The Supreme Court’s Brexit ruling is not the victory Gina Miller thinks it is

It just shows the constitution needs an overhaul, badly

gina

Thanks to a decision by eight of the eleven Supreme Court justices, the government had to consult parliament on triggering Article 50 and beginning the formal process of leaving the European Union.

Not that, given how torrid a time the government’s lawyers had at the hands of Lord Pannick QC and his associates, there was ever any doubt as to the outcome. Even Theresa May accepted that, having already held a vote in which parliament overwhelmingly ratified the vote to leave the EU in the weeks before Christmas, as well as happily declaring that parliament would be given a vote on the final terms.

The real point of this case then was for no greater purpose than affirming it would be constitutional business as usual, with the supremacy of the Westminster parliament over not just the executive, but also the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being reaffirmed. The judgment will be most of interest to law students and their teachers (though God help any law student expected to wade through the near century of pages that make up this judgment), but at a cost that may be of interest to taxpayers.

That said, there will still be plenty for constitutional scholars to get their teeth into. With a judgment that covers everything from the Case of Proclamations to Alternative Voting Provisions by way of De Keyser’s Royal Hotel, the judgment is a whirlwind tour through British constitutional history — but it is hardly the great victory for the constitution that Gina Miller made it out to be.


WANT TO WRITE FOR THE LEGAL CHEEK JOURNAL?

Submit your idea


For one thing the case had already been superseded by, first, the vote effectively ratifying Brexit, and second, by May’s promise to give parliament a vote on the final terms of negotiations between the UK and the EU. This not to mention that the second paragraph of the brevity-inspired Withdrawal from the European Union Bill states that none of the provisions in the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) are applicable in any way shape or form.

So far from being a great victory for the constitution, this case has demonstrated that if the government can’t leap over a constitutional hurdle, it can just pass legislation to remove it from existence. Additionally, it is the government, and not the opposition, that is reaping a political dividend from the aftermath of this case, given that Labour’s shadow cabinet looks set to return to its favourite game of who can resign first.

Indeed, apart from the argument I made in my original article on this case (that there was no point in this case being brought since parliament was always going to get a vote on leaving the EU), in form of repealing the ECA, there are only two other aspects of this case that are worthy of note.

One is that the main irony here is that Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes, who dissented from the majority judgment, were also the ones holding the door of hope open to those who want the UK to stay in the EU.

Lord Hughes in particular discussed an interesting possibility. According to his judgment, the ECA did not need to be repealed, merely suspended, since its operation depended on the UK’s accession to the various EU treaties. Since the UK would be entering into formal negotiations to leave the EU, it would no longer accede to those treaties, and the ECA would be reduced to a state of de facto obsolescence. It would however, still be on the statute books. So if the UK ever decided to rejoin the EU, the legal framework would already be in place for it to do so, making a reversal of the decision to leave that much simpler.

By requiring a vote in parliament however, the ECA is now much more likely to be repealed, and so the efforts of claimants Mrs Miller and Mr Dos Santos will be to ensure a more complete divorce from the EU now takes place.

Two, and again this is going back to an argument I made in my original article on this case, the constitution of this country is long overdue a reckoning.

When Supreme Court justices are calling upon cases that are well over four hundred years old for arguments over whether or not monarchs can simply create new powers for themselves (even though Her Majesty has wisely steered clear of the philosophical and political morass that constituted the debates over Brexit), intermingled with questions over whether or not the Bill of Rights can be of any clarity, then what is really being said is that the constitution needs an overhaul. Badly.

In any event, the legalistic farce that this case started is set to continue.

Jolyon Maugham QC, a tax barrister from London, is set to move the stage from the Supreme Court to the Irish High Court in Dublin, where he plans to bring a case against the Irish state over the fact that the UK has been illegally excluded from various EU meetings since shortly after the Brexit vote. Mr Maugham hopes that this case will be referred by the Irish courts to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), given it is really a case against the whole of the EU rather than the Irish. Since it can take up to two years for the ECJ to give a ruling on matters referred to it by the national courts don’t be surprised if the UK has left the EU by then, rendering any judgment of the ECJ rather moot.

Gareth Wood is a graduate in European Politics Society and Culture from Lancaster University. He is now studying the GDL at the University of Law.

Want to write for the Legal Cheek Journal? Find out more here.

Please bear in mind that the authors of many Legal Cheek Journal pieces are at the beginning of their career. We'd be grateful if you could keep your comments constructive.

34 Comments

Anonymous

Too right!

The legal challenged has assisted Brexit rather than thwarted, as was the intention of Gina Miller & co, although of course they would not admit it ‘now’.

As for multi millionaire Jolyon crowdfunding to gullible Remainers and gaining immeasurable publicity for himself at the same time in his pointless legal challenge, it is as you say moot.

Nice article, thanks.

(36)(5)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Good luck to self described ‘working class’ Jolyon – Of Etonian best selling author father & the go to barrister for tax avoidance celebrities willing to pay very large fees.

He will need it in his Irish/ECJ case.

(21)(4)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Yes G.Miller was livid about Referendum result and wanted to change it as she has told the media prior to her starting legal action.

Then after legal advice Gina disingenuously continuously stated it was just about ‘process’.

Only a dullard would believe her.

(20)(2)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Sure:
“”
One woman’s lonely battle to prevent a rush for the Brexit
Gina Miller is on three hours’ sleep a night but she cannot give up her Article 50 fight

On the night of the EU referendum Gina Miller slept for 36 minutes. “I know, because my husband gave me this watch that tracks my sleep,” she says, waving a slim wrist bearing an elegant Withings watch. Her husband and business partner, Alan Miller, went to sleep, but she sat in bed beside him in their south London home watching television.

At 4am she was “physically sick” as she tried to take in what the UK had voted for. By breakfast, however, Ms Miller’s brain was clunking into gear. When her 11-year-old son heard the news, he said: “But you’re going to do something, Mummy, you always do.”

“And I said, ‘I’m not promising anything, but I will talk to…
“”

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/one-woman-s-lonely-battle-to-prevent-a-rush-for-the-brexit-sm530ksft

There are some other links on this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/5pw66d/gina_miller_prereferendumearly_post_referendum/

(4)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

The Times – 15th October (for one – there are others)

One woman’s lonely battle to prevent a rush for the Brexit
Gina Miller is on three hours’ sleep a night but she cannot give up her Article 50 fight

Julia Llewellyn Smith
October 15 2016, 12:01am,
The Times

Gina Miller: “People are angry because they were sold a pup, but I will not be bullied”

On the night of the EU referendum Gina Miller slept for 36 minutes. “I know, because my husband gave me this watch that tracks my sleep,” she says, waving a slim wrist bearing an elegant Withings watch. Her husband and business partner, Alan Miller, went to sleep, but she sat in bed beside him in their south London home watching television.

At 4am she was “physically sick” as she tried to take in what the UK had voted for. By breakfast, however, Ms Miller’s brain was clunking into gear. When her 11-year-old son heard the news, he said: “But you’re going to do something, Mummy, you always do.”

“And I said, ‘I’m not promising anything, but I will talk to…

(9)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

That’s flaky evidence for your assertion at best. The Times article has a paywall but another interview in the Guardian just two weeks later says:

Miller denies her lawsuit is trying to reverse the referendum. “I don’t think that’s possible,” she told the Guardian. Instead, she says it is an attempt to gain legal clarity over whether the government is entitled to trigger article 50, or whether this must be approved by parliament.

(3)(8)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

“When Supreme Court justices are calling upon cases that are well over four hundred years old for arguments over whether or not monarchs can simply create new powers for themselves (even though Her Majesty has wisely steered clear of the philosophical and political morass that constituted the debates over Brexit), intermingled with questions over whether or not the Bill of Rights can be of any clarity, then what is really being said is that the constitution needs an overhaul. Badly.”

Ah, you didn’t study law I see. Very insightful…

(16)(14)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

She’s an awful, self centred person. Thank god the MP’s had enough decency and sobriety of mind to put this matter to bed. Looking forward to celebrating our independence day soon!

(22)(20)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

In interviews Gina Miller always said it was about things being done in the right order and that she accepted Brexit was a reality. You’re arguing for PMs to be able to act ultra vires because what? It’s more expedient? The referendum vote may have ratified the decision in your eyes but legally it’s still only advisory not binding. The ‘final terms of negotiations’ is different from the decision to leave the EU.

(20)(14)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Naive!

In interviews once she launched her legal action she was coy.

Prior to this she has admitted being enraged, overwhelmed by the Public Vote and wanting to change the Referendum result.

Clearly she speaks with forked tongue.

(23)(5)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

The Times – 15th October (for one)

One woman’s lonely battle to prevent a rush for the Brexit
Gina Miller is on three hours’ sleep a night but she cannot give up her Article 50 fight

Julia Llewellyn Smith
October 15 2016, 12:01am,
The Times

Gina Miller: “People are angry because they were sold a pup, but I will not be bullied”

On the night of the EU referendum Gina Miller slept for 36 minutes. “I know, because my husband gave me this watch that tracks my sleep,” she says, waving a slim wrist bearing an elegant Withings watch. Her husband and business partner, Alan Miller, went to sleep, but she sat in bed beside him in their south London home watching television.

At 4am she was “physically sick” as she tried to take in what the UK had voted for. By breakfast, however, Ms Miller’s brain was clunking into gear. When her 11-year-old son heard the news, he said: “But you’re going to do something, Mummy, you always do.”

“And I said, ‘I’m not promising anything, but I will talk to…

(8)(2)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

I think you’re missing the point Gareth. You say that one reason the case was not important is because Parliament was always going to get a vote i.e. a vote on whether to repeal the ECA. That’s a totally different matter entirely. The UK will be leaving the EU under the terms of the relevant EU treaty. Once the government “triggers” Article 50 then, irrespective of what Parliament does, the UK will, and probably after two years, simply fall out of the EU. Whether Parliament choose to approve the repeal of the ECA is irrelevant in terms of the wider issue of Brexit.

And, your comment that the government can just legislate constitutional hurdles away is not correct. The Brexit bill is taking place within the UK’s existing constitutional framework (where Parliament is sovereign and cannot bind itself) – the government is not legislating any part of the constitution away.

(15)(5)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

What if the triggering of Article 50 is reversible? There’s no indication that it’s not.

In that case, parliament (or “Parliament” as you write it, for some reason) could have an effective vote down the line.

(0)(0)
Reply Report comment
True-Man LJ

Surely even if the outcome of litigation is diminished by subsequent developments, what is important is that justice is done and seen to be done.

This case involved a question of procedure and it needed to be answered. The judges gave their view and the process was followed. The subsequent developments do not render the Miller judgment moot.

The fact that the government had to pass a bill via the proper parliamentary process, rather than leapfrogging, is precisely what is constitutionally valuable about this case.

I thoroughly enjoyed watching the arguments and considering the constitutional principles in issue. If nothing else I think this case has been a valuable exercise in debating our constitutional framework.

(0)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

£10 says one – or more – graduate recruiters will be reading this article and thinking “hmm, this looks familiar.”

Legal Cheek is turning into Vice.

(5)(0)
Reply Report comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.