What follows is my summary of the hearing before the Inner House of the Court of Session on the question whether we can unilaterally withdraw the Article 50 notice. THREAD
The IH began by asking the parties to agree the terms of any question it might refer to the Court of Justice. Our draft is here. /1 
The IH asked what is the likelihood of getting an answer from the CJEU in time. We say we would but there would need to be considerable expedition. /2
(As an aside, Eleanor Sharpston, the UK's Advocate General has said it could be addressed in four months. Other cases have been addressed in ten weeks.) /3
We say what's really changed since the Outer House is that the Withdrawal Act makes provision for Parliament to reconsider. See extracts. /4
We say Parliamentarians need to know what options are before them when they come to reconsider. (This case is unusual because Parliamentarians do not know what they can do.) /5
"Is this anything more than a question about the fundamental importance of the rule of law?" asks Lord Drummond Young. We say that is exactly what it is. /6
We say if A50 is irrevocable as a matter of EU law then Parliament's vote to revoke the notification could have no effect. It's a bit like Factortame. /7
We say, if you wait to refer the question it does become hypothetical because it will be too late to ask. Parliament won't know. Lord Drummond Young indicates agreement. /8
The Lord President asks what is the limit of the constitutional function of the rule of law (Walton v Scottish Ministers)? We agree it is abstract but say it is present here where the question is separation of powers. /9
There was a debate about whether there would be a justiciable dispute if the position of the Government was that the Article 50 notice was revocable. /10
The Lord President said the Government's case on Parliamentary privilege seems to be that Parliament could ask for advice if it wanted it. We say, but Parliament is composed of individuals and there are such individuals before you. /11
The Government then made its submissions. The Lord President asked how far Macnaughton (1953) helps given it is a private law case. /12
Lord Drummond Young asked how far the policy of the Government is relevant given that Parliament is supreme. The Government said, if Parliament overrules the Government steps would need to be taken. /13
The Lord President asked whether the Act was unusual in setting out what are essentially internal matters for Parliament. Counsel for the Government agreed. /14
Lord Drummond Young asked how could it be hypothetical for certain members of Parliament to want to know the answer to the question of revocability. /15
The Government says they are asking for a remedy based on no present reality and it is purely hypothetical. /16
The Lord President says, at some point we *will* have a vote and Parliamentarians can say yes or no. Is that not what we have to look at? Government says yes. /17
Government says Parliament will have the choice and it is reflected in s.13 and it won't need to know the answer to the question asked. /18
The Government says the Law Hospital criteria do not apply. The Petitioners are in the position of 'seeking advice in the ordering of their affairs'. That is not the purpose of the Court. /19
The Government says you must be careful not to expand the jurisdiction lest you submerge the court's business. The Court says this is a very unusual case. /20
The Government, on Parliamentary privilege, adopts the words of the Lord Ordinary in the Outer House that the case is a "dangerous encroachment." /21
Lord Mingus, to what extent do you say Parliamentary privilege is infringed now? The Petitioners' case about what a Minister once said has now rather disappeared? Does it really cut across Coulson? /22
Government, we are seeking to extend Coulson and say that the Court should be astute not to get involved in any matter that concerns Parliament. /23
Lord Drummond Young: mutual respect goes two ways. Deciding what the law is is absolutely a function for the courts. /24
Government says the Court is becoming involved in *current* debates and *future* votes. Live political questions of great sensitivity. /25
Government then dealt with whether the CJEU would consider the matter justiciable. /26
Lord President asks whether the CJEU needs to proceed on the basis of what *we* would regard as justiciable. Government says yes. /27
Court indicates it would like the parties to seek to agree a question for reference (in case it decides to refer) within two weeks. /28
Standing back, the Court clearly understands our case and has engaged with the issues. I am cautiously optimistic.
I have attached my own witness statement in the action for information. /29
I have attached my own witness statement in the action for information. /29
(The rest of my witness statement.)
Please support this vital litigation here. We will need funds to go to the Court of Justice if we succeed in Edinburgh or the Supreme Court if we fail. /ENDS. crowdjustice.com/case/strengthe…
