Really interesting court case and day 1 of "The Royal Prerogative"
It basically boils down to whether a minister -in this case Amino 1 - can remove rights established by an act of parliament.
It raises questions of "fundamental constitutional importance about the limits of the power of the executive"
Pannick, QC for the challenger, said " this court is not concerned with the political wisdom of withdrawal" "The government was wrong to suggest the legal challenge was merely camouflage to prevent Brexit"
Pannick's client the court was advised had again received threats, abuse and insults.
A further QC - representing the people
Argued" the constitution of our parliamentary democracy, unwritten as it is , is predicated on the sovereignty of parliament and the courts working as arbiter. Notification of withdrawal leads to the removal of the rights of UK citizens.
Chambers QC argued that the referendum did not replace the UK system of parliamentary democracy"
If the government triggered A50 it would be setting itself up as "de facto legislature"
This is a case about what is legally required, not what is legally expedient.
Good ain't it?
