Twitter/Sky News
Gina Miller.
Last month, three of the UK's most senior judges ruled that it would be unlawful for Theresa May to trigger Britain's formal exit from the EU without first passing an Act of Parliament.
However, the government decided to appeal the High Court's decision, meaning the case will be revisited by the country's highest court from December 5-8. It'll be the first time the Supreme Court sits in full since its creation.
The government maintains that Theresa May is legally permitted to trigger Article 50 using royal prerogative, an archaic constitutional convention that allows
London-based law firm Mishcon de Reya has published Miller's response to the government's appeal. The investment manager repeats the points that her legal representatives put forward successfully last month, including the main argument that triggering Article 50 will destroy rights which only UK parliament can legislate on.
These are the main points of Miller's legal argument (paraphrased):
- Triggering Article 50 would destroy rights that were established by UK parliament's decision to pass the European Communities Act (1972) - rights that only parliament can destroy.
- The Court has the power and duty to decide questions of law, regardless of whether the judgment pleases politicians of the press (the judges who made the High Court ruling came under attack from various right-wing newspapers and pro-Brexit politicians)
- The Appellant fails to grasp basic "fundamental principles" of UK law - including parliamentary sovereignty, legality, and the constitutional status of the European Communities Act.
- The issue of future Brexit legislation, like the Great Repeal Bill, is irrelevant because just the notification of Article 50 will result in statutory rights being destroyed without MPs having a say.
Read a one-page summary of Miller's case below, produced by Mischon de Reya:
Summary of Written Case for Supreme Court Appeal by Adam on Scribd