Lord Panick’s point, aired before the UK Supreme Court this afternoon, that the EU
Referendum was merely advisory (the advisory-only nature of the EU Referendum,
though not found on the face of the EU Referendum Act 2015, was, in fact,
explicit in Ministerial response to a Commons amendment put by Mr. Salmond) seems
to be an insurmountable constitutional obstacle for the Government’s argument
that the Prerogative Powers can be imposed on the justification that the EU Referendum
result accords the Government popular authority to trigger Article 50 TEU without Parliamentary debate on the matter.
The Court has made it abundantly
clear that, whilst conscious of the intensity of political debate (amongst the Public and what may occur in Westminster), the justices will determine the issues
on the basis of legal argument alone. The Government’s argument seems set to
fail but the justices will be at pains to provide a judgment that leaves no
left-overs so as to liberate from any legal ambiguity the inevitably tense
political debate that will occur regardless of the decision. This determination to ensure no loose threads are left dangling seems to be
reflected in the probing questions coming from the bench of eleven looking to snip away any discernible frayed edges.
Leave no irritant crumbs?
Lord Panick’s point, aired before the UK Supreme Court this afternoon, that the EU Referendum was merely advisory (the advisory-only nature of the EU Referendum, though not found on the face of the EU Referendum Act 2015, was, in fact, explicit in Ministerial response to a Commons amendment put by Mr. Salmond) seems to be an insurmountable constitutional obstacle for the Government’s argument that the Prerogative Powers can be imposed on the justification that the EU Referendum result accords the Government popular authority to trigger Article 50 TEU without Parliamentary debate on the matter.
The Court has made it abundantly clear that, whilst conscious of the intensity of political debate (amongst the Public and what may occur in Westminster), the justices will determine the issues on the basis of legal argument alone. The Government’s argument seems set to fail but the justices will be at pains to provide a judgment that leaves no left-overs so as to liberate from any legal ambiguity the inevitably tense political debate that will occur regardless of the decision. This determination to ensure no loose threads are left dangling seems to be reflected in the probing questions coming from the bench of eleven looking to snip away any discernible frayed edges.