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-38234846

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Supreme Court Brexit case resumes Ministers' Brexit argument 'violates constitutional law'
(about 1 hour later)
Campaigners are trying to convince the Supreme Court that Parliament must be consulted before Brexit is triggered on the landmark hearing's third day. Allowing ministers to trigger Brexit without consulting MPs would "violate" basic principles of constitutional law, the Supreme Court has been told.
Lord Pannick is arguing there is nothing in UK legislation giving ministers the power to act alone. Lord Pannick QC said the significance of June's EU referendum was political, not legal.
The government's lawyer has already addressed the court, saying there is no need for Parliament to be consulted in advance. He also said any other Commons votes related to Brexit were irrelevant to the case.
The government insists there is no need to consult Parliament before triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
But Lord Pannick, who is representing campaigner Gina Miller, argued there was nothing in UK legislation giving ministers the power to act alone.
He was grilled by Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger, who said it might seem "surprising" if the EU referendum had "no legal effect".
Lord Pannick said this had been the intention of Parliament when it passed legislation paving the way for June's referendum.
This law, he said, "simply says there should be a referendum - it says nothing more" and was designed to advise Parliament and the government.
It did not intend to hand ministers the power to invoke Article 50, he said.
He also argued that other Commons votes - such as the one scheduled for Wednesday afternoon - would not count as Parliamentary authorisation.
"The law of the land is not altered by a motion in Parliament," he said.
"This is a basic constitutional principle."
The QC for another campaigner, hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, is now addressing the court.
The justices' decision is expected in January.The justices' decision is expected in January.
Resuming his argument, Lord Pannick told the court the effects of Brexit would not be restricted to the 1972 act taking the UK into what was then the European Economic Community.
There are "hundreds of statutes covering vast areas of national life" under threat from leaving the EU, including petition law, community law, equality law and communications law, he said.
The hearing so farThe hearing so far
First up for the government on Monday was James Eadie QC, who set out why ministers should be able to use their executive "prerogative" powers to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which begins two years of formal talks.First up for the government on Monday was James Eadie QC, who set out why ministers should be able to use their executive "prerogative" powers to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which begins two years of formal talks.
Mr Eadie said this was "entirely consistent with the will of Parliament" because Parliament had "quite deliberately" not restricted ministers' powers in this area.Mr Eadie said this was "entirely consistent with the will of Parliament" because Parliament had "quite deliberately" not restricted ministers' powers in this area.
Lord Pannick, who is representing campaigner Gina Miller, then put his side, arguing the government had no such power.Lord Pannick, who is representing campaigner Gina Miller, then put his side, arguing the government had no such power.
He said the government would have show Parliament had expressly handed powers to ministers to supersede legislation, and it had not done so over Brexit.He said the government would have show Parliament had expressly handed powers to ministers to supersede legislation, and it had not done so over Brexit.
Later on Wednesday, the Scottish government's top law officer will argue that Holyrood should also have a say before Article 50 is triggered.Later on Wednesday, the Scottish government's top law officer will argue that Holyrood should also have a say before Article 50 is triggered.
What's at stakeWhat's at stake
Read legal correspondent Clive Coleman's full analysisRead legal correspondent Clive Coleman's full analysis
How we got hereHow we got here
The government says it will trigger Article 50 by the end of March, which begins two years of formal Brexit talks.The government says it will trigger Article 50 by the end of March, which begins two years of formal Brexit talks.
It 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.It 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.
Campaigners, led by Ms Miller and hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, say triggering Article 50 requires Parliamentary approval, and won at the High Court last month.Campaigners, led by Ms Miller and hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, say triggering Article 50 requires Parliamentary approval, and won at the High Court last month.
The government has appealed to the Supreme Court, whose 11 justices are all hearing the case.The government has appealed to the Supreme Court, whose 11 justices are all hearing the case.