Was the court’s judgment not based on the idea that this was authorisation? The court would have not have ruled as it did if it had not assumed that this was not unilaterally revocable. Both sides in the court case, including the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that it is not unilaterally revocable, and the court ruled specifically because of that that authorisation is delivered by triggering Article 50. If it had not done so, it would not have ruled as it did; therefore, it is crucial to the understanding that this is authorisation.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Finkelstein
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 March 2017.
It occurred during Debate on bills on European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
779 c1271 
Session
2016-17
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-03-08 16:56:07 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-03-07/17030794000172
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-03-07/17030794000172
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-03-07/17030794000172