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-38219928

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Brexit Article 50 case: Government could use 'one-line act' Brexit Article 50 case: Government could use 'one-line act'
(about 1 hour later)
Ministers could prepare a "one-line act" if they are forced to consult Parliament before triggering Brexit, the government's lawyer says.Ministers could prepare a "one-line act" if they are forced to consult Parliament before triggering Brexit, the government's lawyer says.
James Eadie QC said this would be the "solution in legal terms" if the government lost its appeal to the Supreme Court.James Eadie QC said this would be the "solution in legal terms" if the government lost its appeal to the Supreme Court.
The government says it can trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty without the need for a Parliamentary vote.The government says it can trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty without the need for a Parliamentary vote.
Campaigners on the other side of the argument will put their case later.Campaigners on the other side of the argument will put their case later.
The government is appealing against the High Court ruling it lost last month. Although the result could complicate the government's triggering of the process for the UK leaving the EU it is not expected to stop Brexit happening.The government is appealing against the High Court ruling it lost last month. Although the result could complicate the government's triggering of the process for the UK leaving the EU it is not expected to stop Brexit happening.
The advocate general for Scotland, Lord Keen, and Northern Ireland's attorney general, John Larkin QC, are also scheduled to address the court before the legal team for the main respondent, investment manager Gina Miller, takes over. The advocate general for Scotland, Lord Keen, is also addressing the court before Northern Ireland's attorney general, John Larkin QC.
They will be followed by the legal team for the main respondent, investment manager Gina Miller.
Resuming his argument on Tuesday morning, Mr Eadie said that if the government did have to put a bill before Parliament it "certainly won't" set out possible arguments and how it intends to negotiate.Resuming his argument on Tuesday morning, Mr Eadie said that if the government did have to put a bill before Parliament it "certainly won't" set out possible arguments and how it intends to negotiate.
"The solution in legal terms is a one-line act," he said, adding: "It may be that would lead to all sorts of Parliamentary complications and possible additions and amendments and so on, but that's the solution.""The solution in legal terms is a one-line act," he said, adding: "It may be that would lead to all sorts of Parliamentary complications and possible additions and amendments and so on, but that's the solution."
Mr Eadie also said it was "fundamentally inaccurate" to say that the 1972 European Communities Act removed the government's executive powers to undo it. What's at stake
And he was pressed by the justices on the amount of involvement Parliament will have in the process of the UK leaving the European Union in the years ahead, notably through the planned Great Repeal Bill which would end the primacy of EU law. Read legal correspondent Clive Coleman's full analysis
The government's case
Mr Eadie, who had been addressing the court since the case began on Monday morning, brought his case to a close by summing up why the government thinks it is entitled to use executive powers to trigger Article 50.
He said:
The first day catch-up...The first day catch-up...
The view from court, by Dominic CascianiThe view from court, by Dominic Casciani
Day one of the hearing was exactly the kind of scenario that the Supreme Court was set up to answer: the biggest question of the day - if not decades.Day one of the hearing was exactly the kind of scenario that the Supreme Court was set up to answer: the biggest question of the day - if not decades.
Inside court one, we had the unprecedented scene of 11 justices and some of the beefiest legal teams in the country.Inside court one, we had the unprecedented scene of 11 justices and some of the beefiest legal teams in the country.
Proceedings were, like many Supreme Court hearings, an intellectual contest conducted with warmth, civility and good humour - an examination of what the UK's uncodified constitution means.Proceedings were, like many Supreme Court hearings, an intellectual contest conducted with warmth, civility and good humour - an examination of what the UK's uncodified constitution means.
Outside it was different - protesters from both sides. Some good humoured, some not. One shouted "traitor" at Gina Miller as she left court, having exercised her legal right to challenge the government.Outside it was different - protesters from both sides. Some good humoured, some not. One shouted "traitor" at Gina Miller as she left court, having exercised her legal right to challenge the government.
Who's winning? Hard to tell.Who's winning? Hard to tell.
After lunch the justices gave the government team a tough time - but at this level you can't read anything into that.After lunch the justices gave the government team a tough time - but at this level you can't read anything into that.
That's what they are there to do: test to the limits the claims being made, define the line and uphold the rule of law that protects our democracy.That's what they are there to do: test to the limits the claims being made, define the line and uphold the rule of law that protects our democracy.
The points at stake How we got here
Read legal correspondent Clive Coleman's full analysis The government says it will trigger Article 50 by the end of March, which begins two years of formal Brexit talks.
The arguments in brief The government has said it will keep its cards close to its chest ahead of the negotiations, and has so far revealed little about what it will demand.
On Monday Attorney General Jeremy Wright argued the powers the government wants to use to trigger Article 50 were not a "relic" but a "fundamental pillar of our constitution as a sovereign state". Campaigners, led by Ms Miller and hairdresser hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, say triggering Article 50 requires Parliamentary approval, and won at the High Court last month, triggering an angry backlash in some parts of the press.
The government's top lawyer, James Eadie QC, also argued that Parliament could have chosen to limit ministers' power to trigger Article 50 but had chosen not to. The government has appealed to the Supreme Court, whose verdict is expected in January.
Lord Pannick QC - a crossbench peer - will be putting forward the case of Gina Miller, the lead respondent. Prime Minister Theresa May was asked about the court case during her visit to Bahrain.
A verdict from the 11 justices is expected in January. "We wait to hear what the Supreme Court judgement is going to be but I'm clear that what government will be delivering and what Parliament will be delivering is on the will of the British people," she told the BBC.
"Parliament gave the vote to the people in the referendum on 23 June. Overwhelmingly Parliament voted for the British people to make their choice. They've done that, they've said we want to leave the EU. The government will deliver on the vote of the British people."