ARTICLE 50

The Government will not be drawn into commenting further on the legal arguments but are preparing their submissions for appeal at the Supreme Court. They maintain that Parliament has a central role in ensuring the best way forward, and there have been several debates and parliamentary statements on Brexit already. The new Exiting the European Union Committee will provide another place for scrutiny.

Mr Starmer criticised the Government’s approach to Brexit as process-driven without substantial content, noting that the High Court ruling against the Prime Minister highlighted Parliament's sovereignty. He also condemned personal attacks on judges following the ruling and called for a transparent negotiation strategy from the Government.

Mr Davis defended the Government’s approach, stating that they will be as open and transparent as possible while maintaining confidentiality in negotiations. He criticised Labour MPs for what he perceived as attempts to undermine the referendum result through a second referendum or other means.

Acknowledged the previous Foreign Secretary's statement that the decision to leave the EU was given to the British people, mentioned the government spending £9 million on leaflets for this message. Reaffirmed the government’s commitment to respecting the referendum result despite legal challenges.

Stressed the constitutional upheaval Brexit will cause, emphasised the importance of thorough scrutiny by Parliament. Questioned the extent of meaningful involvement of devolved Administrations in the process.

Responded to concerns about devolution, mentioned the Prime Minister's visit to Scotland and upcoming Joint Ministerial Committee meetings as evidence of engagement with devolved Administrations.

Affirmed that both the European Union Referendum Act 2015 and the Lisbon treaty Act of 2008 are constitutional Acts, asserting they gave voters an absolute right to leave the EU.

Agreed with Bill Cash that both Acts expressed a clear mandate from voters for leaving the EU.

Argued for greater transparency in the government's Brexit plan to build national consensus and unity.

Responded that building consensus isn't possible by thwarting public will through parliamentary games. He noted some agreement with Miliband’s positions, implying the divide is not as significant as portrayed.

Asked whether the Government would remind the Supreme Court of regular use of prerogative powers over 40 years and provide evidence that the referendum was advisory to the court.

Responded by agreeing with John Redwood's point about the historical use of prerogative power but did not delve into details regarding legal cases.

Questioned why Parliament’s scrutiny rights apply to EU treaty changes but not to leaving the EU entirely, suggesting a need for prior White Papers and debates as with previous treaties.

Responded by outlining plans for extensive parliamentary debate on the Great Repeal Bill and subsequent negotiation-related legislation.

Emphasised the importance of temperate language and involvement to bring the nation together, especially in light of hate crime statistics in Nottinghamshire. Asked Davis to condemn recent vilification of judges.

Deplored threats and violent language against those involved with judicial cases, agreeing that free speech must not encourage violence.

Asked if legislation would be required to trigger Article 50 pending court decision. Sought assurances on the publication of negotiating objectives before such legislation is brought forward.

Responded that legislation requirement depends on Supreme Court ruling, committed to as much openness as possible while preserving national interest in negotiations.

Urged respect for judicial independence alongside respecting the referendum result. Requested assurance from Davis not to allow efforts by certain MPs to undermine the government's mandate.

Guaranteed that he would not allow efforts to thwart the mandate given in the referendum.

Expressed concern over previous Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government's comments on High Court decision, requesting assurance on maintaining judicial independence and respect for democratic processes.

Responded that while he respects the judiciary’s independence, disagreement with their conclusion is within acceptable parameters.

Asked for confirmation on Parliament's final vote on any prospective deal under Article 50 and stressed the importance of informing negotiating positions through consultations in country and House.

Supports the Government’s fixity of purpose on Brexit. Inquires whether last week’s events are a reminder that politics should not be conducted in courts and if there is any contingency plan for European courts involvement.

Advocates holding an immediate vote on triggering Article 50 to test sincerity of opponents, given they claim to support such a move in the House of Commons.

Asks if legislation is needed to give effect to the High Court judgment and seeks clarity on the Government's understanding regarding this point.

Reiterates that it was a Liberal government who established supremacy of elected over unelected chamber, questioning if Lib Dem peers would frustrate the referendum result through parliamentary votes.

Emphasises pressure on MPs to adhere to sovereign decisions made by people at elections and referendums. Questions the number of remainers who might vote against their preference in the next election due to current circumstances.

Proposes a straightforward Bill authorising Article 50 trigger, aiming to resolve debates and heal rift between Parliament and people by testing will of Houses immediately.

Criticises the shift in Government's view from a previous statement asserting Parliament’s responsibility for deciding on referendum results, urging clarification from the Secretary of State.

Endorses the certainty provided by the Secretary of State regarding sticking to current timetable and rejecting false narratives about soft or hard Brexit options. Emphasises taking back control as instructed by referendum.

Questions the necessity of court intervention due to lack of clarity in Government's handling of Article 50 notification and suggests condemning personal attacks on judiciary.

Suggests constitution Committee should examine present situation, commends the Government for taking a calm approach, urges pursuing appeal to Supreme Court, and expresses hope that Supreme Court may reverse High Court decision.

Critiques the lack of confidence inspired by the Government’s handling of Brexit, questioning their ability to persuade Parliament or EU partners.

Stresses importance of press freedom in maintaining democracy alongside judicial independence and criticises improper criticism of judges by Ministers.

Proposes a motion ahead of Supreme Court hearing to determine balance of opinion within Houses, suggesting this might affirm the democratic mandate for Brexit.

Asked if Parliament's ability to determine its own procedures is constrained by the High Court judgment, and whether it could pass a Bill before the Supreme Court ruling.

Responded affirmatively to Oliver Letwin, stating that Parliament's ability to determine its own procedures is not constrained by the High Court judgment. Emphasised that parliamentary sovereignty remains intact.

Questioned whether David Davis agrees with colleagues who view the High Court ruling as an attempt to frustrate the will of the people.

Asked if the Secretary of State would celebrate that parliamentary sovereignty is now embraced by those who campaigned for leaving Brussels.

Argued against rushing ahead with triggering Article 50, suggesting it should be done after summer so there's ample time to develop a plan. Mentioned concerns over timing and political context in Germany and France.

Asked for clarification on the Government’s negotiating stance regarding the customs union, single market access, and passporting rights for financial services.

Stated that nobody is above the law, even his own Government, in light of recent legal challenges.

Criticised the Welsh Labour Government for joining a legal challenge to Article 50 and urged them to engage with their voters on Brexit.

Expressed concerns about the impact of the referendum result on Northern Ireland, highlighting Irish constitutional dimensions in the context of negotiations.

Called for respect for judicial independence and the rule of law, emphasising the importance of protecting these institutions after Brexit.

Highlighted that a majority of English, Welsh, and Scottish constituencies voted to leave in the referendum, reinforcing the legitimacy of the result.

Asked why this Government is not setting out objectives similar to those outlined before previous treaty negotiations, questioning the lack of transparency and direction.

Stressed the need for greater transparency in the process to ensure that all voices are represented and that the Government is acting in the best interest of everyone, not just a majority.

Emphasised that the decision to leave was unconditional and should be respected. Criticised Opposition Members for thinking that leaving is conditional on certain deals or outcomes.

Expressed concern over the attacks on Gina Miller and judges for exercising their rights and performing their duties, questioning whether these incidents are in line with British values.

Condemned the attacks on Gina Miller as effectively criminal due to threats of violence and racial abuse. Discussed the importance of parliamentary sovereignty but emphasised the need for discretion in negotiations. Reiterated that the Government respects judicial independence and is awaiting the Supreme Court judgment.

Suggested both Houses of Parliament vote early on a resolution to exercise Article 50 before March 31, respecting the High Court judgment and parliamentary sovereignty.

Emphasised the importance of independent judges in democracy, criticised the Secretary of State for being vague about his negotiating objectives, and urged transparency from the Government regarding red lines.

Asked if the Labour party would agree to triggering Article 50 without conditions given their manifesto promise to honour referendum results. Suggested that tying negotiator's hands is counterproductive.

Asked the Secretary of State about the timing of the Supreme Court judgment and suggested starting a debate on Brexit plans regardless, proposing to table a White Paper as soon as possible.

Argued that negotiators should not be hampered by conditions when trying to negotiate a successful deal.

Called for the UK Government to engage more fully with the devolved Parliaments regarding Brexit, expressing concern about the impact of prerogative powers on legislative competence.

Supported the Secretary of State's stance on judicial independence and questioned whether the referendum gave the Government new powers they previously did not have.

Stressed the importance of upholding the judiciary’s independence, and urged for a united country going into negotiations with transparency and parliamentary support.

Asked about transitional arrangements and confirmed that cases referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union before or during the departure from EU will be heard and decisions binding.

Proposed legislation before Article 50 is triggered to thoroughly scrutinize the issue, allowing each Member to set out their views on triggering Article 50 and subsequent processes.

Suggested that invoking Article 50 does not change English law but serves as a formal notification of the referendum result. Emphasised living by the instruction given on June 23rd.

The Secretary of State should take comfort from the High Court in Belfast's affirmation that the devolved settlement will not be amended by Article 50. He also emphasises that constitutional arrangements and external relations are reserved matters, implying that the decision to trigger Article 50 should be made by the nation as a whole.

Acknowledges Gavin Robinson's comments and reiterates his stance on the proper approach for the Government regarding triggering Article 50, stating that Parliament is not constrained in this matter. Also dismisses claims about a proposed transitional arrangement from The Financial Times. He maintains that there has been significant input from those who supported remain, challenging the notion of lack of inclusiveness.

Suggests the Government should proceed with putting a resolution to a vote in the House regarding Article 50 to help clarify Parliament's stance for the courts, arguing it would provide clarity on principles of law.

Questions whether not having an agreement near the end of the two-year period following triggering Article 50 weakens the UK's negotiating position and inquires about potential transitional arrangements beyond the initial period proposed by The Financial Times.

Emphasises the importance of including those who voted to remain, suggesting that it is crucial for bringing the country back together and respects the role of the judiciary in the UK constitution.

Asks the Secretary of State about the costs associated with legal proceedings related to Article 50 and questions whether these expenses are justified given the importance of issues such as single market access, employment rights, and prisoner transfer agreements.

Raises concerns about the High Court's acceptance that an Article 50 notice cannot be withdrawn once given, questioning whether maintaining this stance would preserve Parliament’s sovereignty over Executive decisions regarding triggering Article 50.

Questions the Government's handling of public communication surrounding the referendum and its implications for parliamentary procedures, suggesting a lack of clarity or dishonesty from the Government towards their constituents.

Argues that detailed indications about legal supremacy, migration policy, trade policy, reciprocal rights, and regulatory continuity have been given by the Government, reinforcing the view that further constraints would not serve national interests.

Challenges David Davis’s motivations for taking Article 50 to a higher legal authority rather than seeking parliamentary endorsement first, suggesting it is more about prerogative rights of the Crown than parliamentary sovereignty.

Supports Chris Bryant's view but interjects with “For the people!” to highlight that the decision should reflect public sentiment.

Inquires why the Government won't seek parliamentary agreement on broad objectives for Britain’s relationship with the EU before triggering Article 50, seeking more transparency in the process.

Asks who will lead the Government's case to the Supreme Court and expresses satisfaction that a professional legal team will be involved rather than expecting David Davis to personally represent the case.

Raises concerns about media commentary regarding judges and their integrity, asking for clarification on whether it is acceptable to refer to judges as enemies of the people or if someone's sexuality affects their ability to hold judicial positions.

Defends the Government’s position against calls for detailed negotiations to be revealed in Parliament, arguing that transparency should not undermine the Prime Minister's negotiating leverage.

Challenges David Davis regarding his colleague Sajid Javid's comments on judges and demands a condemnation of calls for public demonstrations against the Supreme Court to intimidate it, asking for a reaffirmation of respect for judicial independence.

Defended the Government's appeal against the High Court ruling on Article 50, emphasising the importance of upholding judicial independence and adhering to legal procedures. Reiterated the commitment to trigger Article 50 by the end of March as originally stated.

Asked about the Secretary of State's stance on abandoning the appeal following the Northern Irish court’s ruling, which accepted that Article 50 alone does not alter individual rights.

Inquired whether the Secretary of State still supports the Parliamentary Control of the Executive Bill originally authored by Tony Benn to bring declarations of war under parliamentary control.

Joked about a cross-party meeting with the Secretary of State for playing poker, suggesting transparency in the Government's Brexit strategy.

Cited concerns from constituents worried that suspending rule of law and parliamentary protection is not what they voted for during the referendum.

Suggested a straightforward approach to Article 50 by obtaining parliamentary consent without delay or conditions that might compromise the Prime Minister’s negotiating position.

Stated that despite voting to remain, he accepts the referendum result and supports the triggering of Article 50 as a democratic decision.

Supported the Secretary of State in asserting that those opposing Article 50 invocation are enemies of democracy, urging him to prevent delays or derailment of Brexit process.

Argued for delaying Article 50 until a clear understanding of economic implications is established, proposing an additional referendum to validate the terms of exit from the EU.

Asked for confirmation that Government policy remains committed to triggering Article 50 before March and enacting the Great Repeal Bill, regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Questioned why a fellow Conservative MP resigned over allegations that Ministers had ignored Parliament since the Brexit vote.

Challenged the Secretary of State on revealing his hand in negotiations versus transparency, citing economic concerns and job losses due to Government's handling.

Asked for condemnation of hate crime against those who voted Leave and emphasised the importance of clarity and resolution in Brexit process.

Pressed for a clear decision to trigger Article 50, suggesting that waiting for court decisions is delaying the inevitable democratic process.

Asked if the right hon. Friend shares his concern that the courts may rule again on prerogative powers regarding decisions to go to war.

Stated one reason for taking this matter to the Supreme Court is to get an absolutely specific outcome and answer. Also responded to various questions on Article 50, judicial interference, and the will of the people.

Expressed concern regarding Ireland Act 1949 and common travel area rights for Irish citizens. Asked if there would be any change to these rights post-Brexit.

Asked if the Government will lose out by allowing Members of Parliament to amend Article 50 Bill in a material way that binds Prime Minister’s hands, resulting in a worse deal for Britain.

Asked if the Secretary of State accepts that people voted to leave or remain for various reasons and questioned whether Parliament should decide on Article 50.

Challenged Labour Members for their stance on Article 50, questioning if they are trying to subvert the will of the British people and lose touch with hard-working classes.

Asked how a Prime Minister can negotiate effectively without revealing objectives, aims, plans, or goals before sitting at the negotiating table.

Questioned why the Secretary of State is not publishing a White Paper to ensure business confidence and international investment in Britain post-Brexit.

Asked if my right hon. Friend still wants to go ahead with his appeal, given that an Article 50 Bill would likely receive a huge majority on Second Reading.

Questioned whether the Secretary of State acknowledges the Scottish National party's mandate to protect Scotland’s place in Europe and safeguard it from Brexit.

Echoed concern about possible implications of the judgment for areas such as defence, asking if the Secretary of State agrees that judicial interference would break new ground.

Asked my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that maximum flexibility and authority are needed for negotiating with EU to avoid a bad deal, lost jobs, or further societal divisions.

Questioned the Secretary of State why he now disagrees with the Bill he previously supported regarding Crown prerogative and parliamentary assent.

Asked if the Secretary of State will respect the will of the people and lead us out of the EU, while upholding the independence of the judiciary.

Asked my right hon. Friend if he agrees that 23 June's vote was a direct decision to leave the EU and should be respected, urging for triggering Article 50 as soon as possible.

Stresses the importance of carrying through the Brexit process based on the 17.4 million votes for leaving the European Union.

Expresses confusion over opposition's stance, highlighting their call for certainty in business while also suggesting prolonging the Article 50 invocation process until next summer.

Reiterates that it is difficult to discern the opposition's intentions, implying they might be working against the interests of the British people.