On this week’s Spectator podcast, Isabel Hardman talks about the landmark Supreme Court ruling and whether it is putting ‘Brexit on trial’. She’s joined on the podcast by Joshua Rozenberg, who wrote this week’s cover story, and Timothy Endicott, Professor of Legal Philosophy at the University of Oxford, who says that:
“Where we’ve got to is an instant classic of constitutional law from the divisional court. A judgment that the government does not have the authority to trigger Article 50 because that would result, presumably, in Britain leaving the European Union. That would deprive you and me of rights that we have. We have those rights because parliament gave them to us in 1972 in the European Communities Act and the divisional court decided that, in that case, the government’s action would be overruling a statute of parliament, and that’s constitutionally impossible.”
But what will this actually mean for the prospect of Brexit? Joshua Rozenberg answers that:
“It simply means the decision is to be taken, not by the government, but by parliament.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in