Brexit: Supreme Court judge says EU vote 'not legally binding' and Brexit could be delayed

Brexit victory: Gina Miller outside court
PA
Mark Chandler16 November 2016
WEST END FINAL

Get our award-winning daily news email featuring exclusive stories, opinion and expert analysis

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

A Supreme Court judge who will hear the Government’s Article 50 appeal has said the EU referendum result was not legally binding and Brexit could be delayed by two more years.

During a speech to lawyers in Kuala Lumpar Lady Brenda Hale also claimed the Government could require more than a “simple Act of Parliament”, the Independent reported.

The intervention could strike a dramatic blow against Prime Minister Theresa May’s hopes to start the Brexit process in March next year.

Lady Hale is one of eleven justices who will hear this December’s legal challenge over Brexit.

She reportedly told the audience: “As is well known, the referendum on whether the United Kingdom should leave or remain in the European Union produced a majority of 51.8 per cent in favour of leaving.

“But that referendum was not legally binding on Parliament.”

The website also reported Lady Hale said the Government may need to replace the 1972 Act which took Britain into the EU rather than making do with a "simple" piece of legislation.

That complex act could take until 2019 to put together, it has been claimed.

The news comes after a decision in the High Court ruled Parliament needed to be consulted on triggering Article 50, the formal start of Brexit.

Challengers including businesswoman Gina Miller had campaigned for MPs to have a say.

The Government, which believes the Prime Minister has the power to start the process, has appealed that decision.

A Supreme Court spokesman said: “Lady Hale was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal in an impartial way for an audience of law students, as part of a wider lecture on constitutional law.

"It is entirely proper for serving judges to set out the arguments in high profile cases to help public understanding of the legal issues, as long as it is done in an even-handed way.

“One of the questions raised in these proceedings is what form of legislation would be necessary for Parliament to be able to lawfully trigger Article 50, if the government loses its appeal.

"A number of politicians have raised the same question. Though it was not dealt with explicitly in the High Court judgment, it is not a new issue.

"In no way was Lady Hale offering a view on what the likely outcome might be.”

An appeal hearing at the Supreme Court is due to begin on December 5.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in