Brexit legal challenge: Day four live from court

It's the fourth and final day of the Brexit appeal case. Judges will decide if MPs should get a say on when the UK triggers article 50. Watch live from the Supreme Court.

SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube channel for more videos:

Follow us on Twitter: and

Like us on Facebook:

For more content go to and download our apps:

iPad

iPhone

Android

  21 comments for “Brexit legal challenge: Day four live from court

  1. Captain Matt
    December 8, 2016 at 11:55 AM

    Remember remember the fifth of November😜

    • AntPDC
      December 8, 2016 at 2:45 PM

      Meaning what?

    • α…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿα…Ÿ
      December 8, 2016 at 2:49 PM

      google will explain

    • AntPDC
      December 8, 2016 at 3:11 PM

      Trite.

  2. X Lord B
    December 8, 2016 at 12:09 PM

    Since the mps have already voted and won in favour still of triggering
    article 50 before 1st april.. what is the point of this court hearing now?ο»Ώ

    • AntPDC
      December 8, 2016 at 2:24 PM

      The Supreme Court and indeed all the parties involved have already
      acknowledged that if the use of the Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50
      is held to be unlawful (ultra vires) by the Court, the only remedy is the
      introduction of a Bill in Parliament – probably a single clause Bill,
      explicitly authorising the Government to so trigger. The Resolution in the
      House of Commons yesterday involved only the House of Commons which, whilst
      possibly helpful to the Government’s case here, is by no means conclusive
      in law because the House of Commons acting alone is not “the Queen in
      Parliament” ie does not constitute “Parliament”, which comprises the
      Commons, the Lords and the Sovereign. See the President’s remarks at 5:47:00

    • X Lord B
      December 8, 2016 at 5:27 PM

      Right.. so who in parliament actually makes the bills then? I thought that
      any motion put forward in parliament was always voted on in the house of
      lords as the mp’s in parliament. So if government and the house of lords
      isnt parliament who is.. because it seems as though the court is arguing
      that even parliament shouldnt be allowed to put a bill for the article 50
      anyway ..its as if theyre just trying to stop article 50 from ever being
      started at all which means wed never leave the EU which in turn means the
      will of the people will have been overturned by a court hearing.. This if I
      am correct will cause an unbelievable situation in where its quite likely
      the 17.4 million people will end up rioting everywhere.

  3. mary dalton
    December 8, 2016 at 12:33 PM

    Can the Supreme Court’s decision be appealed to theEuropean Court of Human
    Rights, in a study of invidiousness?ο»Ώ

    • Mike Summers-Smith
      December 8, 2016 at 5:02 PM

      “Can the Supreme Court’s decision be appealed to the European Court of
      Human Rights.”

      Um, no. The ECHR is not a EU body (signatories to the Convention include,
      among other countries, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldava, Russia, and
      Ukraine).

      Further, this case is about domestic UK – not even EU – law. The only
      possible EU aspect is the proper interpretation of Art. 50 – in particular,
      if an Art. 50 notification once given can be withdrawn. Both sides in the
      UK court case have agreed that it cannot.

    • AntPDC
      December 8, 2016 at 5:06 PM

      Mike Summers-Smith I think the OP meant the ECJ. An appeal there is
      possible, though highly unlikely as I understand it.

    • mary dalton
      December 8, 2016 at 5:12 PM

      If any citizen affected can prove the decision, either way, transgresses
      his Human Rights as particularized in the HR Law, he would be within his
      rights, and ethically obliged to file an appeal with Strasbourg. This is
      easily and cheaply done, involving form-filling, and rafts of photocopying,
      then registered post. When the case comes up, one travels over and argues
      the merits. I thought England was chafing under the bit of the Human Rights
      legislation, and preferred their own. Empires die hard.

  4. prospect4186
    December 8, 2016 at 12:36 PM

    Whats make us angry is that no politician told us, it would have to go to
    the Supreme Court. We the people have made the choice, it should not have
    gone to these bureaucrats after woods. Lets hope May will pull her finger
    out further, before theirs a public backlash.ο»Ώ

    • AntPDC
      December 8, 2016 at 3:30 PM

      What did he “tell us”?

    • Wisdom Offered
      December 8, 2016 at 9:25 PM

      i believe that T May never intends to take us out of the EU, And if they
      let this private bill win, then there will be less blame on the government
      when every one clearly sees whats happening

    • Wisdom Offered
      December 8, 2016 at 9:26 PM

      i want to know this to

    • ukok kev
      December 8, 2016 at 9:30 PM

      That if the gov didn’t put a clause with the ref that all 4 parts of the UK
      must vote leave or it will end up in the courts.He was right.

    • Wisdom Offered
      December 8, 2016 at 9:46 PM

      +ukok kev
      he said That!, well then he’s a plonker, becausethe ref was was FOR all of
      the UK not just England, the UK (covering us and the other 3 parts)
      why else would the gov bother to invite the other 3 which makes up the UK
      in the 1st place, it makes not a jot of sense, and this was quoted on the
      first day of the supreme court hearing, i didnt hear that, and i watched it

  5. ukok kev
    December 8, 2016 at 3:09 PM

    The Scots Parliament of 1706 / 1707 passed one of the Acts of Union.
    Today’s Scots Parliament could repeal it.
    No need for #indyref2
    Protect Scotlands place in the EU & give England her independence she needs
    to fulfil her citizen’s desire to BRexit …
    As Miss Mansfield warned the judges in code, ” Just because we have never
    caught the Loch Ness Monster, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist ”
    She is a credit to her great father.ο»Ώ

  6. AntPDC
    December 8, 2016 at 3:53 PM

    At 5:45:12 the President of the Court, Lord Neuberger, looks distinctly
    irritated (for the first time in these proceedings). I may be wrong, but I
    imagine it’s because he saw Treasury Counsel praying in aid the House of
    Commons Motions as an egregious attempt to bully the Court. Clearly, given
    his subsequent interventions, the President was having none of it. Good for
    him!ο»Ώ

  7. Dave Fordham
    December 8, 2016 at 4:32 PM

    I think there’s a chance now that the 11 judges may opt to “bottle it”
    because they’ve been thrust right into the middle of a political landmine.
    They have to tread very carefully because it’s not just Gina Miller versus
    the Government any more, the devolved administrations have also decided to
    put their oar in which makes the whole thing much more messy and
    potentially dangerous. So in my view, they will probably go for the option
    that causes the least damage and is the lesser of two evils. I think they
    will find in favour of the government.

    All that they have to do is agree (or at least pretend to agree) that the
    empty conduit argument with regard to the 1972 act is sufficient to prove
    that the government has the authority to trigger Article 50 without
    parliament approval because this alone does not take away the rights of the
    people (i.e. negate, remove, repeal or undo the 1972 act) but merely leads
    to its effect being lessened i.e. emptying the conduit or pipe. Although
    it’s a weak argument, Mr Eadie QC reinforced it with the idea that these
    particular rights weren’t in the same category as those given for example
    by the Dangerous Dogs Act, not least of all because no longer being a
    member of the EU means those rights are no longer guaranteed anyway.

    The government’s position is weak I have to admit but given that it is
    highly unlikely that the government will appeal to any higher court, the
    Supreme Court will find a way to accept the argument simply because it is
    the decision that causes the least grief and doesn’t plunge the country
    into a constitutional crisis especially with Scotland, Wales and Northern
    Ireland also now involved. That’s my view on it.ο»Ώ

  8. lin j
    December 8, 2016 at 6:22 PM

    This is the next biggest fit up after the Clinton saga. While the puppet
    masters tried every dirty trick (and failed so far) to get Clinton elected
    as POTUS, here, the scandal is the efforts to scupper Brexit with scare
    tactics and knowingly ignoring procedure knowing it will buy them time to
    push more lies about just how bad Brexit will be. This is very amateurish
    to say the least.ο»Ώ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *