hello, it's tuesday, it's nine o'clock. i'm victoria derbyshire, welcome to the programme. in exactly half an hour's time, the highest court in the land will rule on whether parliament or the pm is in control of the uk's divorce proceedings from the eu. i will be reporting live problem the supreme court, we will bring you the decision as it happens, and all the reaction from the court. we'll bring you that decision live as it happens, and throughout the programme we'll bring you plenty of reaction and explain what it means. iama i am a professor of public law, i am going to explain the meaning of the judgment, not about whether we leave, about how we leave the european union. plus, we'll bring you reaction from senior politicians, and our audience of voters are here to give their verdict on the decision. judges are not hell—bent on dismissing the views of british people, they just want to ensure dismissing the views of british people, theyjust want to ensure it is carried out with the correct mandate. it is correct thatjudges clarify the detail of the law,

citizens have a right to clarify important questions. the judges have no right to interfere with the democratic wishes of the electorate, let's stop wasting time and get on to repealing the european community act. as always, really keen to hear from you — do get in touch throughout the morning. that ruling is in 30 minutes' hello, welcome to the programme. we're live until 11. as you'd expect, the programme will be dominated by reaction to that supreme court ruling, due in just under half an hour's time. as always, do get in touch— use #victorialive, and if you text, you will be charged at the standard network rate. our top story today — in half an hour's time, the supreme court will deliver its ruling on whether the prime minister needs parliament's approval before she can start the process of leaving the eu. the long—awaited judgment will decide how the eu's article 50

exit clause is triggered. the government argues that ministers have the power to do that, but opponents say they need parliament's approval, as chris mason reports. au revoir! the european union ignites strong passions. almost seven weeks ago, protesters gathered outside the supreme court as the 11 most seniorjudges in the land gathered inside. hour after hour of dense legal argument followed on the biggest question in politics — where does power lie? is it behind the door here in downing street? or inside here in parliament? the prime minister says she can start the uk's divorce from the eu herself, but campaigners led by the businesswoman gina miller, says mps and peers have to have a say first. this morning, we will find out who has won.

if the government loses, they will also lose complete control of the timetable for starting the process of leaving the european union. it will have to rush its plan through parliament in the next few weeks. today is not about whether brexit should or will happen but who gets to press "go". that is why it matters, and that is why there was a lot of interest here in what the judges had to say. our correspondent ben brown is at the supreme court. morning, ben! good morning, victoria, this judgment, whichever way it goes at night column 30, is going to make legal, constitutional and political history. —— at 9:30. it will have huge obligations for the way the brexit processes implement, is it parliament that triggers article 50,

0!’ parliament that triggers article 50, or is it the government through its prerogative powers? let's just tell you that we can see gina miller, the businesswoman who brought this case originally, gina miller, the investment fund manager who brought the case. and the government appealed against her victory in the high court in november and brought it here to the supreme court. gina miller says she has had death threats, threats to her business interests, threats to boycott her business as well, because of this case that she has brought. and she will be hoping that the 11 supreme courtjustices will rule in her favour and against the government, and will say that it is parliament thatis and will say that it is parliament that is sovereign, and it is parliament that has to trigger article 50. let's talk to clive coleman, our legal affairs

correspondent, the 11 supreme court justices have been deliberating over christmas and the new year, and we are going to hear theirjudgment at half past nine. let's not underplay this, this is quite simply the biggest case about where power lies in our constitution as between ministers on the one hand and parliament on the other, this is a case that will define the limits of executive power of the government, which wants to trigger article 50 using these ancient powers, these prerogative powers, they say they can do that because, effectively, they are working with an international treaty that is an area where the prerogative can legitimately be used. gina miller says, no, what is at stake here is rights enjoyed by you and i, citizens of the uk that are enshrined in an act of parliament, the 1972 european communities act, and you cannot reach in with the prerogative and rip those out. so this case is, as you say,

constitutionally of enormous significance, we are going to hear the ruling, it will come through the president of the court, lord neuberger, who will come into court with the otherjustices, and they will take about five minutes to give a summary will take about five minutes to give a summary of the ruling. we will get a summary of the ruling. we will get a fulljudgment to pick over later in the day. 11 supreme court justices, it is a bit like a jury, they could be a majority verdict, it could be something like 7—4. absolutely, and lord neuberger will tell us any dissenting judgments are from, but it is historic — 11 justices have never sat before, and not just since the justices have never sat before, and notjust since the supreme court was established in 2009. its predecessor, thejudicial established in 2009. its predecessor, the judicial committee of the house of lords, which used to sit in parliament, going back to the 19 -- 19th sit in parliament, going back to the 19 —— 19th century, they never sat in that number, so this is really

huge. clive, thank you very much indeed. we will get theirjudgment at half past nine. the prime minister, theresa may, just up the road in downing street, will be getting a sneak preview. we gather she will hear the judgment at 9:15. that is it from me for now. soa so a few minutes for the prime minister to find out, 23 minutes for the rest of us, we will bring you the rest of us, we will bring you the ruling live on bbc news. joanna has the rest of the morning's news. president trump has signed an order to formally withdraw america from the trans—pacific partnership, fulfilling one of his campaign pledges. the trade deal involving a dozen countries was agreed by barack 0bama. president trump has also cut funding for international groups that provide abortions and has frozen the hiring of some federal workers. motorists caught driving well above the speed limit will face biggerfines after a review of the sentencing guidelines for courts in england and wales. the changes will allow magistrates to impose much tougher penalties on drivers, and are intended to make sure the punishment for speeding is a lot higher for the worst offenders.

a murder inquiry is under way after a 15—year—old boy was stabbed in north—west london. he was attacked on a street in willesden yesterday. ambulance crews treated the boy at the scene and took him to hospital, where he was later pronounced dead. detectives have yet to release his name, but his family have been informed. heathrow airport says 100 flights have been cancelled because freezing fog in south—east england has again reduced visibility. the airport has apologised to those affected and has advised passengers to check the status of their flight before travelling to the airport. flood management in england and wales is still fragmented, inefficient and ineffective, according to a group of mps. members of the commons environment committee have criticised the government for a lack of action, two months after they recommended major reform. the government says its plans will help protect 300,000 homes. the citizens of this country

want to see the government protect them against flooding. we've asked them questions. we've made some recommendations. it's the government's responsibility to protect its citizens, and as far as we're concerned, and explaining how best it's going to do it. the nominations for this year's academy awards will be announced later today. critics have tipped the modern musical romance la la land as a front runner. it's expected to face stiff competition from the domestic drama manchester by the sea and also from moonlight, a coming of age drama set in drug—torn miami. that is a summary of the latest news, more at 9:30. we have voters from all over the uk here this morning, they will give their reaction to the supreme court ruling at 9:30. wherever you are, get in touch, what do you think of

the fact that 11 justices will make this decision as to whether it is the prime minister or parliament who has the final say on triggering the process of leaving the european union? do get in touch in the usual ways. reshmin has the sports news. bernie ecclestone, in charge of formula one for nearly a0 years, has been removed from his post. he makes way following a £6.a billion ta keover way following a £6.a billion takeover by us giant liberty media. chase carey, the new chief executive, has appointed the former supremo as a chairman and merit is, and honorary chairman and adviser to the board, but bernie ecclestone says he has no idea what the title means and insists he was forced out. some of the tennis old guard enjoying a renaissance at the australian open. yes, venus williams has booked a place in the semifinals, for the

first time in1a place in the semifinals, for the first time in 1a years, remarkable, rolling back the years. she beat anastasia pavlyuchenkova in straight sets. venus has never won a title in melbourne before, next up for her is coco vandeweghe. jo—wilfried tsonga was beaten by stan wawrinka in straight sets. roger federer is in quarterfinal action today, up against the man who knocked out andy murray, misha zverev. murray is likely not to play in great britain's davis cup tie next week against canada, that news just in this morning. the six nations cakes off next month, a big name missing from the england team. flankerjames haskell has not travelled with the squad to portugal, he could miss the opener against france in february. he has spent the last six months on the sidelines with an injury, but despite returning to action for wasps, wasps on sunday, he will not

train with the england squad, so still a lot of waiting to do. and ryan mason has responded well to surgery, what is the latest on his condition? that is absolutely right, he has responded well to surgery, the hull city midfielder whose family have thanked well—wishers for their support after age attic 2a hours. he underwent surgery on sunday after picking up a fractured skull at stamford bridge. he was injured ina skull at stamford bridge. he was injured in a clash of heads with defender gary cahill during the premier league fixture. he was described as conscious, talking and ina described as conscious, talking and in a stable condition yesterday, but he will be monitored in hospital over the coming days, so really positive news for ryan mason. back with more sport in the next hour. cheers, reshmin, thank you. viv

says, parliament has voted, what is the point in all of this today?! another says, this is the democratic process , another says, this is the democratic process, it is really simple to non—idiots. roy says, and elected judges should not interfere. so who decides? that is the question, prime minister and parliament? what is at stake is who controls the divorce proceedings with the eu — the triggering of what's known as article 50, which begins the formal process the british people have spoken, and the answer is we're out. her majesty the queen has asked me to form a new government, and i accepted. brexit means brexit, and we're going to make a success of it. the result today is about all of us.

it's not about me or my team. it's about our united kingdom and all ourfutures. but i want to be clear. what i am proposing cannot mean membership of the single market. ok, so what could happen in the next 15 minutes? we can speak now to professor alison young from oxford university,

an expert in public law. plus, a group of politicians from various parties. theresa villiers for the conservatives, who campaigned for leave. labour's 0wen smith, who voted to remain. ukip's suzanne evans, who voted leave. stephen gethins for the snp, who voted remain. tom brake for the lib dems, who voted remain. and we've got an audience of voters from right across the uk. alison young, what do you expect to happen? that's the ten million dollar question. a chance to prove myself wrong in 15 minutes! my guess would be probably you need an act of parliament, but i don't think they will say that legally you have to consult the devolved governments as well. that would be my guess. so mps will get a vote? yes. it may not be 11, but a majority. exactly. owen smith it the government loses and you and your colleagues get a vote, will you vote against triggering article 50? possibly. i'm going to

try and amend the bill because i think we will have a bill. i think that's right in order to make sure that's right in order to make sure that we've got a decent opportunity on behalf of the people we represent to scrutinise that bill and crucially, in order to give us an opportunity at the end of that process in two or three years time when we've concluded negotiations to determine whether it is going to be good for britain or bad. if your amendments fail and sources suggest the word of the bill will be so tight that there won't be a chance for critics to amend it. if it is a bill, it must be amendable. there can be new clauses tabled to any bill even if it is a one clause bill. even if the tories try and truncate scrutiny. they wanted to simply enact it for party political purposes, but if we get to that point, i will table amendments and others will table amendments and the liberals and the labour frontbench

will table amendments, we will try and hold the government to account and hold the government to account and make sure we can get the best for the british people. i don't feel if we are unable to get those amendments through in all conscience ican amendments through in all conscience i can vote to trigger article 50. what do you think of that, suzanne eva ns ? what do you think of that, suzanne evans? in there has to be an act of parliament, that's fine. if either house decides to vote against the will of the people, it will probably trigger a general election and we will have a new house of commons. do you think really think that's a realistic possibility?” you think really think that's a realistic possibility? i think they will be signing their own death warrant. public confidence in the house of lords is low as it is. if they try and frustrate the referendum outcome, i think they're in trouble. you will vote against it asa lib in trouble. you will vote against it as a lib dem? the thing we will press for is the idea there should bea press for is the idea there should be a second vote on the terments of the deal so people voted for departure and voted to leave the eu,

but did not vote for what the shape of ourare but did not vote for what the shape of our are you nip with the eu was going to be like. if we don't get that, we will vote against. is that not unacceptable because you would be voting against the will of the majority of people in this country? we would be saying in fact the people should have their say. so actually i think it is reinforcing... people had their say? very they voted to leave the eu. the polling suggests that people whether they voted for brexit or for remain are in favour of us staying in the single market. how do you respond to the lib dems argument theresa villiers? the lib dems want to frustrate, implementation of the result of the referendum. that's not what he said? the reality is referendums are not best out of three. we had a vote. the turn—out was high. more people voted leave in this country that had ever voted for anything else in the history of british democracy. as the elected

house, we need to obey the will of the people and vote to trigger article 50. do you want to respond? the difficulty for theresa, she knows that what the eu is going to look like is different from the views articulated by many members of the leave campaign. so there was no consistent view of what our relationship was going to be like of the that's why we think people should have their chance in saying either we like what the government are proposing in terms of the deal, or alternatively, actually, we think that the current arrangement is preferable. i have to disagree. the leave campaign made it very clear what leaving the eu was going to look like. it meant taking back control of our borders and taking back control of our money and sovereignty of the british parliament. it was made also clear tom, as you know, time and time again the remain campaign said we'll

have to leave the single market. the remain campaign used that as a scare tactic. we have to leave the single market and then we have to in order to get the control back. can i pick up to get the control back. can i pick up on that point? we were promised by the vote leave campaign by michael gove that scotland would get powers over immigration if we voted to leave. i asked the home secretary about that yesterday and we were told we're not getting it, a broken promise. just as we were told that if we voted no to independence we would be able to stay in the european union, another broken promise. so vote leave does not have a great record. you can't pawn on a blank page and you didn't tell us, and the little we have been told has been broken. depending what the supreme court justices been broken. depending what the supreme courtjustices say in eight minutes time, potentially, you, the scottish parliament, could block brexit or at least have a greater say over the process. what will you do? well, it is up to the scottish parliamentarians, i'm not a scottish parliamentarian, but the people

sitting except ukip are represented in the scottish parliament. now, the uk parliament have never legislated for something that is a responsibility of the scottish parliament without getting the scottish parliament's permission to do so—so i think that's appropriate that given any moves to leave the european union will have a significant impact on each and every citizen in every part of the united kingdom. we will have to see what they say. they may or may not spesify how the government should consult parliament. if indeed, they decide that is the way to go. a general question aboutjudges having a say at this point. suzanne evans, you talked in december, you were really cross with the high court ruling, you talked about in december judges should come under some form of democratic control and scrutiny of democratic control and scrutiny of select committees, do you stand by that? what i was trying to say thatjudges should be subject to some kind of democratic scrutiny... with independence comes accountability. and i think ukip is

looking at possibly talking about how thejudicial looking at possibly talking about how the judicial appointments commission works and say shouldn't the chair of the justice select committee have some say in the appointment ofjudges. because of the high court ruling? no, because it isa the high court ruling? no, because it is a general principle of democracy. the situation we have a the moment... why are you smaolg? judges are appointed by a quango or a self appointing oligarchy. that's wrong. you're undermining it if any of the controls you were talking about were put in place. scrutiny, not controls. the other thing to remember here is this is a point of law that the judges are deciding on. it is not a political decision. they're deciding whether it is right for ministers and the prime minister to simply decree that we are moving article 50 as opposed to asking parliament. what i never understood

is why ukip and the other people who campaigned so hard to bring back law making powers to the uk and to parliament then get annoyed about the prospect of the parliament exercising its rights. it is a nonsense argument. what do you think about democratic accountability slash control? i don't think that works with regards to the way the judiciary works. the judiciary is there, its independence is important so it can give you an independent point of what the case law says. there is that element of independence. there is accountability. you are distinguishing between how you appoint them so we can discuss separately whether the appointment process is independent. i don't think you should make them democratically appointed. that's not the way to go. the justices considering this point of law. is it the right? are you cross about it? anthony, what about you? it is one

of the key parts of the separation power and it's absolutely important that they have their say because the decision to leave the european union will affect every citizen in this country. the terms that were put to the nation, were spurious at best. we're still waiting on the £350 million to the nhs. we're still waiting on world war three as well. let's hope that doesn't happen. the remain campaign told all sorts of lies. judges should have a say. it isa lies. judges should have a say. it is a long—standing democracy and long may that continue. you think this is interference in the democratic process. explain why. because i think it's all very good, yes, we won because i think it's all very good, yes, we won the independence of the judiciary, however, we have had a referendum and the people have spoken. so, every time we don't like a result of an election or a referendum, we go back and try to

undermine it. so what's the difference between our democracy and a dictatorship? so when the president of the supreme court said this is not about overturning the referendum, it is about the process by which we leave the european union. did you not believe him? no, ido union. did you not believe him? no, i do not believe him and ijust want to talk about tom brake because his constituency in london, most of his electorate voted to leave and here he's coming and saying that he wants to stay and he wants to fight against it. aren't you undermining democracy? members of parliament are elected to represent their constituents, but we are also entitled to hold our own view. i'm against the death pen aland if the majority of my constituents favour the death penalty, that doesn't mean i will support the death penalty. nobody is going to chop your head off to leave the eu. most voters, they will have known for sometime that voting for a liberal democrat, you're going to get someone who is pro—european. so it was a very small

margin, buti pro—european. so it was a very small margin, but i think in relation to judges, there are many countries around the world where they exert democratic control... are you suggesting i'm saying that, come off it, tom. come off it. the first point i want to respond to is the £350 million. you have to be quick because we're going live any second. it wasn't a promise made by the campaigns... apart from the bus advert. it wasn't a promise. the point i want to make i believe that judges should have the power to decide on this point of law, but there is an argument to be made though the fact that parliament was ignored for 40 years when british people didn't get a chance to lobby theirmps to people didn't get a chance to lobby their mps to have a vote on whether their mps to have a vote on whether theissue their mps to have a vote on whether the issue would be part of the european union or not. that is an important point and that might be one of the reasons why people decided that 0k, well, this is the first chance i'm going to be heard,

thenl first chance i'm going to be heard, then i might as welljust stick it to the guys that didn't give me the chance. all those treaties we signed handing over power to the european parliament that you did nothing about. kenneth says, "the ruling is a tactic to obstruct and achieve nothing. it's quite frustrating. what do they hope to adhef?" marie says, "the real story is the rip and but we areful can't accept our decision to leave the eu." glen says, "the courts must decide. 0r decision to leave the eu." glen says, "the courts must decide. or we have a dictatorship." robert says, "how much has gina miller and her banker backers cost the public purse? this money could have been spent on the nhs, rather than defending the tantrums of the 1%." let's go live to the supreme court as we await the judgement. ben brown is there. ben, what's going to

happen in the next few minutes? yes, victoria, at 9.30am we will hear from lord neuberger who yes, victoria, at 9.30am we will hearfrom lord neuberger who is the president of the supreme court. and he will deliver the judgement of the 11 supreme court justices. he will deliver the judgement of the 11 supreme courtjustices. they sat forfour 11 supreme courtjustices. they sat for four days last month to hear this case and essentially they have to decide whether it is parliament that must trigger article 50 to begin the process of the uk leaving the eu or whether the government can do that with its prerogative powers. the prime minister already knows the judgement. theresa may was told about it at 9.15am, the top lawyers involved in this case already know as well. they have had advance sight of thisjudgement. we as well. they have had advance sight of this judgement. we will get it at 9.30am ina of this judgement. we will get it at 9.30am in a minute's time, a five minute summary of the judgement and then well‘ get the fulljudgement online. let‘s talk to our legal affairs expert clive coleman, in a nutshell, what have they got to

decide? well, it comes down to a simple issue, can ministers alone trigger article 50 this process by which the uk leaves the eu? can they do that using prerogative powers, executive powers or do they need the authority of an act of parliament to empowerthem to do authority of an act of parliament to empower them to do that? that's the single issue that the court has to decide. there is a question about whether if there is parliamentary legislation on this, scotland and wales and northern ireland should have a say in it? absolutely, some say this is more thana absolutely, some say this is more than a political as you, because it is only a convention that says the devolved assemblies or parliament have to give their consent. it is convention, it doesn't have legal force, but it will be interesting to hear what they have to say on that. also interesting, the pressure on these 11 supreme court justices,

because with the high court decision, there was a lot of talk in the press, one headline was that they were enemies of the people. so there is political pressure on them. there is, they have got pretty tough hides, they will not be susceptible to that kind of pressure, we have an independent judiciary in this country, this is a critical part of our constitutional arrangement, and this demonstrates something very important — that nobody is above the law, including the government. what is being argued by gina miller is that ministers are seeking to do something that is unlawful under our constitution, and the judicial review was triggered by two ordinary citizens, to have the right to go to court and ask the court to scrutinise whether the actions of ministers were lawful or not. many people regard that as a pretty democratic part of our country. the

11 supreme court justices democratic part of our country. the 11 supreme courtjustices could be split on this, it could be a majority decision, say 7—a something like that, and that will be explained. lord neuberger will let others know whether there are dissenting judgments, who they come from, they may be descending on a specific point, we will get the full picture from lord neuberger within minutes. we are just waiting for those 11 supreme court justices minutes. we are just waiting for those 11 supreme courtjustices to come to the bench. and if it is against the government, and if it is forgina against the government, and if it is for gina miller, that means the government pretty quickly have to push some legislation through parliament. there is only one option if they lose, they will have to put a bill through parliament, and that means that the government loses control of the process. it is a bit embarrassing. they didn't want to do it that way, but once a bill is put into parliament, the government ministers lose a little power, and parliament gains power, so parliament gains power, so

parliament could decide to lay down amendments. i do not think there is any appetite for parliament to block this process, they are not going to stand ina this process, they are not going to stand in a way of the democratic juggernaut that was the referendum vote, but it becomes more difficult, somewhat embarrassing for the government, and it may mess with the timetable that theresa may has set herself to trigger by the end of march. so it becomes a messier, more difficult process. lord neuberger did say, before they went off to retire and consider their judgment, this is not about what we think about membership of the european union, this is not about trying to rerun the referendum. of course it isn't, some people have advertised it as bad, but the referendum results determined that we would leave the eu. this is about what the lawful mechanism is under our constitution, applying the rule of law, for that process to be triggered. you know, is it something that can be done at the stroke of a

minister's pen, or is it something that needs the authority of parliament in order to trigger it? and that is a legal question, and you need judges to determine that legal question. well, we were expecting thisjudgment legal question. well, we were expecting this judgment at half past, so it has been slightly delayed. we do not know whether they are still working out their judgment, still arguing!|j are still working out their judgment, still arguing! i doubt it! do they just sit judgment, still arguing! i doubt it! do theyjust sit in a room and argue it out? about a week after the hearing ended, they meet together as a group of 11, they give their views, starting with the mostjunior justice, and after that i am sure there is some lively debate. here we go! here we go, they are now coming to the bench in the supreme court, the 11 supreme courtjustices, and we will hear from lord the 11 supreme courtjustices, and we will hearfrom lord neuberger arm of the president of the supreme court with this historicjudgment.

judgment in the appeal between millerand judgment in the appeal between miller and another judgment in the appeal between millerand anotherand judgment in the appeal between miller and another and the northern ireland references. on the 1st of january 1973, the united kingdom joined the european economic community, now the european union, the eu. this was achieved by government ministers signing a treaty of accession and parliament enacting the european communities act 1972. over the next a0 years, developments in the eu resulted from further treaties, many of which were adopted in subsequent acts of parliament, and some of those acts curbed the exercise of the powers of uk ministers in eu institutions. 0ne of those acts of parliament was in

2008, and it approved the inclusion of article 50 into the eu treaties. in broad terms, article 50 provides that a country wishing to leave the eu must give a notice in accordance with its own constitutional requirements, and that the eu treaties shall cease to apply to that country within two years. on the 23rd ofjune 2016, a uk wide referendum reduced a majority in favour of leaving the eu, and the government then announced its intention to trigger article 50. the issue in these proceedings have nothing to do with whether the uk should exit from the eu or the terms or timetable for that exit. the main issueis or timetable for that exit. the main issue is whether the government can trigger article 50 without the prior authority of an act of parliament.

the other issues concern the obligations of the uk government and the devolution legislation before triggering article 50, and in particular whether legislatures in scotland, wales and northern ireland must be consulted. so far as the main issue was concerned, as a general rule, the government has a prerogative power to withdraw from international treaties as it sees fit. however, the government cannot exercise that power if it would thereby change uk laws unless it is authorised to do so by parliament. the claimants argue that, as a result of leaving the eu, uk law will change and legal rights enjoyed by uk residents will be lost. accordingly, they say, the government cannot trigger article 50 u nless government cannot trigger article 50 unless authorised by parliament. in

reply, the government argues that the 1972 act does not exclude the power for the 1972 act does not exclude the powerfor ministers to the 1972 act does not exclude the power for ministers to withdraw from the eu treaties, and that section two of the 1972 act actually caters for the exercise of such a power. today, by a majority of 8—3, the supreme court rules that the government cannot trigger article 50 without an act of parliament authorising it to do so. put briefly, the reasons given in a judgment written by all eight justices in the majority are as follows — section two of the 1972 act provides that, whenever eu institutions make new laws, those new laws become part of uk law. the 1972 act therefore makes eu law an

independent source of eu law until parliament decides otherwise. therefore, when the uk withdraws from the eu treaties, a source of uk law will be cut off. further, certain rights enjoyed by uk citizens will be changed. therefore, the government cannot trigger article 50 without parliament authorising that course. we reject the government‘s argument that section two caters for the possibility of the government withdrawing from eu treaties. there isa withdrawing from eu treaties. there is a vital difference between changes in uk law resulting from changes in uk law resulting from changes in uk law resulting from changes in eu law, and those are authorised by section two, and changes in uk law resulting from withdrawal from the eu treaties. withdrawal affects a fundamental change by cutting off be source of eu law, as well as changing legal rights. the uk‘s constitutional

arrangements requires such changes to be clearly authorised by parliament, and the 1972 act does not do that. indeed, it has the opposite effect. the referendum is of great little significance, but the act of parliament which established it did not say what should happen as a result, so any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the uk constitution, namely by an act of parliament. to proceed otherwise would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries. the dissenting justices consider the government can trigger article 50 without an authorising act of parliament. their view is that the 1972 act, taken with the 2008 act, renders the

domestic effect of eu law conditional on the eu treaties applying to the uk. in their view, parliament has not imposed any limitation on the government‘s prerogative power to withdraw from the treaties, and if article 50 is triggered, eu law will cease to have effect in uk law in accordance with the 1972 and 2008 acts. 0n the devolution issues, the court unanimously rules that uk ministers are not legally compelled to consult the devolved legislatures before triggering article 50. the devolution statutes were enacted on the assumption that the uk would be a member of the eu, but they do not require it. relations with the eu area require it. relations with the eu are a matterfor require it. relations with the eu are a matter for the require it. relations with the eu are a matterfor the uk government. the convention plays an important pa rt the convention plays an important part in the operation of the uk constitution, but the policing of its scope and its operation is not a

matter for the courts. we thank all those who have played a part in helping us determine these important legal questions. copies of the full judgment and of the summary version are now available on the supreme court website. the court is now adjourned. so that is lord neuberger, president of the supreme court, delivering thatjudgment, which of the supreme court, delivering that judgment, which makes of the supreme court, delivering thatjudgment, which makes legal, constitutional and political history, and as many people had speculated, the government have lost this case, 8—3 was the decision. there were 11 supreme courtjustices hearing it. initially, some people said that the law on this was pretty clear, but it might even be an 11—0 result against the government, but

it isa result against the government, but it is a splitjudgment, 8—3. lord neuberger was making it clear that he believes that, because the british parliament enshrined eu law into british law and gave british citizens rights, then only parliament can take away those rights that it has conferred. and he said, to proceed otherwise, in other words for parliament not to be the one that triggers article 50, would bea one that triggers article 50, would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries. so that judgment was very clear. let‘s get some thoughts on it from our legal affairs correspondent clive coleman, who has a copy of the fulljudgment, which i know you will be ploughing through later on! but we have just got the five minute summary there, and it was pretty much as we expected, the government all along we re expected, the government all along were not really expected to win here. no, the government face a major problem in this case,

essentially arguing against parliamentary sovereignty. we don‘t have a written constitution in this country, but the founding principle of our constitutional arrangement is that parliament is sovereign, parliament creates the laws, and only parliament camera move those laws, and that was the real problem for the off. some thought that i come and very ingenious, arguing that effectively the rights enshrined were not nailed down statutory rights. —— some thought that the government had a very ingenious argument. a treaty is something where the royal prerogative can be used, it can be used to reach in and remove those rights. the supreme court has this morning, by a majority of 8—3, said thatis morning, by a majority of 8—3, said that is not the case, these are rights enshrined in uk law... and here is the attorney general for the

government. i want to thank the supreme court for the careful consideration they have given to this matter. it is a case that it was wholly appropriate for the highest court in the land to decide. 0f for the highest court in the land to decide. of course, the government is disappointed with the outcome. but we had the good fortune to live in a country where everyone, every individual, every organisation, even government, is subject to the rule of law. so the government will comply with the judgment of the court and do all that is necessary to implement it. the court has been very clear throughout the hearing of this case that it has not been deciding whether the united kingdom should or should not leave the european union. the people of the united kingdom have already made that decision. and now enacting that decision will be a

political matter and not a legal matter. and so, the secretary of state for exiting the european union will make a further statement in parliament later today. thank you very much indeed. so that's jeremy wright, the attorney—general, speaking there on behalf of the government with immediate reaction to that decision, thatjudgement from the supreme court that, eight to threejudgement by from the supreme court that, eight to three judgement by the 11 supreme court justices that to three judgement by the 11 supreme courtjustices that it is parliament that has to trigger article 50. the government cannot do it alone through its prerogative powers as it wa nted through its prerogative powers as it wanted to. jeremy wright, the attorney—general saying it was wholly appropriate for the highest court in the land to hear this and in that the government will comply and do that is needed now to trigger article 50. we gather that the government already have several

pieces of draft legislation that they‘re planning to put to parliament. they will chose which draft bill they put to parliament, depending on the exact wording of thejudgement when depending on the exact wording of the judgement when they‘ve had a chance to read all the details of thejudgement itself. chance to read all the details of the judgement itself. the chance to read all the details of thejudgement itself. the prime minister, theresa may, we gather was given a copy of the judgement at 9.15am so she knew ahead of lord neuberger telling us, she knew that decision. so that‘s the latest from the supreme court, victoria, 8—3 is the supreme court, victoria, 8—3 is the decision. let‘s just have a another listen in. this is the solicitor for another of the complainedants, david greene. —— complainants, david greene. complainedants, david greene. -- complainants, david greene. the rightful process as well as the role that the law plays in ensuring a lawful political process. this has been a unique and difficult fight where the legal issues were often

clouded by a polarized and politically charged backdrop. yet, as has been made clear by the supreme court and the divisional court, this is a case not about whether we should withdraw from the european union, but about the constitution of the uk and the relationship between parliament and government. the result is a reassertion, by the court, that we live this a parliamentary democracy in which having been elected, our mps in parliament have the sovereign power to grant rights and remove them. a power only constricted by consideration of human rights and the rule of law. these rights affect people‘s lives, family lives, where they live, where they work, their very right—to—work in this country, they are vital rights in day—to—day life. the court has decided that the rights attaching to our membership

of the european union, were given by parliament and can only be taken away by parliament. this is a victory for democracy and the rule of law. we should all welcome it. some have asked what is point of thisjudgement now that some have asked what is point of this judgement now that the prime minister has said she will give parliament a vote on the brexit deal after negotiations? we can speculate that she may not have done so had not the cases of my client and gina miller been brought to the court. is mrs may‘s recent concession sufficient? the answer is no. having served the article 50 notice we will withdraw from the union on the second anniversary whether a deal is done or not and whether parliament a pproves done or not and whether parliament approves it or not. parliament may then be left with a choice — vote yes for the deal put to them or we leave with no deal at all. the time for the vote then is now. on the principle of withdrawal and the

inevitable removal of citizens‘ rights that will follow both for citizens here and indeed, uk citizens here and indeed, uk citizens in the european union. in considering an article 50 statute, we are sure that mps will have those rights in mind. finally, this is also a victory for ourjudicial process , also a victory for ourjudicial process, both my client and his co claimant gina miller has received hate mail of a vile and threatening nature, and yet have had their case heard and were treated by the courts with the greatest respect. judges we re with the greatest respect. judges were subject to intense media scrutiny and indim tation. a determination has been made based purely on the legal issues which is as it should be. thejudges are not the enemies of the people. they are for the people to stop arbitrary action by a government. the government and the lorge chancellor

should today confirm its unquestioning supporting for the rights of the claimants in this case and their respect for the court‘s decision this. is a victory for parliamentary democracy and the rule of law and whatever changes we are about to face, as a result of brexit, it is reassuring that the sacred principles have today been reaffirmed and will hopefully endure. thank you. so that‘s david greene who is a solicitor for one of the claimants, a hairdresser, along with gina miller, the businesswoman who originally brought this case saying that parliament should decide on this. he said it was a victory for democracy and the rule of law. let‘s listen in. we‘ve got another of the participants in the case. involved in this historic case since the outset representing the two million or so british citizens who live in other parts of europe. we are

delighted and relieved by the decision of the supreme court today. there can now be proper, control by the mp5, the british people elect over the process of the uk leaving the eu. together with three million nationals of other european countries who live here, we are the people who will be most profoundly affected by all of this. everything people in britain take for granted in their daily lives rests for us, on our being eu citizens. from being able to work, to accessing vital healthcare and our children‘s education. let me give you an example. healthca re education. let me give you an example. healthcare is absolutely key. many uk pensioners are entitled tojoin the key. many uk pensioners are entitled to join the healthcare systems of the countries in which they live. these rights would be lost and thousands of uk expatriates unable to continue to receive the healthcare to which they are

entitled. my friend paulfrom healthcare to which they are entitled. my friend paul from the village we live in, sadly now deceased, lived in exeter four—and—a—half years because the french healthcare system was able to provide him with treatment that our wonderful nhs was not able to do. i have cancer for the third time and yet treatment in france. so it is a matter of life or death. despite this, a large number of us would not permit me to vote in the referendum at all. many of us now face losing our basic citizenship rights without ever having a say so. the rights of these millions of people went largely overlooked in the referendum. proper parliamentary scrut nigh now offers the best chance for our circumstances to be considered in the lead up to the brexit negotiations. this is the

human side of brexit. we would urge the government not to use us as bargaining chips. we will be calling on the government and the european commission to ensure hard guarantees are put in place about what the future holds for such a large number of ordinary people. we ask that governments across the eu do the same. i would like to thank our excellent legal team and the 11 supreme courtjustices. that's john shaw. he is from an organisation called fair deal for ex—pats. you have been watching history being made by 8—3, the supreme court zwrisz ruled that the government cannot trigger article 50, that‘s the process of leaving the eu, without an act of parliament. let‘s go to norman, our political guru, reaction from the labour leader, jeremy corbyn. hi vic. so jeremy

corbyn has put out a statement. the significant thing as expected. he says labour will not frustrate the process for invoking article 50 article 50. so labour will not vote against article 50. however, here is the but. let‘s cross back. gina miller is probably just the but. let‘s cross back. gina miller is probablyjust talking now. in november, in a case that went to the very heart of our constitution and how we are governed. 0nly parliament can grant rights to the british people and only parliament can take them away. no prime minister, no government, can expect to be una nswerable minister, no government, can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged. parliament alone is sovereign. this ruling today means that mps, we have elected, will rightfully have the opportunity to bring their invaluable experience and expertise to bear in helping the government

select the best course if in the forthcoming brexit negotiations. negotiations that will frame our place in the world and all our destinies to come. there is no doubt that brexit is the most decisive, divisive issue of a generation. but this case was about the legal process , this case was about the legal process, not politics. today‘s decision has created legal certainty based on our democratic process and provides the legal foundations for the government to trigger article 50. iwant the government to trigger article 50. i want to express my gratitude to the supreme court, my team, lord pannick and my other counsel for being to conduct themselves with such integrity and thoughtfulness in the face of extraordinary and unwarranted criticism. in britain,

we are lucky, we are fortunate to have the ability to voice legitimate concerns and views as part of a shared society. i have therefore been shocked by the levels of personal abuse that i have received from many quarters over the last seven months for simply bringing and asking a legitimate question. i sincerely hope that going forwards people who stand in positions of power and profile are much quicker in condemning those who cross the lines of common decency and mutual respect. lastly, iwould lines of common decency and mutual respect. lastly, i would like to wholeheartedly thank those who have sent me the most heart warming m essa g es of sent me the most heart warming messages of support. they have truly helped to bolster me in this most arduous process. let‘s go back to norman. you were

explaining how labour are going to approach this historic ruling, norman. yeah. yeah. the key thing to understand is that labour are not going to oppose triggering article 50. butjeremy corbyn has set out a range of amendments which he is going to table. let me run you through them. there are three key amendments. amendment one is he will press for tariff—free access to the single market. amendment two is a guarantee of workers rights. both those can probably be agreed by theresa may. the killer amendment will be around what he calls a meaningful vote. what does that mean? it means that theresa may has promised there will be a vote at the end of the whole brexit process on the deal she negotiates. now, the view in team corbyn, that‘s not good enough because basically, it will be a take it or leave it deal. what labour will try and press for is a vote, before m rs labour will try and press for is a vote, before mrs may signs on the dotted line. so mps will get a

chance, before mrs may as it were, ta kes chance, before mrs may as it were, takes us out of the european union, to say, "hang on. that deal is not good enough. go back and get a better deal." that‘s the critical amendment which labour are going to table if it is expected we get this government bill. the short bill. the other reaction is from the liberal democrats. tim farron. the liberal democrats. tim farron. the liberal democrats are clear we demand a vote of the people on the final deal. so reiterating that he will press for a second referendum to approve the final deal done by mrs may. so we are getting a sense of the likely battles ahead. yes, article 50, mps will probably, probably, approve that, but they are going to try and insert in that all sorts of conditions. labour to try and get what they call a meaningful vote. and the liberal democrats, to try and ensure there is a second referendum before we leave the eu. so we‘re getting a sense of the

battle lines ahead. so there will be some wrangling then in the commons. how could that impact on theresa may‘s timetable for triggering this whole thing by the end of march? well, i think the truth is, theresa may is going to be able to trigger article 50 and yes, she is going to be able to do it by march because although there are plenty of mps who wa nt to although there are plenty of mps who want to frame the way she goes about this negotiations, there are amendments that are going to be tabled. no mp, well there are a few, but not many mps want to be seen to be publicly seen, to be blocking article 50. because frankly it will look as if they are defying the will of the people, that they are spitting in the face of the referendum result. they don‘t want that. not many are going to vote against triggering article 50. the real political tussle is over the terms of any deal that mrs may eventually strikes with the eu. ok,

thank you, norman. i know you‘ll be back with us, bringing more reaction. by by girl says elitejudges by girl says elite judges voting in favour of the elite, this is disgusting. —— might. brigid says, a sensible verdict, now it is up to mps to stop brexit, they brave enough? yes! there is not an overview to stop brexit, let‘s be realistic. i think that is probably right, because the majority of mps will vote in favour of article 50, jeremy corbyn is right to be tabling amendments, we will not have a meaningful vote, but now we know there will be the hardest of hard brexits, they are prepared for us not to be in the single market, or the customs union, for us to tumble out of the eu into a fantasy world where they imagine we will strike

global trade deals. we always have been a global trading nation, we have to get some reality back into this process, so at the end of it, if we get to a point where we have the worst set of outcomes, which is where i feel we may end up, the right thing to do then is to allow the british people, one small in an ultra—democratic moment, to confirm whether they really want the hard brexit that they are likely to get, including the expats and 16—year—olds who did not get a vote last time. i want the reaction of voters to the ruling from the supreme court this morning, then i will ask you, if you were to vote before britain leaves the eu, on the deal that theresa may has come up with. your reaction first of all?” am happy with the ruling, parliament do need to have a vote on what happens, it is parliamentary sovereignty, that is what we voted to leave the eu four. tomasz dominic

team— mate team—mate pre—empted this by saying she would give a vote to parliament. —— theresa she would give a vote to parliament. — — theresa may. she would give a vote to parliament. —— theresa may. the solicitor for the dos santos made an interesting point, it is pretty clear that for the remain as, they regard this as a rearguard aim to stop brexit, it is somehow about stopping brexit in them mines. what you think? absolutely the right decision, we are here because the government failed to plan adequately for what would happen in the event of brexit. they said they wouldn‘t use public money, but they used public money to argue for one side, and they did not allow the civil service to plan adequately for what happened if we left. i expected this from the judges, so i am not wholly disappointed, but this is another

example of frustrating the will of the people. ijust want it to carry on. i will come back to you in a second, norman, you have reaction from the snp. from the snp, they say they are going to table 50 serious and substantive amendments to article 50. they are also calling for the publication of a government white paper on its plans for brexit, something the government has said they are not going to do. but 50 serious and substantive amendments. that is an awful lot of amendments, i have to say, i suspect most of those will not be ruled in order by these speaker of the house of commons, but the snp signalling that they want to lead the charge against they want to lead the charge against the triggering of article 50. we know nicola sturgeon has already drawn upa know nicola sturgeon has already drawn up a fairly firm battle line, warning that if theresa may goes down the line of hard brexit, it makes another independence referendum more likely. but a signal

from the snp that they are going to go toe to toe with the government over article 50. thank you very much, 0wen smith said the snpjust showing off. 50 ? much, 0wen smith said the snpjust showing off. 50? really 50 substantive amendments? the eu has a significant impact on jobs, substantive amendments? the eu has a significant impact onjobs, i think about university jobs, the significant impact onjobs, i think about universityjobs, the food and tricks sector, the single market. these are threatened by this. if the government was confident in what it was doing, it would not be afraid of parliamentary scrutiny, so i am not sure why the government was afraid of parliamentary scrutiny over actions that will have an impact on each and every one of us in every pa rt of each and every one of us in every part of the uk. what does it mean for the devolved assemblies, the scottish parliament, the welsh assembly, the northern ireland assembly? there will be some annoyance, certainly in the scottish government, they would hoping the scottish government would get a vote, so msps could express their views on brexit and article 50, and we know the majority of them were

opposed. now the supreme court is saying, no, legally, you don‘t have to do that. i have not spoken to nicola sturgeon‘s people, but the question for her is whether she decides to hold a symbolic vote anyway, just to underscore opinion in scotland, is that a way of building momentum for her argument that if theresa may is going for ha rd that if theresa may is going for hard brexit, it will increase momentum for an independence referendum? i mean, we don‘t know. i suspect she is sitting down now with advisers and trying to work out, 0k, how do we play this now that the supreme court is saying we don‘t automatically get a vote? let's talk more to hywel williams from the welsh party plaid cymru, wales voted to leave the eu, but his party wa nted to leave the eu, but his party wanted to remain. gavin robinson is from the dup, northern ireland voted to remain, his party wanted to leave. i am aware i have not got reaction from half of the voters, we

will be with you, do not worry. hywel williams, first of all, uk ministers, according to the supreme courtjustices, do ministers, according to the supreme court justices, do not legally ministers, according to the supreme courtjustices, do not legally have to consult the scottish parliament, the welsh assembly and the northern ireland december — your reaction.” am disappointed, clearly the needs of people in wales have been overruled by central london, i think we should all be properly consulted, and that is the unified view, by the way, of both the governments and the official opposition in wales, as we showed yesterday when we published the white paper. gavin? today is the la st the white paper. gavin? today is the last day of the northern ireland executive, we have a political crisis at home, so even if there had beena requirement, crisis at home, so even if there had been a requirement, we would not have had an executive to respond to that. but it is not a surprising outcome at all. the uk is not a federal state, we are a union, our attorney general was very clear back in novemberand december attorney general was very clear back in november and december that there was not one question which suggested

that the devolved institutions would have a veto on this process. my constituency voted to leave, our country voted to leave, and the government will seek can secure the approval of parliament to enact article 50. hywel williams, approval of parliament to enact article 50. hywelwilliams, what approval of parliament to enact article 50. hywel williams, what are you going to do, if anything? we will be putting our own amendments down. how many? i don't think it will be 50, but we will be supporting our friends in will be 50, but we will be supporting ourfriends in the snp and possibly also the liberal democrats and the labour party. there will be enough mps to vote to trigger... it is a parliamentary process , trigger... it is a parliamentary process, a matter of debate. you cannot say nothing will change, who knows? of course, it is a process, not an event. people should realise this is going to go on for years, and we will be having debates like this and stating a very consistent standpoint. back to norman, we heard

from the government‘s lawyer not so long ago that they were disappointed to lose this case, reaction from number ten, norman. we have got words now from number ten, a defiant message despite losing today, and a determined message to press ahead with legislation to trigger article 50 by the end of march, as mrs may said. let me read you the e—mail they have sent me, the british people voted to leave the eu, and the government will deliver on the verdict, triggering article 50 by the end of march. in other words, no change, and it goes on to say, today‘s ruling does nothing to change that. in effect, 0k, today‘s ruling does nothing to change that. in effect, ok, the judges have spoken, we will proceed with plan a. we suspect? respect the supreme court‘s decision and will set out our next steps to parliament shortly, which will probably be this afternoon, when we will hear from david davis, who was presumably

going to say, right, we are now going to say, right, we are now going to say, right, we are now going to introduce legislation as the supreme court said. the key thing for many of us is to see the bill, and all the indications are it is going to be an extraordinarily short bill, two clauses, and the reason the government have stripped it back to this very minimal as piece of legislation is the less words there are, the less frasers, the less scope there is for mps to table amendments, and their hope is that it will prove very difficult for opposition mps to successfully get amendments tabled to this bill, and that they will be ruled out of order by the clerk of the house of commons. that said, do not doubt how ingenious, there are loads of lawyers in parliament, they will find ways to table amendments, but as far as possible the government wa nts to as far as possible the government wants to minimise that. watch out for the timetable from david davis, house with does the government matchroom. they have aids week stops to do that. —— how swift does the

government move? there is a big eu jamboree in march, and they want to get it done before that, or it will bea get it done before that, or it will be a bit embarrassing. they have really got seven weeks, they lose about a week for parliamentary recess, down to six weeks. i think what we will see is the government will probably clear out, —— will probably clear at house of commons business, leaving them acres of time to deal with the house of lords, who could be much more problematic. but that detail is what we would expect or hope to get from david davis this afternoon. but an interesting message of defiance, i would suggest, from number ten. and you will hear david davis, the brexit secretary, live on bbc news, of course. in the last hour, the uk supreme court has ruled that parliament must give authorisation to the government before

prime minister theresa may can trigger article 50 to formally withdraw from the european union. let‘s get reaction from our politicians here and our voters from around the uk, from the snp, stephen gethins, your reaction? well, obviously, it is good that parliament will have a say, disappointed that the devolved administrations will not. critically, thejudge did administrations will not. critically, the judge did say that was a political decision. are we a partnership of equals, do the devolved administration still count? that is a decision for the government. theresa villiers, your government has lost, how do you react? lord neuberger is right that this is about process, so the important thing is for parliament to get on and table article 50 according to the timetable set by the government, and that is how to respect the result of the referendum. if the government had

not appealed, you could be cracking on. i think we can still stick with the timetable, the good news is the confirmation that this is not a matter for the devolved assemblies. if the supreme court had ruled in a different way... as a devolved parliament, you have to keep up with the devolution set up. critically, the devolution set up. critically, the uk parliament has never legislated for an area that is a responsibility of the scottish parliament without the scottish parliament‘s consent. do you think we should give our consent to the areas under with the scottish parliament‘s responsibility? areas under with the scottish parliament's responsibility7m areas under with the scottish parliament's responsibility? it is clear that european union matters are reserved, that is clear in the settlement, and it would have been a radical change to our constitution if the supreme court had said something else. our behalf of the lib dems, tom brake. this is a very embarrassing result for the government, because the supreme court have said that if theresa may had progressed in the way she had wa nted had progressed in the way she had wanted to, it would have been

illegal. so no planning was actually donein illegal. so no planning was actually done in respect of this. what the supreme court has said, parliament is sovereign, if the government are going to come forward with a one line bill, i am not sure that sort of truly reflects what the supreme court has said about parliament being sovereign. so i hope that we will not see the government attempting to truncate the process, to abandon all the parliamentary conventions that exist around the timetabling of bills, the time that is allowed to debate them, and i think there is the potential, perhaps around the meaningful vote thatjeremy corbyn is talking about, to get labour, the liberal democrats, the snp and indeed some conservatives on board to really challenge the government on how they are intending to proceed. suzanne eva ns, are intending to proceed. suzanne evans, ukip. i am disappointed to hear people continuing with their threats to frustrate this process.

the ball is in parliament's court, it is up to them to respect the will of the people and not keep frustrating this. please, do what the people wanted you to do, let's get out of the eu as soon as possible. reaction from you as a voter, good morning.” possible. reaction from you as a voter, good morning. ithink possible. reaction from you as a voter, good morning. i think the crucial thing to recognise is that this government does not like scrutiny, we found that yesterday with the trident misfire. it doesn‘t like questions, and it doesn‘t like looking at amendments. it is crucial that parliament have that ability to proposed amendments to bills. if it isa proposed amendments to bills. if it is a one line bill, the government is a one line bill, the government is being pretty much and democratic as anything. —— undemocratic. what about yourself? i'm pleased with the judgement. it is the common sense thing to do, but the work will come after and accept that we have

got to trigger article 50, but that's the process. that's when the work starts. we need to get as much into this bill that's coming out that enables us to fight. to fight what? well, i don't particularly wa nt what? well, i don't particularly want to live in our british kay men islands. i want it to be a country that has industry, that we can people have rights, workers rights, all the things that we got under the european union. you voted leave. how do you react to the ruling today?” come from an area what's been blighted, blighted by eu rules. it lost out considerably and a lot of people i know have voted brexit and supported ukip purely because for them labour hasn't represented them. 0k. them labour hasn't represented them. ok. in terms of the ruling today... i will bring it back to that. i think technically, the government

has the ruling, the government has won has the ruling, the government has won because it is still going to happen. it's only a few lead weights along the way. you can place as many clauses as you wish. the government is determined that it will be no more than two inserted. she wants complete clarity upon this because people in general within the country asa people in general within the country as a whole, we're tired of the jargon. what's best for us? we know what's best for us. we're sick of the nanny state and we just want to hopefully go along with the correct procedure. i'm quite supportive of what the government is trying to do because i think they're trying to be honest with people in the only way she can be, theresa may, i don't think she is a bad prime minister.” supported remain. ithink

think she is a bad prime minister.” supported remain. i think the fact that the unelected house of lords will have a vote and the assemblies and the scottish parliament won‘t is and the scottish parliament won‘t is a disgrace. personally very disappointed to hear that from teresa villiers who was our secretary of state for northern ireland, who knows the hard brexit is against our interests and i think it is another example of the disdain that this tory government and the last one has shown for northern ireland in particular and the devolved regions. i‘m going to say thank you to our guests. thank you for time and your patience. we watched history being made. let‘s go back to the supreme court and ben brown. yes, victoria, i‘ve got two of the key lawyers with me here from this case. the lawyers representing the two claimants, gina miller the business come and the hairdresser. james, represents gina miller, solicitor for gina miller and david

greene is a solicitor. you must be delighted, an 8—3 majority? greene is a solicitor. you must be delighted, an 8-3 majority? very, very pleased. right decision, but very pleased. right decision, but very pleased. right decision, but very pleased. you can never predict anything, but relieved as well. what about you david, 8—3, were you maybe hoping for a unanimous decision from the justices? from hoping for a unanimous decision from thejustices? from a law hoping for a unanimous decision from the justices? from a law of point of view, it doesn't matter whether it is majority or not, that's the decision is majority. thatjudges are willing and do express their views is a great part of the process. we had an e-mail into the victoria derbyshire programme from a viewer saying, "why do i bother to vote when you have all this legal process ? " vote when you have all this legal process?" people think they voted in a referendum for a result and it has been challenged in the courts? we made it clear and the courts made it clear, this is not about shall we withdraw or stay in? it is not about the brexit or the remain argument. it is purely a point of law and this is about people's rights. i think

the message we should get from this, it is about people's rights. for instance, citizens living in france, what are their rights? uk citizens living in france, what does the future hold for them? what about eu citizens living here. it is about family life and education and all those things that affect, this is about rights and individual rights. asi about rights and individual rights. as i have said previously, i think what the parliament should be doing is looking at those rights when they consider these issues. it may not be re—running the referendum, james, but it might delay the implementation, the triggering of article 50 and that will anger some people? well, it won't delay the triggering at all. the courts made it clear they could accommodate their timetable to the government‘s timetable. the government said they wa nted timetable. the government said they wanted to trigger article 50 by the end of 2016 and the court said they will have our process done by then. the government said they want to do

it by march and the courts have made sure that theirjudgement is received in plenty of time to allow president government to do what it wishes to do. there has been huge pressure on thejudges. wishes to do. there has been huge pressure on the judges. enemies of the people was what they were called after the high court decision and your client gina miller, had death threats. a lot of pressure? yes, and reg retta ble. threats. a lot of pressure? yes, and regrettable. as we heard gina say just now, very regrettable, very upsetting. we should be celebrating this process. it is part of our constitution, the separation of powers is part of the constitution. we all cherish and all citizens in this country cherish and we should be celebrating this process rather than again grating it. you must be glad and your clients must be glad, not only that they‘ve won, but that it‘s over. not only that they‘ve won, but that it's over. indeed. it's over, but obviously delighted with the result, but even if the result had gone the other way, it is all about the process and what we have had here is a properly regulated process to get to an answer. and that's what

matters. as i said, it is not about going in or out, it is about the process and the rule of law. and that's what we've achieved. all right, very good to talk to you both. congratulations from your point of view on the result. two of the key solicitors in this case and celebrating that 8—3 judgement which they will see as a victory. it is 10.22am. reaction coming in thick and fast. let‘s talk to keir starmer. good morning to you sir keir starmer. we hear labour will table three amendments, the most tricky a meaningful vote at end of the negotiations. can you explain to our audience in lay man‘s terms what that means, please? firstly, we welcome thejudgement. it that means, please? firstly, we welcome the judgement. it is that means, please? firstly, we welcome thejudgement. it is really important that parliament has a proper role. if it is going to have a proper role we need a white paper that sets out the objectives. i know

we had a speech, but we need a formal document setting out what the government is seeking to achieve. we need an ability to hold the government to account during the two yea rs government to account during the two years and parliament needs a say on the outcome because that‘s meaningful involvement. the prime minister said in her speech that she will offer a vote to parliament on the final deal. we need to make sure that‘s a meaningful vote and there is an anxiety if it is a vote between the deal on the table and no deal that wouldn‘t be meaningful. meaningful. this is about making sure now it is established that parliament should have a proper role, that it is a role that means something. ok. i'm sorry to be stupid, but what do you mean by meaningful? we have got to have a vote at a point in which beck still influence the outcome. not simply, i‘m concerned that the prime minister might say here is the deal, ta ke minister might say here is the deal, take it or leave it. it has got to be an appropriate point to make sure

there is a degree of influence over there is a degree of influence over the outcome. so you can say this deal is not good enough mrs may, go back and get a better one?” deal is not good enough mrs may, go back and get a better one? i hope that the government will seek the best dealfor britain that the government will seek the best deal for britain and be able to bring it back to parliament in a form that is supportable across the housein form that is supportable across the house in the best interests and in the national interest. that‘s what we hull should all ed aiming for, but given that we have got the objectives, we need to test whether the prime minister has achieved what she set out it achieve and take a decision then, but what we can‘t haveis decision then, but what we can‘t have is very important ruling today, constitutional ruling, telling us that parliament must have a proper role and then attempt by the government to minimise the role of parliament. it has got to be a full and meaningful role. in the end, is your leader going to tell your colleagues, you and your colleagues, to vote to trigger article 50 at the end of march? many of my colleagues andi end of march? many of my colleagues and i campaigned passionately to stay in the eu. but we accept and

respect the outcome and that means that we will not seek to frustrate the process. ok. so those labour mps and we‘ve spoken to some already who are going to vote against. those labour mps who rebel, what will happen to them? well, we haven't made decision about precise voting. we haven‘t decided how many amendments we will put down. we‘re having discussions with colleagues. i would just say this — this is a difficult set of decisions for many collea g u es difficult set of decisions for many colleagues who feel very strongly about these issues. and we‘re handling it cold lej atly and talking about it in the labour party. what do you say to voters who voted to leave the european union, who are watching this ruling this morning and still saying, "just who are watching this ruling this morning and still saying, "just get on with it." well, frankly, the prime minister could have got on with it 82 days ago. we had the high court ruling 82 days ago. the prime minister could have said that ruling has gone against me, i must involve

parliament, let‘s just get on with it. we‘ve delayed to this point purely because the prime minister wa nted purely because the prime minister wanted to have an appeal to try and stop parliament having a vote. and so... it sounds like you want to delay it more? if it lies anywhere, it lies with the prime minister because we could have been having this bill in parliament 82 days ago. trying to lay any sense of the delay at the floor of the labour party when it is the prime minister who has taken 82 days to delay by having this appeal at taxpayers cost i might add, it is a little bit unfair. we simply say that parliament should have a proper role and meaningful role and that‘s what the supreme court ruled and get on with it. let‘s have that meaningful role. what adjectives would you use to describe the wayjeremy corbyn has been handling brexit in the last weeks and months? well, we have been clear that we accept the result. we have been clear that the priority for us isjobs have been clear that the priority for us is jobs and the economy. and

because that‘s so important to working people, to businesses across the country, i have been across the whole of the uk talking to businesses, they‘re concerned about things like tariffs, about making sure that trade isn‘t anymore difficult in the few fewer than it is now and we have been been standing up and making the case for them and trade unions, if you look at the messages and the position, it is to respect the outcome, but make sure, make sure that the new relationship between the uk and the eu is the right relationship and it actually works for businesses, for communities, and for working people up communities, and for working people up and down the country. has your boss handled it well? well, i think we have handled it well, but i‘m not pretending, i‘m not pretending that this is easy for colleagues across the labour party. we were a party that campaigned to remain in the eu. icampaigned to that campaigned to remain in the eu. i campaigned to remain in. we‘re accepting the result. we have two—thirds of our mps in constituencies that voted to leave the eu and one—third in constituencies that voted to remain.

of course, that means there are strongly held views and i‘m not pretending they aren‘t there, but i do think they have to be seen in their context. this isn‘t a political split in any traditional sense, it is a party working through a series of difficult situations with its mps. 0k, thank you very much for your time, we appreciate it. that was sir keir starmer. we have some labour voters and some ex—labour voters. let me ask you how you thinkjeremy corbyn handled brexit in the last few weeks and months.” corbyn handled brexit in the last few weeks and months. i think that he is ina few weeks and months. i think that he is in a very difficult situation. i think that half the labour voters voted in and half voted out. he got 63% of labour voters voted in. but i think in labour heartlands it is very difficult for him and i think that he‘s just trying to work his way through it. i think he accepts that we have to trigger article 50.

but it is then what happens from that point onwards that we have to worry about, you know. he is leader of her majesty's sop circumstances. it is all well and good, he has to work things out, but we have to deal with the issues here and now.” disagree. i feel like we don't want people who voted leave to block the process. what jeremy corbyn people who voted leave to block the process. whatjeremy corbyn is doing is correct, it is to go through. he is correct, it is to go through. he is trying toen sure it is done properly. the ruling today was, i was happy with the ruling and i feel it is unfairto was happy with the ruling and i feel it is unfair to say this whole ruling is delaying the process and upsetting leave voters when at the end of the day leave voters were coerced into voting for something that the government couldn't legally provide. whose fault is that? the leave campaigners or the people who wanted to remain? you voted ukip at the last election? corbyn is trying to hold together a party. part of

the party wanted to vote in. part of it wanted to vote out. whether it was 2—1, whatever. he's trying to hold together a party to keep that strong opposition. but eventually if it does come to a 2020 election, they will have to vote with their feet whether they like it or not. they will be swayed to vote one way or the other. if their constituents voted out and they are an in person, that's unfortunate because under the 0ld labour system, they were given lists of people who they could vote for to represent them in their constituency and now that's backfiring on them. now, he can't get the people he wants, who he has and what he has as his values. a5 minutes ago, the news that the government lost its historic battle

in the supreme court, parliament will have to give consent of the tree —— triggering of article 50. it will not overturn the referendum result, which saw the uk vote to leave the eu, but it determines which course is lawful. we can talk tojohn whittingdale, former culture secretary, conservative mp, a high profile leave campaigner. iain duncan smith is a former conservative leader and former work and pensions secretary, he hasjust finished it done like playing a five—a—side football match, it says here! were you not watching the historic ruling? i watched a replay of it! i have got so more people to introduce, not just of it! i have got so more people to introduce, notjust mps, peers will get a vote, so lord young boat and

leave, and baroness kramer voted remain. —— voted. we have heard that this is damaging, what do you say?” am very relaxed about the decision, there is a frustration amongst people who voted leave that we have not made much progress towards it, but i am pleased that the government has made clear we will be triggering article 50, i hope they bill will be passed as quickly as possible, and the one thing which would have potentially held up the process would have been if the supreme court had ruled that we had to consult all the devolved administrations, the nations and regions, but they have said that is not necessary. so i think the timetable can be achieved. iain duncan smith, your reaction to the ruling. well, this is in two parts, you have to understand that there is the european issue, but also the issue about who is supreme, parliament or the court. this is the

easy right now, so i was intrigued that it was a split judgment. easy right now, so i was intrigued that it was a splitjudgment. i am disappointed that they have told parliament how to run their business, after all there was a vote overwhelmingly to trigger article 50, so they have stepped into new territories whereby they are telling parliament what to do. —— into new territory. that leads to further constitutional questions. the second element, in terms of the european side of it, they were ruling on two issues, they have upheld the english high court ruling that parliament should have a vote, and they have gone slightly further. i am disappointed they have taken the step because there are wider constitutional implications. as john said, i expect the government to bring forward a very simple bill, and to get it through both houses of

parliament. the lords should not try and frustrate the vote that was in the house of commons late last year, andl the house of commons late last year, and i think we will trigger article 50 in time, the end of march deadline. ken clarke is here as well, you must be delighted, but from what i am hearing from your colleagues, it changes nothing. well, it does restore parliamentary democracy, wholly predictable, i don‘t know why the government bothered to resist it. what they we re bothered to resist it. what they were trying to do was minimise discussion, as we have heard, they will try to have a bill of two lines so that you don‘t talk about it. are we going to have new tariffs? regulatory barriers? fisheries policies? what is the position of continental students? policies? what is the position of continentalstudents? no, policies? what is the position of continental students? no, the public have decided, no two cabinet ministers agree about any of those things, but now parliament is not allowed to talk about it. it won‘t

last, and once parliament gets under way, if the government actually eliminates discussion on the act of parliament in order to rush on with it, parliament, itrust, will start holding the government to account — the policies, the objectives it is pursuing, and we have got here is to go. the idea that parliament is suspended for two and a half years, and when the government has done a deal, then parliament can vote, that is about the strangest proposal i have heard. ian duncan smith is tied to come back. kent knows very well we are bringing forward the repeal of the 1972 european communities act, covering every single element of our relationship with the european union, so i don't quite understand, going forward, there will be a vast amount of the date in both houses of parliament beyond whatever this very simple bill may be, this is only about triggering

article 50. we will have more than ample discussion about elements that the government may be engaged in, what parliament think they should or should not do, that will all be there, as he knows, and i know, having both been involved in maastricht, the public will be sick and tired of debating it. you and i have debated these things very often, as you say! the great repeal bill, apparently we are not go to change any of the rules, we are getting rid of the european rules, but we can‘t think of one we want to change at the moment, so we‘re making them all british rules. we will take a long time debating whether they should be british or european rules. i hope it gives the opportunity not just for discussion, but normally you and i have been in government togetherfor but normally you and i have been in government together for four years, we we re government together for four years, we were in government because we could command a majority in parliament for the policies we are pursuing. where the great repeal bill will give us the opportunity to

make the government and strobel for the policy it is pursuing an environmental issues. —— answerable. well, it will. it won't, in the way it was described, it was a very good slogan at the party conference. why don‘t we have ordinary parliamentary democracy? when you were opposing maastricht, you took up weeks and weeks and weeks of parliamentary time trying to defeat the government on its policy. you are saying i am ordered to abandon my lifelong convictions and not challenge the government. if you have lost this referendum, you would be behaving in the way you did up to maastricht. well, ken, ifully the way you did up to maastricht. well, ken, i fully agree with you! if we had won in maastricht, nothing would have happened, because we could not have gone back to the eu and said, sorry, we don't agree any more, that deal was done. you could

have stopped it. but ken, you know very well, in a way parliament works, the repeal of the 1972 european communities act will allow you to debate and amend anything you like on every element of this, so you and i both know there will be ad nauseam debate about this, and we will both be, i‘m sure, in studios discussing how parliament voted the night before more than we want to be! let me bring in the voters from around the uk, listening to former conservative colleagues debating this. when you hear iain duncan smith and ken clarke talking about this in these terms, what are you thinking? that epitomises the problem with the referendum debate asa problem with the referendum debate as a whole. it became about personalities. now, the british public made their decision, and i think what is important now is that there is enough scrutiny in the process to make sure that the decision is not one that is of self harm to the country. i think the decision today shows that. there is

no political agenda from the judges, they are not self appointed, that is very dangerous language, and you start to play with fire when you get into this territory. we need to make sure the decision is respected. carl, sorry, carl, go ahead.” sure the decision is respected. carl, sorry, carl, go ahead. ithink that just any issue carl, sorry, carl, go ahead. ithink thatjust any issue of debate about delaying it or trying to get in a way of it, i don‘t think that is particularly relevant. i don‘t think any politician worth their salt is really wanting to stop it, well, there are a few, sorry. you will vote against it, ken clarke.” always go with my best judgment vote against it, ken clarke.” always go with my bestjudgment in the national interest, i will vote against, but i will be a tiny minority of eccentrics! look at the daily mail, the modern politicians, they look at opinion polls, they are ordered to vote. once we have got past that process, as somebody has just said, the devil is in the

detail. the referendum was the borazon dave show, we didn't discuss fisheries policies. —— boris and dave. the result of the referendum was to leave, i believe in democracy, the decision was to leave, and my view is that we have to back the result of the referendum. baroness kramer, for give me, but some of our audience will be thinking, what has it got to do with you two? we worked together in the mid 1980s, and our views have not changed one whit, we had the same argument back then. it has a great deal to do with me and baroness kramer, we are citizens of the uk. ivoted, ao baroness kramer, we are citizens of the uk. ivoted, 40 years baroness kramer, we are citizens of the uk. i voted, 40 years ago, baroness kramer, we are citizens of the uk. ivoted, 40 years ago, to entera the uk. ivoted, 40 years ago, to enter a free—trade area. nobody ever asked me, from that day until this, whether i wanted to be part even of

the eu. what are you going to do when this gets to the lords?” the eu. what are you going to do when this gets to the lords? i am going to vote for leave, i will do, and if the lords as a whole do not vote in that way, they will be bringing on lords reform much quicker. the vote that will come to the lords will not be yes or no, but whether or not we scrutinise this, and whether we try to introduce amendments. i will be strongly voting to amend, because you only have to listen, almost everybody who voted for brexit had a different view of what it was going to deliver, and i think the british people need to see the deal at the end, and the british people that need to make a final decision. you are agreeing with baroness kramer. we are elected to parliament to have a debate and hold the government to account, about important decisions. that is not to say that we should thwart the referendum, we must uphold the referendum result. the other thing we should be aware of is that once article 50 is triggered, this is a one—way process. there is not a stop or handbrake, we are

going to be leaving from that point, so it is important that everyone involved recognises that, and we have the opportunity to investigate the process in the interests of constituents. now until the end of march, is that enough time?m constituents. now until the end of march, is that enough time? it is the key window to have a debate, but there will be two more years after that to hold the government to account. these sectors that are affected... the lords are an amending body, we are not elected, we are appointed. this is a yes or no decision, and when legislation goes through, there is time to amend, but this is not the right time for the lords to start saying no. baroness kramer? it is a key thing to amend, and we will be looking to amend. he is saying it is the wrong time. entirely the wrong time! there will be some who take that view, many others in the lords

are very active and they say that it is absolutely our role, ourjob, are very active and they say that it is absolutely our role, ourjob, the reason we are there is to scrutinise and improve. are you prepared for the criticism which will undoubtedly come, where opponents will say you are unelected, trying to thwart the will of the people? i have taken an oath to scrutinise and to improve, and others will take that view. these are the words — scrutinise and improve, not to change, but this is yes or no. improvement is amending, and whether we succeed or not is an entirely different issue, but what is important is this is that it is a bigger message to the government today, which is that it has to recognise the importance of parliamentary democracy, and we have seen this government before trying to get around parliamentary democracy, trying to sideline parliament, and it will be crucial. we talked about the great repeal

bill, there will be a lot of discussions about whether it has clauses that let the government do exactly what it wants. it is the wrong title, it is not going to repeal anything, is it? wrong title, it is not going to repealanything, is it? it wrong title, it is not going to repeal anything, is it? it isjust going to subsume things into british law. john whittingdale... going to subsume things into british law. john whittingdale. .. all kinds of things, this is a clear message, we live in a parliamentary democracy, parliament has that responsibility. democracy is the word. the idea that parliament is not talking about the eu and how we leave is ridiculous, we debated every week. i sit on the brexit select committee in parliament which is scrutinising the government's process for negotiating exit. now, the house of commons is an elected chamber, and the house of lords has to accept the will of the house of commons. in this case it goes further, both houses have to accept the will of the british people as clearly expressed, and i have to say that i agree with david young, if the house of lords tries to

frustrate the will of people expressed in the referendum, than i think the house of lords is not going to survive. iain duncan smith. i agree completely with that, the point here is that i am all for debate, we will have lots of debate, we will have time for that, but what i think would be unacceptable is if the lords then decide to block this, because it was the decision of the british public. take the lib dem position, baroness kramer, they have a handful of mps in the house of commons, but over a hundred peers in the house of lords, so they are disproportionately represented in the lords, and they shouldn‘t use thatis the lords, and they shouldn‘t use that is proportionate representation to thwart the will of the house of commons ultimately. by all means debated, but be very careful that the disproportion and position that they have got should not be wheeled in deliberately to try and block the will of the house of commons and ultimately of the british people. try and use that power to amend and that's key. a final word. no one is

going to block in the house of commons. i'm sure there will be lots of general debate. the government are trying to provide lots of debate, the question is in the end the government has to get parliament's approval for the policies it is pursuing, not the details of the negotiations, but the objectives it's going to seek. it hasn't decided, they haven't agreed amongst themselves what their objectives are. stop there. stop there. thank you very much and thank you for your patience as well. so we‘ve heard the view of various conservatives. plus, of course, a lib dem peer, what about labour? norman is at westminster. just recap their position, please, norman? well, jeremy corbyn‘s position is that labour mps will not seek to frustrate article 50, but he does wa nt to

frustrate article 50, but he does want to table serial key amendments. one guaranteeing access to the single market, two ensuring workers rights are protected and labour are after what they call a meaningful vote. what does that mean? the government said ok, you can have a vote at the end of the whole process when theresa may has done a deal, she will come back to the commons and say, "here it is, what do you think?" mps with vote for that or reject it and if they reject it, we are walking away from the european union with no deal. labour wants to have an opportunity to grab mrs may by the collar at the last minute and say, "hang on, that‘s not good enough. you‘ve got to go back to brussels and do better." but let‘s be honest, labour are profoundly divided over brexit. i mean, you had keir starmer on saying it isa mean, you had keir starmer on saying it is a very difficult issue for my colleagues. oh boy, it is a really difficult issue because the party is divided from the very top to the bottom, through the shadow cabinet, through the parliamentary party,

through the parliamentary party, through ordinary parties, amongst labour voters. basically between traditional working class labour voters who are pro—brexit, protighter controls on i will immigration and the middle—class supporters who by and large are pro the eu and labour is trying to sort of face both ways and you get a sense, i have been sent some e—mails by some of the labour leave mps who are signalling a warning to those labour mps who are signalling a warning to those labourmps who might are signalling a warning to those labour mps who might be tempted to vote against article 50. kate howey says, "if labour mps are seen to be frustrating the will of the people by opposing article 50 then they will lose their seats 0 says kate howey. another mp says, "my collea g u es howey. another mp says, "my colleagues in the house of commons need to realise if they are seen to frustrate the will of the british people, labour could find themselves ina people, labour could find themselves in a position where they will never form a government again." let's talk

to four labour mps. mr gapes to four labour mps. mrgapes and mr to four labour mps. mr gapes and mr stringer voted to leave the eu. so, i mean when it comes to you voting in the commons, graham stringer, yes, to article 50 or no to article 50 article 50? obviously yes. i campaigned to come out. we won the debate. the british people have decided, in all the previous debates in the commons, there was never a question that it wasn‘t being handed over to the british people. obviously parliament has to implement that. i‘m pleased with the decision today. i campaigned for this country to become a sof governing country and a democracy again. so that means that parliament should have a vote. ok. rushanara ali? i'm going to make my decision based on what's in our national economic interests. what is that? i represent a seat which borders on canary wharf and the city

of london, some 47,000 jobs in the financial services are at risk. thousands ofjobs financial services are at risk. thousands of jobs have financial services are at risk. thousands ofjobs have an announced by some of those sectors to leave our country. now, in the end my judgement will be based on whether we have access to the single market, whether our rights are protected, we cannot have a race to the bottom. workers rights will be protected. well, we will see about that. those would be the tests because people won't thank us whether they voted for or against if we damage our economy and our prosperity going forward. ok. well, the referendum said we would leave the european union. it didn't say we would leave the customs union and leave the single market. ithink the customs union and leave the single market. i think that we are going to be put on an escalator by this process by the speech of theresa may which basically parliament won't be able to stop and we will either be faced with a position which is very bad for our economy and our national interests

oran economy and our national interests or an even worse one of no economy and our national interests or an even worse one of no deal at all. does that mean you're going to vote against triggering article 50? lam going vote against triggering article 50? i am going to vote against because we have got no white paper and no plan and once we are on the escalator we can't stop it. it is a no from me. i replaced a lib dem in bermondsey and southwark. i made a simple pledge to my constituents i won‘t vote for anything i believe with harm their interests and we are seeing the harm in my constituency from manufacturers and importers and from manufacturers and importers and from the financial sector of the referendum result alone. what harm are you seeing? jobs will be moved to frankfurt and paris from my constituency. i met with importers of greek, polish and spanish produce, they have already seen a 1596 produce, they have already seen a 15% increase in their prices to import goods as a result of the pound crashing since the referendum. this is before we even get into the worst deal that theresa may has indicated she wants from the negotiations. what do you say to your colleagues, graham stringer who will vote against the will of the

people? they didn't make those arguments. i have had the second reading debate and those arguments we re reading debate and those arguments were not made when we decided to give the people the choice, it was all about the people having the right to choose and the labour party recommended them to vote to stay and they rejected that. the country is against all the predictions of those people who wanted to remain. the economy has done very well since we decided to leave partly because, no, but the predibs was on the 24th june the economy would go down to the tubes. we have been told repeatedly that it tubes. we have been told repeatedly thatitis tubes. we have been told repeatedly that it is about the economy, it will be bad for the economy. all predictions have been wrong. reducing the value of the pound is actually creating jobs. you're ignoring the evidence from this gentleman‘s constituency. ignoring the evidence from this gentleman's constituency. there will be pluses and minuses. theyjust have to suck it up. there have been always been pluses and minuses in the eu because jobs have been destroyed by the eu because of

regulations of different types. what i would like to say to all four of you. labour has this reputation of being spineless. the three of you, thank you for taking a stand for the people in your constituencies. i thinkjeremy corbyn is doing a very sensible thing in stating that labourmps, sensible thing in stating that labour mps, you know, he might put the whip out, we don't know about that yet, but it is his right as a party leader of a party that is divided by this to let the people and the mps vote according to their consciences and their constituents. it is not a question of stopping the eu, us leaving the eu, that will go through anyway, we know that, enough of the tories are going to vote that way anyway, so thank you to you three for taking a stand. without a coherent position of the opposition how can the government be held to account? it is not going to happen so you have got parties like the snp or the liberal democrats providing the opposition in place of labour. this isn't a question of opposition or government for me, it's a question of the future of our country in regards to what we get at the end of this deal. it's not a

question ofjust disagreeing with the government for the sake of the government. i want to bring in another guest if i may? the case against the government has been led by an investment banger and philanthropist, gina miller. they challenged the government‘s presumption that it had the right to trigger article 50. one of the supporters is charlie mullens, the head of pimlico plumbers. he helped fund the case. hello mr mullens. good morning. so even with mps getting a vote, ministers don‘t expect anything to change, the uk will begin the process of leaving the eu, triggered at the end of march, what was the point of it all? whether they were legally entitled to trigger article 50. with parliament involved hopefully we can get a softer brexit. that's your motivation. do you think that‘s realistic? given what mrs may has

said? well, yeah. i mean, of course, it‘s realistic, i mean theresa may and the government can‘tjust get on with it now and do what they want and form an hard brexit. we need to do the best what‘s for the uk and for everybody in britain and i believe now that parliament being involved that‘s what is going to happen. a softer brexit to you, means what? well, ideally still trade with the single market and still have free movement and still trade with the customs unionment we don‘t cut ourselves off completely from the eu. it would be madness to come away, 500 million customers, now we can have a soft brexit which would be better for everybody now we can have a soft brexit which would be betterfor everybody in britain. remind us how you voted in the referendum ? britain. remind us how you voted in the referendum? i'm a remainor. bev, you want to talk to him.” the referendum? i'm a remainor. bev, you want to talk to him. i think graham stringer is right, the

economy is doing fine, thank you. but don't loose sight of the fact that we're paying down a deficit. you just said that imports have reduced great because the pound has gone weaker. 0k, twhaes we want. reduced great because the pound has gone weaker. ok, twhaes we want. no, no, ididn't gone weaker. ok, twhaes we want. no, no, i didn't say that. no, i said importing is costing more. it is not that people are using... fine and it costs more, we bring less in. you cannot make chorizo in the uk. it is a spanish produce. but this is an english country. go ahead. i'm from redcar. in october 2015 we lost our steelworks. thousands of jobs. redcar. in october 2015 we lost our steelworks. thousands ofjobs. that was because the eu state aid rules stopped our government from saving the steelworks, your government

didn‘t save your steelworks in 2009. what do you say to those people that was the year that stopped them?“ you think that outside of the european union we're going to be able to compete with chinese imports into the european union then sadly, we're very much mistaken. there was a risk that, you know, at the moment we haven't left. we have got two years negotiations to come out of the european union. we have got another five years, manufacturing jobs in particular and steel are lost whilst we even negotiate the new terms of any agreement.“ lost whilst we even negotiate the new terms of any agreement. if we stay in the eu, you will re—open redcar steelworks? my position i will be opposing triggering article 50 but we're not in government. you never will be. i hope, ivery 50 but we're not in government. you never will be. i hope, i very much hope i will be. the european union actually put tariffs on chinese steel that the british conservative government, the british conservative government, the british conservative government were not in favour of that and the fact

is, it's our national government that sold out redcar. a final word. hang on, a final word from charlie mullens. sorry, it is a really bad line, what did you say?” mullens. sorry, it is a really bad line, what did you say? i was asking you for yourfinal word on line, what did you say? i was asking you for your final word on funding this case. finalword is, the result we got today was always going to be that way. we now need to move on and get the best brexit we can for the uk by getting parliament involved and now we just need to move on and brexit. ok. thank you very much. thank you. thank you for coming on the programme. thank you for your patience and time this morning. plenty more reaction to today‘s supreme court result on today‘s bbc news. i‘m back tomorrow. have a good day. good morning. we have seen some real contrasts in weather this morning. there is still fog around. just an hour ago this was taken in oxford. a

lot of fog. temperatures below freezing. it is a different story north and west of the it is a mild start. we have got temperatures around nine or ten celsius. as we go through the day, it looks as though we keep the cloudment more of the south—westerly breeze here as well and the cloud thick enough across scotland, northern ireland, north—west england and wales for the odd spot or two of drizzle. it stays mild with double figures. hopefully across central and eastern england. the fog will lift and we will see brightness coming through, but it will be a cool afternoon. five or six celsius at the very best. ten or 11 celsius out to the west. we keep the breeze out to the westment more cloud and that will prevent the temperatures from falling too low. the cloud thick enough for the odd spot or two of rain. further south and east, fog, some of it dense in places could reform and it will abchilly start to the morning. so it is worth bearing in mind if you‘re going to be out and about first thing. you need to keep abreast of the weather. tune into your bbc

local radio stations for further updates. this is bbc news. i‘m ben brown, live at the supreme court. the headlines at 11. the supreme court rules that parliament must vote on whether the government can start the brexit process. so any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the uk constitution, namely by an act of parliament. to proceed otherwise would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries. downing street says today‘s ruling will not affect it‘s plans to trigger article 50 by the end of march. but one of those who brought

the case against the government says mps will now have their say. only parliament can grant rights to the british people and only