When I first heard the result of the court case over invoking article 50, the courts position seemed pretty reasonable.
I set out my position in another post.
However, more information has come up and I am persuaded differently...
The basic case was that that only parliament can take away rights that parliament created. And that invoking 50 would lead a loss of rights, so parliament must be consulted.
However, the key here is that those rights were not created in our parliament! The law allowing the EU to create rights was passed on our parliament, but not the laws creating those rights.
If the EU changes its law to create or destroy rights out parliament would not get a vote on it because they are 'treaty rights' not 'statutory rights' and as such are under the control of crown prerogative (government) not parliament.
The governments legal team had a draft of this arguement, but never used it in court. It not clear why.
So I beleive the court was wrong, but the government let them get it wrong...