:00:00. > :00:20.Hello from the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land on the
:00:21. > :00:25.final day of this historic Brexit hearing were the 11 Supreme Court
:00:26. > :00:30.Justices took their seats for the last submissions of this hearing,
:00:31. > :00:35.including that of Richard Gordon QC, on behalf of the Welsh government,
:00:36. > :00:42.arguing that because of devolution, the Welsh Assembly should be
:00:43. > :00:48.consulted on the triggering Brexit. Where there is no existing
:00:49. > :00:53.prerogative power, no question of whether Parliament has abrogated or
:00:54. > :00:59.revise the power arises. This is elementary. A child of six could
:01:00. > :01:05.understand this point. That is very well put! I say that a child of six
:01:06. > :01:08.could understand this point because if you tell a child cannot go out
:01:09. > :01:15.and play in the garden but can clean the House, it has no power to then
:01:16. > :01:19.go out in the garden. If you haven't got a particular power to do
:01:20. > :01:24.something, because to do so would violate a prior constraint, you
:01:25. > :01:31.simply don't have the prerogative power, so to accept that there is a
:01:32. > :01:39.power does mean that there is not a treaty making power to dispense with
:01:40. > :01:43.laws or revisit statutory schemes or two crucify human rights. And all
:01:44. > :01:48.the recent events have nothing to do with this case, in particular, and I
:01:49. > :01:52.say it respectfully and particularly, the referendum Act of
:01:53. > :01:58.2015 was absolutely nothing to do with the legal issues in this case.
:01:59. > :02:02.The referendum result was discussed in argument yesterday. It is a
:02:03. > :02:09.statute that has died, fulfil this purpose. You cannot revive a court
:02:10. > :02:15.-- corpse by tearing up the death certificate. You cannot revive the
:02:16. > :02:21.2015 Act and give it a separate purpose which is two, in some way,
:02:22. > :02:27.from the moment of statute. Because to do that is to give a statute of
:02:28. > :02:32.the power and not a prerogative power, and there's nothing in the
:02:33. > :02:36.2015 Act that can say anything sensible about the prerogative. That
:02:37. > :02:43.was Richard Gordon QC, for the Welsh government. Then the Supreme Court
:02:44. > :02:47.heard from Helen Mountfield juicy, representing the people's challenge,
:02:48. > :02:49.campaigning group arguing that there must be Parliamentary legislation to
:02:50. > :02:54.trigger article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. There is no prerogative
:02:55. > :03:02.power to change the law. There was nothing to abrogate. Submissions are
:03:03. > :03:05.as Mr Gordon suggested, and in effect to say that the government
:03:06. > :03:09.can change the constitution in a radical way, because Parliament has
:03:10. > :03:18.never said that it can't, or to put it perhaps at the more facetious
:03:19. > :03:20.level, on the last day of the case, Mr Eadie's submissions are the
:03:21. > :03:24.equivalent of arguing that because none of the attempts to catch the
:03:25. > :03:31.lock this monster have succeeded, the lock this monster still roams
:03:32. > :03:37.free. -- Loch Ness Monster. The Supreme Court heard some impassioned
:03:38. > :03:41.argument from the QC representing nationals of the European Economic
:03:42. > :03:46.Area and their children, who can live in the United Kingdom because
:03:47. > :03:54.of European law. First thing one has to keep hold of is that hard cases
:03:55. > :04:00.make bad law. This case is not hard. Some people are trying to make it
:04:01. > :04:07.very, very hard. The reason why they are trying to make it very hard, and
:04:08. > :04:10.putting their talisman in the position of contortions well they
:04:11. > :04:16.say one thing one minute and another thing the next is because nobody
:04:17. > :04:26.ever thought that the 2015 Act was ever intended to confer any
:04:27. > :04:32.prerogative power at all. And the reason for that is, or one reason
:04:33. > :04:39.for that maybe, when I single body, I mean the government and the
:04:40. > :04:45.legislature, -- when I say the body, one reason for that maybe this. It
:04:46. > :04:51.is a political point made by those who voted Leave. Nobody ever thought
:04:52. > :04:58.that there was going to be a Leave vote. That's why there was no idea
:04:59. > :05:03.that there was going to be any need to consider the prerogative. That is
:05:04. > :05:09.why the statute is drafted as it is, in a limited way. This will be
:05:10. > :05:14.something that I will come through in due course. I accept the point
:05:15. > :05:17.that the notion of a flexible constitution can be useful but in
:05:18. > :05:23.this case it does something far more fundamental than that. The court
:05:24. > :05:29.might be facing some amount of pressure, as an 11 bench court, but
:05:30. > :05:35.this is now time to turn a flexible constitution into a slippery one,
:05:36. > :05:43.and lets go of its bedrock fundamentals. -- this is no time.
:05:44. > :05:48.Towards the end of the final day of this hearing, the Supreme Court then
:05:49. > :05:53.returned to the central arguments that they have been listening to
:05:54. > :05:56.this week, and those revolve around whether it is Parliamentary
:05:57. > :06:00.legislation that is needed to trigger article 50 or, as the
:06:01. > :06:04.government believe, simple prerogative powers exercised by
:06:05. > :06:11.ministers, and that was the argument that once again, was put in closing
:06:12. > :06:15.submissions by the government Counsel James Eadie, juicy. We do
:06:16. > :06:21.not accept the power to alter the law of the land or common rights by
:06:22. > :06:29.exercise of the prerogative. We do assert a specific power to notify
:06:30. > :06:35.under article 50 sub two and so to start the process of withdrawing,
:06:36. > :06:40.notwithstanding that that will result in changes to domestic law,
:06:41. > :06:48.which was introduced to implement those treaties. It is plain, we
:06:49. > :06:52.submit, that Parliament can intervene. I use the word intervened
:06:53. > :06:56.deliberately because that was the word used in the case by Lord
:06:57. > :07:05.Oliver. Parliament can intervene in a particular context to set up
:07:06. > :07:09.domestic law and to cater for its alteration. As it is understood,
:07:10. > :07:17.Parliament has indicated its view and has done so clearly... The House
:07:18. > :07:22.of Commons. The Queen in Parliament has not. Because the House of Lords
:07:23. > :07:27.has not. The Queen in Parliament has not. There is no statute. The
:07:28. > :07:34.argument is that if you are wrong, in your interpretation of the Act...
:07:35. > :07:38.My lord I respectfully submit that it is significant but not as it
:07:39. > :07:43.were, directly legally binding. That was not the question. Do you accept
:07:44. > :07:47.that if you're wrong on the interpretation of the 1972 Act, then
:07:48. > :07:52.the 2015 Act and other subsequent acts will not help you, and this
:07:53. > :07:56.motion doesn't help you. I do, on that premise, I do. It bears
:07:57. > :08:00.repeating that we are not here to overturn the result of the EU
:08:01. > :08:03.referendum. The ultimate question in this case concerns the process by
:08:04. > :08:09.which that result can lawfully be brought into effect. As we have
:08:10. > :08:13.heard, that question raises important constitutional issues and
:08:14. > :08:17.we will now take time to ensure that the many arguments which have been
:08:18. > :08:22.presented to us, orally and in writing, are given full and proper
:08:23. > :08:26.consideration. Having said that, we appreciate that this case should be
:08:27. > :08:30.resolved as quickly as possible and we will do our best to achieve that.
:08:31. > :08:37.Thank you, again, everybody. The court is now adjourn. That was the
:08:38. > :08:41.end of this four they hearing. As the 11 Supreme Court judges rose to
:08:42. > :08:44.consider their judgments, the businesswomen Jeanna Miller, who
:08:45. > :08:48.brought this case in the first place, that it is Parliamentary
:08:49. > :08:51.legislation that is required to trigger Brexit, she spoke to us
:08:52. > :08:56.about what it is like Debbie at the centre a case of such enormous
:08:57. > :09:00.constitutional -- what it is like to be at the case -- the centre of a
:09:01. > :09:05.case of such enormous constitutional importance. The bank of cameras
:09:06. > :09:10.coming in, the whole thing has been mentally and physically quite
:09:11. > :09:12.draining. I feel like I am back in the first year of law college
:09:13. > :09:16.listening to lectures, one after the. Then there was the enormity of
:09:17. > :09:22.sitting in the Supreme Court and hearing my name being mentioned, it
:09:23. > :09:27.being referred to as the case. It is quite surreal to take in. It is not
:09:28. > :09:32.everyday. It is important to realise the enormity of the case and the
:09:33. > :09:37.consequence it will have, because when they quote case law, the Miller
:09:38. > :09:43.case will be one of those case laws that is coated in future. The
:09:44. > :09:46.enormity of that was quite... Maybe I have for the wrong reasons but
:09:47. > :09:49.hopefully it is for the right reasons because the enormity of the
:09:50. > :09:52.case, in that it would set a precedent so that the government
:09:53. > :09:56.could use prerogative to take away rights from the domestic plane, is,
:09:57. > :10:00.it really does come home when you sit and hear all the argument is.
:10:01. > :10:05.Gina Miller, the businesswomen at the centre of this case. We have
:10:06. > :10:08.also been hearing from the Attorney General, Jimmy White, the
:10:09. > :10:15.government's most senior law officer. MPs voted overwhelmingly to
:10:16. > :10:18.have this referendum and, as you know, as recently as yesterday
:10:19. > :10:23.evening, Parliament has been continuing to have a say about this,
:10:24. > :10:26.so Parliament is, was and will be engaged in this process. But, in the
:10:27. > :10:30.end, what we have been saying is that there are powers in the hands
:10:31. > :10:34.of the government to do this. We've heard a lot about the royal
:10:35. > :10:38.prerogative. It sounds like a very outdated concept. In truth, this is
:10:39. > :10:46.something that is a crucial part of the modern constitution, and we need
:10:47. > :10:49.those powers to do the job that government is giving to do. They are
:10:50. > :10:51.powers of great constitutional significance, but they also help us
:10:52. > :10:54.to do an effective job as an executive government. Now that they
:10:55. > :10:57.hearing is over, let's take stock of where we are. I am joined by a panel
:10:58. > :11:02.of legal experts who have been listening to every word of the
:11:03. > :11:07.hearing. Professor Alison Young, of Oxford University, Jeremy Brier,
:11:08. > :11:14.barrister at Essex Court genders, and our home affairs correspondent,
:11:15. > :11:19.Dominic Casciani. Dominic, your impressions having sat and listened
:11:20. > :11:22.to the almonds on this last day? This last day was like the three and
:11:23. > :11:29.a half that preceded it. It had the feeling of in the making. History in
:11:30. > :11:33.the making and Amana which was represented of what the Supreme
:11:34. > :11:39.Court is supposed to be about, about taking the law, analysing it in a
:11:40. > :11:42.calm way. The 11 justices are the embodiment of that phrase, keep calm
:11:43. > :11:46.and carry on. They took this incredibly difficult issue about how
:11:47. > :11:49.we progress Brexit, and with all the acrimony across the UK about how
:11:50. > :11:54.would that should be happening, and try to break it down into very basic
:11:55. > :11:58.principles of, if this is going to happen, what is the way it should
:11:59. > :12:04.happen? Is it ministers, is it Parliament? How do we progress this?
:12:05. > :12:07.It kept out of the politics. Lord Neuburger, the president of the
:12:08. > :12:11.Supreme Court, said this is not about the politics of Brexit, they
:12:12. > :12:14.are not changing that, he wanted to break it down to a position where
:12:15. > :12:18.they are deciding how it should be carried out. That is a question that
:12:19. > :12:22.has been put before them by Gina Miller and the other claimants in
:12:23. > :12:27.the first place appeal by the government. This is the issue they
:12:28. > :12:29.have to deal with. Look at the Strawberry circumstances we've had
:12:30. > :12:34.in the last six months, a prim minister falling, another Prime
:12:35. > :12:37.Minister under pressure, acrimony in the House of Commons, although some
:12:38. > :12:42.of that seem to roll back last night with the boat. Here, it is about
:12:43. > :12:46.keeping things calm and simple. Jeremy Brier, how do you see the
:12:47. > :12:50.last four days? What will be going through the minds of the 11 Supreme
:12:51. > :12:54.Court judges now they have to think about their judgment? It has been an
:12:55. > :12:58.extraordinary four days in court which we have been following
:12:59. > :13:02.closely. We started off with James Eadie for the government presenting
:13:03. > :13:07.a strong, concise and careful case on day one about how the prerogative
:13:08. > :13:11.power exists, and thou about how the European communities Act is just a
:13:12. > :13:18.conduit for those international law rights to flow down into domestic
:13:19. > :13:20.law, but saying that domestic statute doesn't actually create
:13:21. > :13:25.rights in and of itself, but then later on we heard Lord Pannick. He
:13:26. > :13:29.gave a very theatrical, very bold and very clear, very erudite set of
:13:30. > :13:34.submissions where he basically said no, no, the claimants is right here,
:13:35. > :13:39.and actually we need a Parliamentary Act to undo the rights that have
:13:40. > :13:43.already been created. So we have seen ups and downs and then today,
:13:44. > :13:48.James Eadie has got the last word and got the reply. Those 11 justices
:13:49. > :13:51.about to die just all of this, they got to consider all the cases, the
:13:52. > :13:58.authorities, the precedents that have been discussed. We have had one
:13:59. > :14:01.years worth of constitutional law experts -- lectures in four days so
:14:02. > :14:06.they have a lot of reading to do, but ultimately we will get one
:14:07. > :14:09.judgment or set of judgments in January from those justices, and
:14:10. > :14:13.that'll give us the final word on this matter, which is the mechanism
:14:14. > :14:17.for how article that he has to be triggered, and I think we will all
:14:18. > :14:21.be very pleased and the public will be pleased, whatever the outcome,
:14:22. > :14:25.that we have closure on matter. Professor Young, this isn't just
:14:26. > :14:29.about Brexit and triggering Brexit, it is about the British
:14:30. > :14:35.constitution, isn't it? Absolutely. This is about the relative powers of
:14:36. > :14:39.the government and Parliament. Even going back to these cases in the
:14:40. > :14:42.17th century where they were discussing the distribution between
:14:43. > :14:45.the Crown and Parliament. Most of these Crown powers have now been
:14:46. > :14:50.passed on to be exercised by the government. It is the same issues
:14:51. > :14:54.but different people. I have been thinking carefully about how our
:14:55. > :14:57.Constitution works, how powers are distributed and recognising that it
:14:58. > :15:01.is the job of the court to say what the law is, and at the end of the
:15:02. > :15:06.day they will make a declaration as to whether they do or do not have a
:15:07. > :15:10.proper power to trigger article 50. The people who voted in the
:15:11. > :15:13.referendum will say, we are supreme, we are the people, we voted in a
:15:14. > :15:20.referendum and what we say should just go. Yes they are the people and
:15:21. > :15:24.they vote for MPs and MPs Act on their behalf in Parliament. What the
:15:25. > :15:30.people voted on is, do we leave the European Union or do we stay in?
:15:31. > :15:33.That vote said we want to leave the European Union. As we kept saying
:15:34. > :15:38.came there was silence about how we do that in our Constitution. So we
:15:39. > :15:43.have been thinking about, does this silence mean we have a prerogative
:15:44. > :15:48.power all we need to have legislation? Dominic, lastly,
:15:49. > :15:54.briefly, how do the 11 judges come to their judgment? What do they do
:15:55. > :15:57.now? First they have a cup of tea, they are probably all sneaking out
:15:58. > :16:04.of the building, out of the back. What they do in cases, this is all
:16:05. > :16:09.11 together for the first time, they will get together next week and sit
:16:10. > :16:13.down around the table, chaired by Lord Neuburger, and starting with
:16:14. > :16:18.the youngest of them, Lord Hodge, who is a sprightly 63, he will give
:16:19. > :16:21.his opinion on what this week amounts to, whether he is with the
:16:22. > :16:25.government or the original claimants in this case. He will bend around
:16:26. > :16:31.the conference table in order of youngest of two eldest until Lord
:16:32. > :16:34.Neuburger has a sense of what the direction of travel is. It could be
:16:35. > :16:40.that all 11 say they are one way or the other. Then it is a slam dunk,
:16:41. > :16:44.an easy exercise to start writing up their judgment. It is more likely
:16:45. > :16:48.that there will be splits, justices focusing on one point or saying that
:16:49. > :16:51.this is more important even though they agree with the old point, and
:16:52. > :16:56.in essence what Lord Neuburger will have to do is work out how to divide
:16:57. > :17:01.up the work. One of them will be nominated as the lead writer of the
:17:02. > :17:05.draft. If it is a clear decision between them. If not, more than one
:17:06. > :17:11.will be writing drafts. They will be e-mailing each other over Christmas,
:17:12. > :17:13.wherever they are around the UK, sharing their strategy, changing
:17:14. > :17:17.each other's views and try to come to a consensus. There are two big
:17:18. > :17:20.things we will have to deal with along with the main question of how
:17:21. > :17:25.we trigger Brexit. The devolution questions which came up over the
:17:26. > :17:29.last 24 hours are really novel. There was a lot of interest in
:17:30. > :17:34.there. They might spend a lot of time thinking about that. Secondly,
:17:35. > :17:37.there's clearly a sense from some of the justices that they want to
:17:38. > :17:42.explore the very nature, as we have all said, the British constitution.
:17:43. > :17:47.Where does law beside? If they go down that route then this could be a
:17:48. > :17:53.long, complicated process. Thank you. That is the end of the hearing.
:17:54. > :17:56.Four days that have been fascinating, absorbing, sometimes
:17:57. > :18:05.impassioned arguments, sometimes pretty impenetrable. It has been an
:18:06. > :18:07.extraordinary event of constitutional -- constitutional
:18:08. > :18:11.significance and we await the judgment of the 11 Supreme Court
:18:12. > :18:12.Justices, which should be in mid-January. That is it from me at
:18:13. > :18:20.the Supreme Court. Goodbye. Now it's time for Meet the Author,
:18:21. > :18:24.with Jim Naughtie. You can try to understand
:18:25. > :18:27.the brain in many ways,