Does the noble Baroness accept that the reason the court made that judgment was that both parties had agreed that it was not unilaterally revocable? That is the reason why both parties had to agree, otherwise the court would have ruled differently. It ruled that this was a parliamentary decision of authorisation. That is the reason why it had to come back to Parliament. It would change the law.
Did the noble Baroness finish? I wanted to intervene on her.
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...
Entered the House of Lords on 24 October 2013
Please note that numbers do not measure quality. Also, representatives may do other things not currently covered by this site.
More about this
Note for journalists and researchers: The data on this page may be used freely, on condition that TheyWorkForYou.com is cited as the source.
This data was produced by TheyWorkForYou from a variety of sources. Voting information from Public Whip.