Lord Pannick's response to James Eadie per the BBC:
"Lord Pannick is moving quickly to his conclusion, suggesting Attorney General Jeremy Wright's contention that Parliament can look after itself and defend its own interests with regard to Brexit is a "bad legal argument".
He goes on to suggest that the government cannot rely on the Great Repeal Bill as evidence of Parliament's future likely involvement in the Brexit process, arguing there can be no certainty there will be a bill at all or what it will contain.
Summarising his and his client Gina Miller's case, he says.
The volumes of material before the court and the eloquence of my friends the attorney general, Mr Eadie and the advocate general for Scotland should not be allowed to obscure the basic principles of constititutional law which I say the appellant's argument would violate."
I remain unconvinced because while he casts doubt on the forthcoming Great Repeal Bill his central argument is the overriding legislative status of the 1972 which he then seeks to imply meaning to as there are no explicit provision pertinent to his case.
I want to know what they are having for lunch. Where are the tabloids when you need them?
Last time I left you alone to go and pick up my 5 year old you had a bigger tantrum than she can ever manage Bear 