ARTICLE 50: Can of worms open as hearing continued on day three

`

It was argued on Thursday by the Scottish Government legal representative that it is a statutory prerequisite to abide by the Sewel Convention for the purpose of Article 50. Buttressing his point, he said (that any legislation which affect Scotland must also have the consent of Holyrood).

Lord Mance exclaimed: "It is a question of European law, isn't it?" The Lord Advocate replied: "It is ultimately".

Thus, So the four word question, was one of the 11 Justices openly thinking if defining the phrase "constitutional requirement" was for "us" the Supreme Court, or for them, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

In principle, if the point is found to be applicable to the case, the Court has an requirement to refer to Luxembourg.

Recall, it was reported in November, European Court of Justice (ECJ) has been thoughtful if any referral could be sent to it, as regards "ultimate authority" on aspects of EU law.

If along the line such referral is made to the ECJ, it would become an astonishing development, which may delay the legal battle and possibly prolong the triggering of Article 50 by 4 to 8 months.

There is a notion from certain quarters that the issue of Article 50 triggering (the Government and Lord Pannick are actively trying to avoid it) would be the more likely issue that may be referred to the ECJ.

It is still just a probability than a likely circumstances. But then it is now on the table. In fact it is one of three cans of worms opened up on day three.

Firstly, as I have referred to, the Supreme Court kept on coming back to the issue of the appropriate legal remedy or underpinning for the Article 50 decision.

Sometimes the Justices deliberated among themselves whether a simple motion, a one line Bill, or the machinations of the Great Repeal Bill, would be necessary to trigger EU exit.

Secondly, Northern Irish claimants and the Scottish Government staked their claims for Article 50 necessitating both an Act of Parliament and Legislative Consent Motions in their legislatures.

Looking at all the arguments on ground, any of such developments could potentially ruin Theresa May's timetable. It is unmanageable to second guess the Justices, but all three are on the table.

Rhetorically though, it was a better day for the Government on the substantive case.

The President of the Court, Lord Neuberger, tested Duncan Chambers QC, saying repeatedly that "it seemed a bit odd" that a referendum and a simple motion of Parliament might be insufficient legal backing for the Government trigger of Article 50.

Earlier in the day Lord Pannick felt Neuberger's anger, when asked how it was possible for the referendum not to have any "legal effect". Once more matters returned to the lack of legally binding underpinning to the 2015 Referendum Act.