Here are some of the points brought by Miller.

The Royal Prerogative does not extend to conferring rights upon individuals

The Crown may impose obligations upon the state without any participiaion on the part of democratically elected organs of government.

The Crown enjoys a broad power precisely because - by reason of Parliamentry sovereignty - what is agreed on the international plane does not affect and cannot affect, the content of domestic law, and especially the rights created by parliament.

Their argument is contradictory. On the one hand they say the Crown cannot confer rights upon individuals yet on the other they can impose obligations on the state (which by extension would confer rights to an individual) and then that the Crown enjoys power because it can't effect domestic law but their argument is that it does effect domestic law but they've already acknowledged that point when they said the Crown can impose obligations on the state

I'm waiting for "Brexit: The Movie". It can't be far off, surely. The appeal will be presented by Morgan Freeman, jerking tears.

Brad Pitt can play Boris. Meryl Streep for May (she always plays female PMs, doesn't she?)

It does seem like a total waste of time and money to me. I'm sure the government would get a short bill approved within a couple of days giving it permission to trigger A50. This will take months and cost a fortune and change nothing.

I was not assigning nefarious motives to her, I was saying what i saw.

Still i will grant you I do not like her based on what I have seen of her previous performances but I doubt it will concern her unduly.

You really do not understand this do you?

Parliament voted and approved the ECA 1972 which confers rights upon individuals; triggering Article 50 is one way street to removing those rights, hence only Parliament can trigger Article 50.

Really, really simple.

Yes i do. The point is that the ECA act 1972 was/is to use an analogy a vessel and if the rights conferred by it are domestic law how come they can be restricted by foreign states?

it's actually a pretty interesting point they are making

Me neither but I am convinced the government were privately pleased they lost the original case and know full well that they will also lose the Appeal.

For May, it seems to me that anything that muddies the waters and postpones her having to make any definitive public statements is a good thing. Absolutely nobody has the feintest idea how this is going to unravel, especially the PM.

The ECA doesn't in itself convey any rights as it simply transposed EU law into UK law. The rights are contained in the EU treaties not within the ECA and rights can be amended, removed and added without the approval of parliament by changes in EU treaties or EU law and the UK as a member of the EU is legally obliged to implement EU law into UK law whether parliament approves of it or not.

Indeed. That is the central point. You are on a very slippery slope if any government can remove individual rights by the Royal Prerogative. The government may have public backing this time but it would set a precedent for the future.

You really need to link us to the full version of that, if you expect anyone to comment on it.

It isn't, that's just the argument of the government. That argument does not fit in with any prior court rulings or behaviour in the last however many hundred years... as made clear in the submission of any and all claimant responses.

The ECA has granted rights by the power of parliament; no one other than parliament can take those away. Not even a majority of all voters in the UK.

Read up on McWhirter and Tin Council.

I am surprised that they are hearing the appeal at the Supreme Court when there are so many self-certificated experts on here.

I beg to differ, the High Court agrees and the Supreme Court is most likely to agree with me as well.

Parliament has transposed any and all EU conferred rights into domestic law, as required by the ECA.

How about you name one single EU originating law that was added to UK domestic law without vote by Parliament?

https://www.mishcon.com/assets/manag...d_24.11.16.pdf

Had to go out.
Did I miss the zombies?

How about you name one that wasn't conferred at the root by the Crown?

What a silly comment to make. Just because I am an expert in legal matters does not make me a Supreme Court judge.

If I may remind you, before you start bashing what I am saying, I said on here, publicly, weeks prior to the High Court hearing or indeed ruling, how the judges would rule and why.

Law is not rocket science but there is a reasons why the Supreme Court consist of the most senior judges in the country.

Parliament transposes all EU law into UK law through the ECA because the UK is a member of the EU not because of the ECA. In short it has no choice but to other than leave the EU.

How about you name one EU law that wasn't added to UK domestic law by parliament voting not to?

Lol.

ERA 1996, Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, Working Time Regulations 1998, Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000

Just a few and just from employment law.

All of these come from EU directives, all of them were voted on, amended and approved by PARLIAMENT. Not the Crown, not the PM, not the government.

None of them can be taken away by anyone other than Parliament.

Oh but you're wrong there. Parliament has the power to transpose EU law into domestic law however it pleases as long as it guarantees the minimum required by EU law, or indeed gets a waiver on certain points.

The Working Time Regulations are a prefect example - Parliament wanted to give more annual leave than required by the EU (and did exactly that), at the same time it wanted to give people an opt out from the 48 hour/week rule (and did exactly that by way of a waiver from the EU).

Scanned it quickly and it raises the point of interdependence between Parliament and the Crown and that sharp divide between them swims against the tides which ties into the point being made by the government, that parliament is involved but that they haven't limited the Crown by statute.

In other words parliament has to implement EU law unless the EU gives it a waiver to do otherwise which is the point I was making so I fail to see how I'm wrong.

you missed the word root then? The point being that any EU rights, obligations, and laws which are applicable to us stem from treaties.

Quite the opposite.

The Tin Foil ruling argues that international treaties (for which RP can be used) cannot grant rights or obligations in domestic law. It therefore destroys the government's argument as government admits rights will be destroyed by leaving the EU.

McWhirter, on which the government relies, is irrelevant, as by joining the EEC no domestic rights were removed or indeed amended. Hence the RP could be used. In fact the court ruled back than that the case was unarguable.

And how is that even relevant to anything being argued (you're still wrong either way)?