This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37868987

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
May to tell Jean-Claude Juncker Brexit plans not derailed by court May to tell Jean-Claude Juncker Brexit plans not derailed by court
(about 2 hours later)
The prime minister is expected to tell the European Commission's president her Brexit timetable will not be derailed by the High Court's Article 50 ruling.The prime minister is expected to tell the European Commission's president her Brexit timetable will not be derailed by the High Court's Article 50 ruling.
Three judges have ruled that Theresa May cannot invoke Article 50 - to start formal exit negotiations with the EU - without Parliament's support. Three judges ruled on Thursday that Theresa May cannot invoke Article 50 - to start formal exit negotiations with the EU - without Parliament's support.
But sources told the BBC that Mrs May will tell Jean-Claude Juncker she still intends to start the process by March. Mrs May wants to stick to her March deadline for triggering Article 50.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the government's appeal next month. But Lib Dem Nick Clegg said MPs should be free to vote against the government if they do not agree with its stance.
The BBC's political correspondent Iain Watson says Mrs May is due to outline her commitment during a telephone call to Mr Juncker later. The government is appealing against the ruling to the Supreme Court. If it loses it will have to publish some form of new law for MPs - and the House of Lords - to vote on.
Though many MPs accept that Brexit will happen, the High Court ruling opens the door for a possible debate over the terms of what Britain's exit from the EU should look like. Former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg - now the Lib Dems' Europe spokesman - said his party would seek to join with others "in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords to amend the legislation" to tell the government to pursue a "soft Brexit" that would keep the UK within the EU's single market.
Conservative peer Lady Wheatcroft told BBC Radio 4's Today programme she was willing to table an amendment to Article 50 to delay the Brexit process, to allow more time for debate. He told Radio 4's Today that he also wanted to give the public "a say" on the final deal after EU negotiations are complete.
She said Mrs May's original timetable now looked "like an impossible target" and it was "only right to delay triggering Article 50 until we have a clearer idea of what it actually entails", adding, "I think there will be others in the Lords who feel the same way." What happens next?
The government's appeal is expected to be heard in early December by the full Supreme Court - 11 judges - for the first time in its history.
The judgement may not be handed down until January.
If the appeal fails, is is thought the government will then have to bring forward legislation - which would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
The bill could be subject to amendments. MPs and peers may push for more details of the government's negotiating strategy or possibly for a second referendum.
The government wants to trigger Article 50 by the end of March 2017 so any legislation would need to be approved by then if the timetable is not to be pushed back.
"These are fundamental issues which, of course, as part of this process need to be brought before MPs, and MPs should feel free to scrutinise them," he said.
"And if they believe that the government is pursuing an unnecessarily hard, in other words an unnecessarily self-harming version of Brexit, then of course MPs should be free to reject that."
But former Conservative cabinet minister Theresa Villiers told the programme: "Frankly I think it would be a constitutional outrage if unelected Liberal Democrat peers were to stand in the way of implementing the clear result of a referendum in which 33 million people took part."
Thursday's High Court ruling found that the government could not trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty alone, without the backing of Parliament - which would require publishing legislation to be debated by the Commons and the Lords.
Mrs May will tell Jean-Claude Juncker in a telephone call later that, despite the ruling, she intends to stick to her timetable for triggering Brexit by the end of March 2017.
The government has argued that it cannot "show its hand in detail" ahead of negotiations with 27 other EU member states, despite calls from MPs to clarify her plans.
Communities Secretary Sajid Javid told BBC One's Question Time that the ruling by the High Court was a "clear attempt to frustrate the will of the British people" despite a "very, very clear" result from the EU referendum.Communities Secretary Sajid Javid told BBC One's Question Time that the ruling by the High Court was a "clear attempt to frustrate the will of the British people" despite a "very, very clear" result from the EU referendum.
But Labour MP Lisa Nandy told the programme: "Britain is leaving the EU and whether or not Parliament has to vote to trigger Article 50, this will happen because, in reality, there are no more than a handful of parliamentarians who would seek to block that decision."
But Iain Watson says shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry has made it clear that although she would expect MPs to agree to invoke Article 50, legislation could be used to force the government to be more transparent about its negotiating strategy.
In the landmark ruling, the High Court judges said the government could not trigger the Article 50 process of formally leaving the European Union alone - they must have the approval of Parliament.
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg described the ruling as a "massive obstacle" for Mrs May's stated Brexit timetable.
If the government loses in the Supreme Court, it will have to publish some form of new law for MPs - and the House of Lords - to vote on.
MPs could then push to set the terms for negotiating withdrawal and it could face further delays in the Lords.
Early election?Early election?
For Labour, shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry said that while she thought "that in the end Parliament will vote for Article 50 to be triggered" the judgement meant the government would have to give MPs "some basic terms on which they are going to negotiate Brexit".
And Conservative peer Lady Wheatcroft told BBC Radio 4's Today she was willing to table an amendment to future legislation to delay the Brexit process, saying it was "only right to delay triggering Article 50 until we have a clearer idea of what it actually entails".
However Labour MP Lisa Nandy told Question Time: "Britain is leaving the EU and whether or not Parliament has to vote to trigger Article 50, this will happen because, in reality, there are no more than a handful of parliamentarians who would seek to block that decision."
The prime minister's spokeswoman has played down suggestions that Mrs May may call an early general election if she cannot get Parliamentary support, saying that the prime minister believed "there shouldn't be an election until 2020 and that remains her view".The prime minister's spokeswoman has played down suggestions that Mrs May may call an early general election if she cannot get Parliamentary support, saying that the prime minister believed "there shouldn't be an election until 2020 and that remains her view".
Brexit Secretary David Davis told the BBC the result of the EU referendum "must be respected".
"Parliament voted by six to one to give the decision to the people, no ifs or buts, and that's why we are appealing this to get on with delivering the best deal for Britain."
But Gina Miller, the lead claimant in bringing the case to the High Court, urged the government to "do the responsible sober thing, which is to do the job we pay them for, to debate all the aspects to do with leaving and then have a vote".
The government had argued it could use ancient prerogative powers to give effect "to the will of the people".The government had argued it could use ancient prerogative powers to give effect "to the will of the people".
But the three judges looking at the case found there was no constitutional convention of the royal prerogative - powers used by ministers - being used in legislation relating to the EU. 'Betrayal'
But the three judges looking at the case found there was no constitutional convention of the royal prerogative being used in legislation relating to the EU.
They added that triggering Article 50 would fundamentally change UK people's rights - and that the government cannot change or do away with rights under UK law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so.They added that triggering Article 50 would fundamentally change UK people's rights - and that the government cannot change or do away with rights under UK law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so.
A 'great betrayal' Writing in Friday's Daily Telegraph, UKIP leader Nigel Farage called the court's decision a "great betrayal" and said "the power of the prime minister to act on the mandate given by 17.4 million voters has been snatched away."
Conservative MP Nick Herbert told the House of Commons on Thursday "it would be wise of the government to allow a discussion and vote on the plan before it finds that, one way or the other, it is required to offer that".
But writing in Friday's Daily Telegraph, UKIP leader Nigel Farage called the court's decision a "great betrayal" and said "the power of the prime minister to act on the mandate given by 17.4m voters has been snatched away."
He added that "the establishment better be ready for the colossal electoral consequences that will follow" any continued opposition to the referendum result.He added that "the establishment better be ready for the colossal electoral consequences that will follow" any continued opposition to the referendum result.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: "This ruling underlines the need for the government to bring its negotiating terms to Parliament without delay.
"Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union.
"But there must be transparency and accountability to Parliament on the terms of Brexit."
Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: "What the government was seeking to do was to impose a deal that absolutely nobody voted for, that most people who voted to leave wouldn't be happy with and most people who voted to remain wouldn't be happy with, without any kind of Parliamentary scrutiny.
"So it's a terrible shame it had to go to the courts, but what has happened is that democracy and sovereignty have been restored."
The UK voted by 52% to 48% to leave the European Union in a referendum on 23 June.The UK voted by 52% to 48% to leave the European Union in a referendum on 23 June.
The EU's other 27 member states have said negotiations about the terms of the UK's exit - due to last two years - cannot begin until Article 50 has been invoked.The EU's other 27 member states have said negotiations about the terms of the UK's exit - due to last two years - cannot begin until Article 50 has been invoked.
What questions do you have about the Article 50 High Court ruling?What questions do you have about the Article 50 High Court ruling?