The start of Brexit ‘could be delayed by as long as two years,’ claims judge

Another twist in the saga on Wednesday morning.

The triggering of Article 50, which would see the start of the process by which Great Britain would leave the European Union, could be delayed by up to two years according to a Supreme Court judge. Speaking to an audience in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur, Justice Brenda Hale said that the court needs to ask, "whether it would be enough for a simple act of Parliament to authorise the government to give notice, or whether it would have to be a comprehensive replacement for the 1972 [EEC Accession] Act." That 1972 act brought the UK into the European Union. The Labour Party has said that it would not block a House of Commons bill that would see the UK government keep its March deadline for triggering Article 50, despite a High Court ruling that Theresa May can not trigger Brexit without putting it to a vote in the House of Commons. That ruling will be appealed before the Supreme Court next month. Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader and member of Parliament, said: "What the judges will decide on at the Supreme Court is whether or not the government can use its executive powers to trigger Article 50. It is not their job to tell Parliament how they go about their business. "That's for Parliament to decide. I would simply advise that the Government should ignore it." He then implied bias on the part of Justice Hale.

"I do not believe for one moment that (Supreme Court) will form a majority opinion, it is a tiny minority. The individual concerned herself has always been opposed to Britain leaving the EU."

Justice Hale is one of 11 judges set to hear the appeal at the Supreme Court, starting on 5 December. Her stance was defended in a statement by a Supreme Court spokesman. "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," he said. "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."