The UK government can win the Appeal against the High Court ruling that the UK parliament must be given another vote on Brexit by following due process and presenting the right evidence and arguments.
Specifically, they should
1. Cite the portion of the ruling of the High Court lord chief justice stating that the parliament must be sovereign and give approval for a Brexit.
2. Demonstrate that parliament is, and has been, sovereign by offering evidence connected with parliament’s vote to allow a referendum and, in the event of a yes, trigger a Brexit.
Collect all the parliamentary records on the vote and hand them over to the Supreme Court as physical copies. Demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of MPs voted for the referendum.
3. Highlight the relevant passages in the above mentioned bill and demonstrate that they are unambiguous in allowing a Brexit to be triggered by the executive in the event of a yes vote by detailed analysis of their wording and content.
Hand over to the court the official Brexit referendum results.
Clarify that the British people voted in unprecedented numbers to leave the European Union, and that a so called “hard Brexit” is also a proper interpretation that flows from that yes vote.
4. Get experts on UK constitutional law to offer written testimony that the UK’s constitutional arrangements have been upheld. The executive is not overruling parliament but complying with parliament in triggering Brexit.
5. Collect media reports from the UK and around the world to strongly suggest that it is common knowledge that parliament has been sovereign in Brexit.
6. Suggest that the high court lord chief justices were biased and offered a politicized judgement by wilfully ignoring what is actually public knowledge, namely, the fact of the vote of parliament to allow a referendum, and, in the event of a yes, to allow the government to trigger Brexit immediately.
Argue that it cannot be the case that the lord chief justices do not know that fact and cannot, therefore, know that due process and the constitution has actually been followed.
7. Admit that government lawyers presented a factually incorrect argument before the High Court, namely, they falsely suggested that the power of the government flowed from the will of the people when it flowed from parliament.
Restate the argument that the UK is a parliamentary democracy according to the constitution, and not a popular democracy.
Argue that due process has been followed in as far as the parliament has verifiably debated, voted on and agreed to a referendum as well as to allow a Brexit to be triggered immediately in the event of a yes vote.
8. Suggest that if the Supreme Court rules against the government triggering a Brexit in harmony with the parliamentary decision, it will bring a Constitutional crisis since the court will be de facto blocking a decision by the sovereign parliament. This, on the basis of a judgement that factually incorrect, and which will be widely recognized as factually incorrect by the public.
9. Send an observer (or Theresa May and Brexiteers should go themselves)to the Supreme Court hearing to ensure by constant oral and visual inspection that the lawyers representing the government make the right arguments and hand over to the judge the right evidence in the right order.
Leave nothing to chance!
True, I have no paper qualification as a lawyer and it may seem strange for me to offer advice on such a major topic on this blog. But I have managed to achieve practical results in my court case in Greece by applying logic and by understanding the rules of evidence.
Readers of my blog will know that I was forced to take over my own case after it became clear that my former lawyer Konstantinos Christopoulos had been corrupted. By martialling the evidence and arguments, I have, on my own, with no legal advice, just following the principles of law, logic and evidence, taken down a huge crime syndicate involving top police officers and prosecutors and in a foreign country whose language I don’t even understand. No small feat.
On October 24th, a Larisa judge took by testimony about crooked clergy and police as well as George Soros and Alexis Tsipras as part of due process, compelling Greek justice officials to investigate. If they investigate, as they are now obliged to do, they must find the evidence to convict the culprits. With that evidence, they must actually convict the culprits and clap them in jail in accordance with rules and procedures or expose themselves to the charge of obstruction of justice.
On November 15th, I am also set to testify about crooked prosecutors in Larisa as well as the high profile Supreme Court prosecutor Efstathia Spyropoulou. Spyropoulou helped the Vatopedi monks escape conviction for gigantic financial crimes, and is a major crook. So, to assemble the necessary proof and have Spyropoulou formally accused (and hopefully soon in the dock) is a big deal.
To conclude, I may not be a qualified lawyer on paper to offer advise to Theresa May and the Brexiteers on how to win the Appeal at the Supreme Court, but I am qualified by practical experience and by really quite spectacular results in my court case in Greece to advise the UK government on how to reverse the ruling resulting from the crookedness of the government’s own lawyers.
On a personal note, I would just like to add that I nearly chose to study law. My Mum, who had many relatives working as lawyers, actually thought I should study law when I was 18 because I always laid out my arguments so well, but, in the end, I chose English literature. With no regrets. Literature is also about right and wrong and justice in the widest sense. And justice is the basis of our legal systems.