let’s show what a united UKIP can do!

Dan Jarvis Warns Labour That 'Ukip Are Coming For Their Seats!'

Barnsley Central MP Dan Jarvis insisted Labour can no longer take any of their seats for granted as he expressed fears Labour has attracted the “toxic” view it “looks down on people” with immigration concerns.

Mr Jarvis, who has been touted as a future Labour leader, outlined how Ukip could sweep away his party in many areas of Britain as he challenged his fellow MPs to respond. Express.

The Plot to Murder Brexit – Part I

Posted on November 19, 2016 by Robert Henderson in Editorial, EU Referendum // 9 Comments

The remainers  are intent on murdering Brexit through the political equivalent of death by a thousand cuts. Delay is their great ally and there are plenty of individuals – politicians, mediafolk, academics, lobbyists, pressure groups, businessmen and much of the rest of the amorphous mass of the Great and the Good – who are willing to play the role of Quislings in the service of the EU.

The decision by the High Court that the government cannot activate Article 50 to begin the process of the UK leaving the EU without first getting Parliament’s approval is as shameless a piece of politically motivated judicial activism as you could find. It has potentially created  the type of constitutional clash which civil wars are fought over.

The Government has decided to appeal against the judgement. Permission has been given to bypass the Court of appeal and go straight to the Supreme Court. The case should be heard on 5th December, but the judgement will probably not be given until the New Year. The Supreme Court has also given Scotland and Wales the right to intervene at the appeal hearing. This will broaden the matter to include the role, if any, of the devolved assemblies. A case brought in Northern Ireland at their High Court over Article 50 has already been dismissed as non-justiciable.

Are senior English judges pushing their own political agenda? Consider this: The three judges involved were Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Lord Chief Justice),Sir Terence Etherton (Master of the Rolls) and Lord Justice Sales. There is nothing in Etherton’s past to say what his stance on the EU would be, but the other two definitely have question marks over their impartiality.

Thomas was a founding member of the European Law Institute, whose mission statement is the ‘enhancement of European legal integration’. He has also served as  President of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary. It is reasonable to conclude that he is in favour of the UK’s membership of the EU.

Sales worked in the chambers headed by the erstwhile Lord Chancellor Lord Irvine of Lairg and is a friend of Tony Blair for whose government he worked as First Treasury Counsel. As Blair and his government were firmly in the EU camp and Blair has recently been vociferous in denouncing the vote for Brexit it is reasonable to suppose Sales’  sympathies probably also lay with the remain side.

But even without relying on pro-EU evidence it is a fair bet that any senior member of the judiciary is likely to be a Europhile and emotionally opposed to Brexit because they come from a set of people for whom Europhilia is the norm. Moreover, is it really possible for anyone to be truly impartial when adjudicating on such a nakedly political matter?

After the High Court Judgement it was widely thought that the passing of a  Bill permitting the activating of Article 50 would be sufficient to meet the Court’s judgment that Parliament must agree to the triggering of Article 50.  That would have been difficult enough bearing in mind the preponderance of remainers in both Houses of Parliament. But the position has become more fraught. Astonishingly, one of the judges scheduled to hear the Supreme Court appeal, Lady Justice Hale, has publicly pronounced that  “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 of the 1972 act…” If the Supreme Court agrees with her the delay could be interminable. Whether what Hales has said would technically rule her out from hearing the Supreme Court appeal is not clear because she could argue she is merely putting forward a legal point to be considered, but it is an extraordinary thing for any judge, let alone one of the most senior in England, to comment on a case which is to come before them. It certainly adds to the suspicion that the higher judiciary is deliberately trying to block Brexit or at least prepare the ground for remainer politicians to manoeuvre for  conditions which will tie the government’s hands, the majority of whom are also natural remainers.   

Not a simple matter of law

The  London High Court judgement stressed that the decision had been made simply as a matter of law and the court took no position on the desirability of otherwise of the UK leaving the EU. But what did the judgement achieve in practical terms? It said that Article 50 could not be activated without Parliament voting on the matter, possibly by a motion, but most probably by voting on a Bill. But if it was simply a matter of voting on the Article 50 activation, what would be the purpose of such a procedure after the question of leaving or remaining had already been decided by the voters? It would be an empty act.

The answer is all too obvious. The judgement meant it would not simply be a question of Article 50 being given Parliamentary sanction. MPs and the Lords potentially would be able to delay the Bill for a considerable period of time and by placing amendments to the Bill. If it was a motion the Commons could simply vote it down.

The Government has a small Commons majority, and could probably count on a handful of MPs from other parties to vote with them on this issue, but the House has a substantial majority of those who wish the UK to remain in the EU. There are 650 MPs in the House of Commons. Of those probablytwo thirds, including many Tory MPs, are remainers. Hence, numerically, in theory it would be very easy to defeat any Bill the government puts forward to activate Article 50. However, it is dubious whether many remainer MPs would want to be in such naked and direct conflict with the voters who voted to leave, by simply rejecting a Bill or a motion which did nothing more than authorise the activation of Article 50. Instead they will try to engineer a situation whereby they will authorise the activation of Article 50 but only if the government accepts that they will  negotiate within limits set by Parliament. The most probable limitation would be that any agreement with the EU must include the UK’s continuing membership of the single market. It is wildly improbable that the EU would agree to that without insisting on free movement of labour, the UK continuing to pay their annual “fee”, the UK being bound by the regulations which attach themselves to the single market and subject to the European Court of Justice or a surrogate  such as that which performs the same function for EFTA countries. In short, this would require the UK to sign up to all that the voters rejected in the Referendum and the country would remain within the EU in all but name.

All of this means that the High Court verdict was not a simple procedural matter but a legal direction which very obviously had effects which challenged the viability of the vote to leave. The issue which the High Court should have addressed is: what would Parliament have to examine before Article 50 was activated? The question on the ballot paper was this:

‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’

The question was suggested by the Electoral Commission (EC) and accepted by the Government after the EC had judged the government’s question biased in favour of remain.

What was asked of the voter was beautifully simple: do you want to remain part of the EU or do you want to leave the EU? To leave an organisation means precisely that, you cease to have either the benefits or duties which membership brings. There is no ‘I’ve left  the club and won’t be paying my subscription any more, but I still expect to be able to come into the members bar and use the squash courts.’ Hence, there is no point in Parliament having a vote on Article 50 because the referendum has already decided that the UK will leave. There is no hard or soft Brexit, just Brexit!

By coming down in favour of Parliament voting on the activation of Article 50 the judges went against both the wishes of the voters and what was necessary. Whether they did so out of bias is a matter for their consciences, but it is a fact that by acting as they did they opened a door for the remainers to cause delay and confusion in the hope of either getting  something that is called Brexit in name but not in fact, or of the UK eventually remaining in the EU after a second referendum.

The Royal Prerogative

The  High Court found that the 1972 European Communities Act meant that the prerogative could not be used to activate Article 50. But as so often with legal judgements, legal minds disagree. Here is David Feldman, Rouse Ball Professor of English Law, University of Cambridge, giving a contrary opinion to that of the High Court:

“The question in Miller was therefore, at root, whether the terms of the European Communities Act 1972 by necessary implication excluded the use of the Royal Prerogative to initiate a process which might, or in the view of the parties would, lead to the removal of EU rights from the domestic legal systems. The Court thought that the relevant constitutional principles meant that the onus was on the Secretary of State to show statutory authority for initiating the Article 50 process. I have argued that this was mistaken, and that there is no constitutional or interpretative principle which requires the 1972 Act to be read as excluding this prerogative power. The implications to be drawn from the Act are, at best, equivocal. In my submission, the foreign affairs prerogative is not excluded by statute, and requires no special statutory support for its use.  Initially I thought that my view was self-evidently correct. The judgment of the Divisional Court shows that it is a matter on which informed opinions can differ….”

It also seems that the government made remarkably little effort to argue the case against justiciability of the High Court action (something which was successfully done in the Northern Irish High Court case) – the BBC reported that “It was quickly established on both sides that the issue was justiciable” and failed completely to base their defence of the action on the basis of popular sovereignty. The government also shot themselves in the foot by admitting that the activation of Article 50 would result in the loss of  some individual rights. This moved the triggering of Article 50 from being a simple procedure to something with the potential to trespass on statutes and hence beyond the power of the prerogative. The attorney-general Jeremy Wright faced strong criticism from some Tory MPs for what they saw as ineptitude in the presentation of the government’s defence.