UK Supreme Court to rule on whether parliament should have a say on Brexit

BRITAIN’S Supreme Court is due to make a decision on Brexit after a bitter and abusive campaign, but some Brits cannot keep up with the debate.

More than five months after the June 23 referendum, British Prime Minister Theresa May has refused to outline the government's Brexit strategy for exiting the European Union (EU). Picture: AFP PHOTO / Daniel LEAL-OLIVAS

BRITS have taken to Twitter in confusion over the complicated legal wrangling broadcast live during the Supreme Court hearing over Brexit on the first day of the landmark case.

The hotly anticipated outcome will decide whether the UK government will require parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50 and start the Brexit negotiations.

It comes after a group of private citizens led by financial entrepreneur and former model Gina Miller and hairdresser Deir dos Santos took the government to the High Court arguing that the government should not be able to use “royal prerogative” that would begin divorce negotiations with the European Union.

The High Court ruled in their favour and the government appeal has seen the case rushed to the Supreme Court, where 11 judges will hear four days of complex legal arguments over the issue.

But while the complicated and lengthy hearing is confusing for most, tensions are running high over the outcome.

The Daily Mail has dubbed it the “Battle for Britain” and there are protesters outside the court on both sides of the issue. Senior judge David Neuberger opened the hearing by condemning the death threats and abuse directed at Gina Miller. The former model has spent tens of thousands on security and faced death threats over her role in the case.

“Threatening and abusing people because they are exercising their fundamental right to go to court undermines the rule of law,” he said.

Meanwhile on Twitter, many Brits struggled to follow the constitutional intricacies but remained invested in the result. Others noted the lack of diversity among the mostly white, male judiciary.

I'm confused. Why haven't the judges got buzzers ...and where is Simon Cowell? #SupremeCourt

— • (@slaine1111) December 5, 2016

Its disgusting that Masters of the Royal Courts of Injustice have any say. Whats the point in having a referendum? #SupremeCourt

— Ami (@AquarianTribe) December 5, 2016

Get the feeling if you miss episode 1 of Supreme Court it’s pretty hard to catch up with the rest of the season. #Brexit #SupremeCourt

— Kevan Mander (@KevanMander) December 5, 2016

#SupremeCourt
An unelected PM asking for the powers of a dictator to push through suicidal #Brexit

— Mel Melvin (@melaniekmelvin) December 5, 2016

Please tell me Gina Miller has to pay the government's legal fees if she loses the appeal at the #SupremeCourt

— David (@CarbonCriminal) December 5, 2016

These Brexiteers clearly have never tried to get out of a gym membership.#SupremeCourt #Brexit

— #RoadComedian (@MartinMorComedy) December 5, 2016

Protesters outside the court have called on the government to trigger Article 50 immediately. Picture: AFP PHOTO / DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS

The result could thwart Theresa May’s plans for a speedy Brexit. Picture: AP Photo/Alastair Grant, File.

Anti-Brexiteers want to protect freedom of movement. Picture: AFP PHOTO / DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS

Others fumed at the fact the case was going ahead at all with Conservative MP Nadine Dorries branding the group “millionaires being allowed to question the decisions of judges.”

“People put their trust in the Government when they put their tick [in the box] and the argument was made clear that this is what it is going to look like. People knew exactly what they were voting for,” she said.

Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP acting for the government, said the government has a clear mandate to use the “royal prerogative” because it was “in accordance with legitimate public expectations” following the referendum.

“At the heart of the referendum campaign was the proposition that the referendum would provide the definitive answer.”

He said the triggering of Article 50 will not come “on a whim” but as the “logical outcome” of a “clear and decisive action”.

The flip side of the argument is that there is no mandate for what type of Brexit should be delivered — for example whether Britain should stay in or out of the single market — necessitating a vote on the issue.

The government fears if the Court forces a vote on the issue this could delay Article 50 being triggered past the government’s stated time frame of March 2017. However in reality, political experts say a short bill could be passed through parliament in time. MPs that voted to block it would risk being portrayed as attempting to thwart a democratic referendum result.

The general view inside the Supreme Court was criticised for being overwhelmingly white and male. Picture: The Supreme Court via AP.

Gina Miller, co-founder of investment fund SCM Private said she has spent more than $100,000 on security since taking on the case. Picture: AFP PHOTO / Daniel LEAL-OLIVAS

The exact terms of the deal Britain will get when it leaves the EU remain a huge source of contention five months on from the referendum, with plenty of debate over whether Britain will stay inside or outside the single market.

The government has been extremely tight-lipped on the model they want to pursue, saying it will give away their negotiating position. Last week, an aide was snapped leaving a meeting with notes visible that contained the words “have cake and eat it” and “Canada plus” which are the first inklings of what the government is working on.

The delicate negotiations come at a time of turmoil in Europe with populist movements on the rise in France, Austria, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Many are angered over the freedom of movement enshrined as part of EU membership.

The final decision is due in January. Picture: AFP PHOTO / DANIEL LEAL-OLIVA