Remember when UK Prime Minister Theresa May said this Brexit means brexit and we're going to make a success of it. But apparently there are more questions than answers about what Brexit actually means and how to trigger it. On December five, eleven judges will hear the case over whether May can trigger an exit from the EU without a vote of Parliament.
One of those judges, Brenda Hale, gave a speech to law students in Malaysia last week and said the UK may need comprehensive legislation to start the process of leaving the EU, possibly delaying Brexit for years. She was immediately criticized by pro Brexit lawmaker Douglas Carswell for having made her mind before the trial, but the Supreme Court said Hale was simply presenting arguments on both sides of the appeal and didn't give any views on the outcome of
the case. Our guest is Stephen Peers, a professor at the University of Essex School of Law. Stephen, I take it that Supreme Court justices in the UK are not used to their speech is being publicized as they are here in the US. But what do her comments reveal if anything. Well, I read the whole speech, and she was giving arguments of foreign against was trying to summarize everything that everyone was saying and weighs a lot of different possibilities. So I don't think she was saying for
sure that had to be comprehensive legislation. But I think if the government tried to get away with anything short of legislation, then it's likely to go back to the courts. So I imagine now what they'll try and do is
push through some very short legislation. Stephen, how long do you think the delay is likely to be if the court does say that Parliament has to act, Well, I imagine the government will propose legislation almost immediately and say that it has to be passed almost the same day or the next day of Parliament needs whenever, that is in December or January, and will see if they go
on with that. And the main opposition party says it will push things through, but then it has to go to our House of Lords here, and there might be other members of Parliament who don't want to push things through and find procedual means to delay it, so it might take a few months. If people want to add things to and debated at length. I suspect they will. It will probably be a few days in the end. And Stephen, is there a sentiment that the people in
the UK have changed their mind about Brexit? I mean, there was a lot of controversy the day after when people didn't seem to you know, we're googling what Brexit means and what the EU is. So is there a sentiment that it's it's not quite what the people want
and that Parliament might vote against it. Well, when you see opinion polls, there seems to have been a slight shift back to the remain side, and that might be just enough if they were the afferendum that went a different way, the different way, But I don't think there are enough votes in Parliament to hold another reperendum again, which is obviously what you need, and that maybe a ye or two down the road they'd be more interest
in that, but at the moment it doesn't seem very likely. Well, Stephen, are are there conditions that Parliament might try to put on the on the legislation that would be problematic for the government if a number of EMPs would like to do that. Although the main opposition party says it won't and try it, says a bell, try and influence things later. So there will be a battle I think among a few EMPs and maybe some members of the House of
Lords to try and set conditions the government. I think it's going to try a procedural argument that no amendments are allowed to this very short bill. But we'll see if the Speaker of the House of Commons of the House of Lords allow the amendments to be debated, and how likely they are to go through. I think that the place to watch as the House of Lords, which is more independent and where I think there's a little there's a little bit of a chance of someone amendments
being put through. The BBC is reporting that the government is preparing legislation so that if the government loses the Supreme Court appeal, this will be ready, and that the bill is just three lines long and tightly drawn, which would I suppose make it difficult for lawmakers to amend it. Yes,
that's right. I mean my understanding is that the rules are that the screening first of all as to whether amendments are allowed, but then it goes to the floor of the House of Commons and they vote on whether or not to allow the amendments, and the Speaker has to say as well, So there will be that process of whether to consider the amendments in the first place. And I imagine the government would have enough votes in the House of Commons with the opposition support not to
consider amendments. But in the House of Lords the government doesn't have a majority. There are lots of people who aren't affiliated to any party, or a lot of people who don't want Brexit there, so I think, as a said, there's a bit better chance of amendments being considered and it maybe even being supported in the House of Lords. Stephen, the government put out a statement on Friday of last week describing what its appeal is likely to look like.
Did we learn anything from that and and regardless, give us a sense of what the basic argument the government is going to be making to the UK Supreme Court. Well, the government basically was one page summary and there wasn't much there. But basically, the argument that's gone to court is between two conflicting principles of our British constitutional law.
So on the one hand, the government has power of foreign affairs and this is an act of announcing the treaty, so that's foreign affairs, so the executive ought to be able to do that. So that's one principle. The other principle is that the government's power over foreign affairs can't be used to remove rights which Parliament has granted. And in Britain real dualist maybe have international law separate from national law. So the rights that come from el are
set out in an Act of Parliament. And so that's where the second argument comes in. It's that the government can't remove these rights in the Act of Parliament by denouncing the treaty which is linked to the Act of Parliament and liberate is exactly which of these two rules, which are conflicting, takes priority in this case, Stephen, who has the better side according to your view of the law? I think it's it's roughly fifty fifty to be a
little bit evative. But on the if, I certainly the claimants that people criticize in the government, I think their argument is stronger from the point of view of the underlying logic of the British Constitution, which is parliamentary supremacy. Above all, we don't have a constitution that takes priority like America and many other countries. Instead, we have parliamentary
sovereignty as the basic group. And if that's the basic group, then I think any if there's any doubt or any ambiguity, you should come down on the side of Parliament, not the executive. Well, Stephen, how long can we expect before the court decides how this should happen? Well, they're hearing it a which or so into December, and then some people assuming it might come out just before Christmas, something
like Friday twenty even. You can imagine that right before Christmas, and I think it may be more likely to be a week or so into January. But really, if anyone's guests, and how long once this is done this stage, how long will the actual process take? I mean we're still looking at years. Well now, um, well, the problems to parts a bit. As I said, it might be very
quick unless the House of Lords frustrates it. But then the process to leave the EU would be in principle two years from the date of giving notice, which might still be March if the government's plans stay on track, but that two years can be shortened or length and if this agreement so, it's hard to be sure in advantage there will be agreement, but I think the most likely scenario is that it will. It will be the two years, and so Britain would leave sometime in the spring of twenty nineteen.