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 1 Version 2
Ministers' Brexit argument 'violates constitutional law' Supreme Court Brexit case told Scotland should get say on Brexit
(about 5 hours later)
Allowing ministers to trigger Brexit without consulting MPs would "violate" basic principles of constitutional law, the Supreme Court has been told. Scotland's top legal officer has said the Scottish Parliament's consent is needed before the UK triggers Brexit.
Lord Pannick QC said the significance of June's EU referendum was political, not legal. Lord Advocate James Wolffe said he was not arguing Holyrood had a veto, but said its consent was required because of the "significant changes" Brexit would make to its powers.
He also said any other Commons votes related to Brexit were irrelevant to the case. He was speaking on day three of the Supreme Court battle over who can invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
The government insists there is no need to consult Parliament before triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Ministers say they can do so with without consulting Parliament.
But Lord Pannick, who is representing campaigner Gina Miller, argued there was nothing in UK legislation giving ministers the power to act alone. But campaigners dispute this, and earlier on Wednesday their lead lawyer said the government's argument "violates" basic principles of constitutional law.
Lord Wolffe, who will continue his argument on Thursday, agreed the UK Parliament should be consulted, and argued that Holyrood should also have a say.
The UK government has already responded to his argument, telling the court on Tuesday it was "fatally undermined" by powers over foreign affairs being reserved to Westminster.
Giving notice under Article 50 begins two years of formal Brexit talks.
Good Friday Agreement
The court also heard from lawyers from Northern Ireland, who said triggering Brexit could have a profound effect on the 1998 agreement at the heart of the peace process.
David Scoffield QC warned potentially "cavalier" ministers could materially alter "a carefully constructed devolution settlement". Another QC, Ronan Lavery, said since 1998 it had been for the people of Northern Ireland to decide their constitutional future, and that there could be no change without their consent.
"It would be very disturbing for the people of Northern Ireland that the terms so agreed in the Good Friday Agreement were not binding to some extent and did not have a constitutional status," he said.
Lord Pannick completes his argument
Earlier on Wednesday, Lord Pannick, representing Gina Miller, the lead campaigner calling for MPs to get a say, rounded off his argument.
He was grilled by Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger, who said it might seem "surprising" if the EU referendum had "no legal effect".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.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.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.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. He also argued that other Commons votes - such as the one taking place on Wednesday afternoon - would not count as Parliamentary authorisation.
"The law of the land is not altered by a motion in Parliament," he said."The law of the land is not altered by a motion in Parliament," he said.
"This is a basic constitutional principle.""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 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.
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.
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.
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 with a decision expected in January.