Prerogative Power - part 2

Rejoining the hearing on day 2.

The elephant in the room was that in 1973 not only did the legislation admit the UK into the thorny arms of the EU but it also permitted European Law and statute to supersede English Law. In so doing the European based laws it ushered in became the "legal rights" of the people and only Parliament can annul those rights. It is not in the gift of the Prime Minister to remove those rights which is in effect is what a Prerogative Decision would do. Mrs May may have egg on her face. The hubris of power has perhaps gone to her head. "Brexit means Brexit" means I am in charge and her argument that the government called the Referendum and having heard the voice of the people she was duty bound to effect their wishes as promptly as she could overlooked the significance of who can change the law. Only Parliament can do that and since when the door opened in 1973 and ushered in the acts of another institution (the EU) making ones own laws if not irrelevant at least lose their primacy, then only Parliament can reinstall the English version.
Mr Eddie had worked hard on the first day to create the impression that the Royal Prerogative was perfectly justified because it would be used only following the explicit will of the people in its Referendum instruction. No one on the Government side had thought to consider the implications of the mechanics of unravelling our legal code of practice.

One wonders if it is not the same old failing which we all suffer, we take advice from sources where it most fits our desired course of action. We are either deaf to warnings of the alternative argument or blindly hope that these warnings, will be argued away  by your own council. They have a job to do, to win your case and it's bad practice to be overly concerned with the oppositions case.
David Pannick QC was in my opinion very convincing in his attempt to demolish the Governments case and seemed to carry the sympathy of his Lordships. Mr Eddie for the Government had made hard work of detailing his constitutional argument and on the balance,

                             Perry Mason won by the "flamboyance" of his argument.