Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow

Brexit: government will introduce article 50 bill 'within days' following supreme court ruling – as it happened

What we learned from the supreme court’s article 50 ruling

Afternoon summary

  • The government has lost its fast-tracked appeal to the supreme court, forcing ministers to introduce emergency legislation into parliament to authorise the UK’s departure from the EU. As the Guardian reports, in a judgment that sets a far-reaching constitutional precedent and upholds parliamentary sovereignty, the court ruled by a majority of eight justices to three that MPs and peers must give their consent before the government can trigger article 50 and formally initiate Brexit. The decision sets clear limits on the extent of the government’s executive powers. Rights embedded in the law by the 1972 European Communities Act, which took the UK into what was then the European Community, cannot be removed by the government’s prerogative powers, a majority of the justices declared. The eagerly awaited ruling by the largest panel of judges ever assembled in Britain’s highest court routes the protracted Brexit process through parliament, handing over to MPs and peers the authority to sanction the UK’s withdrawal.

Davis also conceded that MPs and peers will be able to try to make “substantive” amendments to the article 50 bill. See 3.35pm for a full summary of his statement.

That’s all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.

Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s chief Brexit negotiator, has welcomed the fact that parliament will have a vote on triggering article 50.

Since you’re here, we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever – but far fewer are paying for it, and advertising revenues are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe that independent reporting and plurality of voices matter. If everyone who reads our reporting helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure. Support us with a monthly payment or a one-off contribution. - Guardian HQ

Here are three Labour MPs indicating that they will vote against triggering article 50. That would mean defying the whip if, as expected, Jeremy Corbyn tells them to vote in favour. (See 2.11pm.)

From Tulip Siddiq, MP for Hampstead and Kilburn, which is estimated to have voted 77% remain, according to the Chris Hanretty figures. (Votes were counted by local authority area, not by parliamentary constituency, which is why the constituency figures are estimates.

From Ben Bradshaw

From Catherine West, MP for Hornsey and Wood Green (which voted 81.5% remain) and a shadow foreign minister

And Roberta Blackman-Woods, a shadow communities minister, says she is minded to abstain.

The new leader of Sinn Fein at Stormont has said the Brexit ruling ignores the will of the people, the Press Association reports. The devolved assembly will not have to be consulted when Parliament votes on triggering EU exit negotiations by the end of March, the supreme court concluded. Michelle O’Neill called on the Irish government to help secure special status for Northern Ireland within the EU once the UK leaves - despite Britain’s highest court rejecting that argument. She said:

Clearly the ruling again ignores the will of the people of the North who voted by a majority to stay in the European Union ...

We believe that the North needs to have designated status.

Clearly the onus is now on the Irish government to step up to the plate.

They need to act in the interests of all the citizens of this island because they will be at the negotiating table and it is important that they act in our interests and make sure that we do receive special status given the nature of where we are here.”

Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU referendum by a majority of 56% to 44%.

Here is Paul Nuttall, the Ukip leader, on the supreme court judgment.

This decision is hardly a surprise but in the end it will make no real difference. The will of the people will be heard, and woe betide those politicians or parties that attempt to block, delay, or in any other way subvert that will.

Other than making clear that this is a decision of the whole United Kingdom, rather than its constituent parts, what we can clearly see is that it will embolden those who rail against the decision of the people. It may give heart to those in the EU, used as they are to ignoring their own people, to attempt to play hard ball in the negotiations.

But in the end I am convinced that though this skirmish has been lost in the courts, the war will be won.

The David Davis statement was repeated by a minister in the House of Lords, as always happens when a minister makes a statement to the Commons. Here are some of the highlights of the Lords exchanges. The tweets are from the BBC’s Esther Webber.

Nicola Sturgeon’s bid to hold a vote at Holyrood on giving legislative consent to the UK government’s bill to trigger article 50 could be blocked by the parliament’s presiding officer, Ken Macintosh, if he decides it is outside Holyrood’s competence.

Sturgeon has said she wants to table a legislative consent motion (LCM) at Holyrood to allow the parliament to symbolically reject the UK government’s article 50 bill, because Brexit will directly affect Holyrood’s powers.

However, that power appears to be in doubt after Lord Neuberger, the president of the supreme court, said all 11 judges had “unanimously rule[d] that UK ministers are not legally compelled to consult the devolved legislatures before triggering article 50”.

The court ruled that EU and international treaties were clearly outside the scope of the Sewel convention, which states the UK’s devolved parliaments have to pass a LCM on UK legislation which affects their powers or remit.

In a possible lifeline to Sturgeon, the judges added, however, that the exact scope and enforcement of the convention was not a matter for the courts, since it was a political convention and had no legal force.

Holyrood’s standing orders allow MSPs to debate LCMs on issues that alter Scotland’s legislative competence. But the last presiding officer, Tricia Marwick, has rejected a previous attempt by Scottish ministers to use an LCM to object to controversial UK legislation on restricting trade union rights in December 2015.

A Holyrood spokeswoman said: “The presiding officer cannot reach a decision on whether the LCM process can proceed until a bill is introduced to the UK parliament and a draft legislative consent memorandum has been submitted to the Scottish parliament. We will not prejudice this decision by speculating in advance.”

Updated

Six things we've learnt from David Davis's statement on the article 50 judgment

Here is the full text of David Davis’s statement to the Commons about the article 50 judgment. But, as is often the case on these occasions, the most interesting material came in what he said in reply to MPs, and in what MPs said to him, not in the opening statement.

Here are six things we’ve learnt from the exchanges.

1 - David Davis has conceded that MPs and peers will be able to try to make “substantive” amendments to the article 50 bill. There was much talk before today about how government lawyers would try to “bombproof” it by drafting it as tightly as possible to minimise the chances of MPs and peers attaching amendments. Doubtless the lawyers will still be doing what they can, but Davis admitted today that it would be impossible to draft a bill that would make it immune to “substantive” opposition amendments. See 2.07pm.

2 - It is likely that ministers will have to agree to publish a white paper on their plans for Brexit. This is one of Labour’s key demands, and it will be the subject of a Labour amendment to the bill. (It is not hard to imagine what it will look like: “after ‘give the prime minister power to invoke article 50’, insert ‘subject to the PM publishing a white paper on the government’s Brexit plan for debate in the House of Commons’). What was striking about the exchanges this afternoon was quite how many Tory MPs said they also wanted a white paper. This is from Reuters’ Kylie MacLellan.

The government only has a working majority of 16 and there are almost certainly more than eight Conservatives who would vote for a white paper amendment. There are 10 Tories on the Commons Brexit committee and it recently published a report unanimously calling for a white paper. Theresa May will be loth to give in on this point, because the more she says now about her plans, the easier it will be to accuse her of not delivering in 2019, but even now there may be someone in No 10 trying to work out how her 6,500-word speech can be padded out into a 30-page document that can be called a white paper.

3 - Ministers will produce an article 50 bill soon – but not quite as quickly as some were expecting. Davis said that the bill would be published “within days”. At one stage there was speculation that ministers would rush it through the Commons like emergency legislation, and there has even been talk of all-night sittings, or sittings at the weekend. But today Davis was not able to give any details of when the bill will be debated. We will probably learn more when David Lidington, the leader of the Commons, gives his business statement on Thursday, Davis suggested. Davis also said he would allow proper time for MPs to debate the bill at committee and report stage. Ministers are moving quickly, but not with the intense urgency some were expecting.

4 - Ministers have abandoned the forecasts the Treasury made before the referendum about the economic cost of leaving the single market – and the Bank of England’s Andy Haldane has given them the cover they need to do this. Davis revealed this in answer to a question from Labour’s Owen Smith. (See 1.49pm.) This is significant because another Labour demand may be for the publication of economic impact assessments about the cost of leaving the single market. If those Treasury documents do not repeat what the Treasury was saying last summer, Davis has provided the explanation.

5 - Ministers are making an effort to show the judiciary some respect. Last year Liz Truss and her colleagues were criticised for not standing up for the judges behind the original article 50 ruling after they were attacked by the Daily Mail and others. This morning Truss issued a supportive statement. And Davis was full of praise for the supreme court, stressing its value in his opening statement and later describing its ruling as “a very good judgment, a very sound judgment”. See 1.20pm.

6 - Davis does not accept that appealing to the supreme court was a waste of money. Some opposition MPs have been making this charge. But Davis rebutted this strongly, saying it was worth spending money on an appeal to get a definitive judgment on this point of law. See 1.46pm.

David Davis leaving No 10 before his statement today.
David Davis leaving No 10 before his statement today. Photograph: Stefan Wermuth/Reuters

Updated

The centrist cross-community Alliance party is warning that the supreme court’s decision to deny the Northern Ireland assembly a vote on Brexit could have implications for the 1998 Good Friday agreement – the cornerstone of the devolved power sharing settlement in the region.

Alliance’s Dr Stephen Farry also called for special status for Northern Ireland given its dependancy on the EU, cross-border trade with the Irish Republic and the fact that the province voted in favour of remain. Farry said:

The government has been arguing the Good Friday agreement is not affected by Brexit. Even if this is accepted, the point only applies in the most literal sense. In practical terms, the terms of the agreement are given effect by the EU – people here can live, work and trade on both a north-south and east-west basis without meaningful impediment. The EU, including both the single market and the customs union, are much greater enablers of this than the much narrower common travel area.

Northern Ireland is a place apart with some particular features, including an integrated all-island economy, the right of people to have Irish and therefore European citizenship, and the land border. The case for some form of special status is overwhelming.

Updated

The Irish government has welcomed the supreme court ruling. The foreign affairs minister, Charlie Flanagan, said: “This provides welcome certainty for the beginning of the negotiations between the UK and the EU.”

The economic consequences for Ireland are profound. Last week the department of finance said a hard Brexit could lead to exports to the UK dropping 30%.

However the taoiseach, Enda Kenny, has rebuffed calls in the House of Lords that Ireland and the UK seek special dispensation for a Brexit side deal to secure all-island political and economic stability.

Today Flanagan said the government’s priorities “remain our citizens, our economy, Northern Ireland, our common travel area and the future of the EU itself”.

Updated

And, while we’re on the subject of how Labour whips the article 50 bill (see 2.11pm), Owen Smith, who unsuccessfully challenged Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership last year, has written an article for the Guardian saying that, unless the government offers a second referendum (and they won’t – see 1.29pm), he will vote against the government – even if that means defying the Labour whip.

Here’s an extract.

I believe that leadership from Labour has to begin in parliament in the coming weeks, when we see the legislation to trigger article 50. We all heard the threat from May that she would pursue “an alternative economic model” if Brexit turned bad, and we all know what that means: a low-tax, low-wage, low-security economy, as dreamed of by generations of hard-right politicians. If that is even a remote possibility, then Labour has a duty to try and prevent it, in the interests of the people we represent. And the most democratic means to achieve that is to trust the people once more – all of them, including the 16- and 17-year-olds denied a say on their future – in a second, confirmatory referendum, once the reality of Brexit is revealed.

If May refuses to accept amendments that would insert such a failsafe device then it will be obvious to all that she is recklessly pursuing a Brexit of any sort, and at any cost, for party political reasons and at the expense of the British people. In those circumstances, I do not feel I would have any choice but to vote against the government and, if needs be, the Labour whip.

And here is the full article.

Updated

The Davis statement is over. John Bercow, the Speaker, says Davis took questions from 84 backbenchers.

I will post a summary of the key points soon.

Asked if the government will follow the usual rule and allow two weekends between the first and second reading of the article 50 bill, Davis said that will be a matter for discussion through “the usual channels” (ie, the government whips).

That implies the answer is no.

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg says Labour MP will be whipped to vote in favour of the article 50 bill.

Jeremy Corbyn signalled this in an interview last week.

Davis says article 50 bill will be tabled in such a way as to allow substantive amendments

Labour’s Stephen Doughty asks if the bill will be drafted in such a way as to allow substantive amendments to be tabled to it.

Davis says he has been in the Commons for 30 years. If Doughty knows how to draft a bill in such a way as to exclude substantive amendments, he would like to hear about it, he says.

  • Davis says article 50 bill will be tabled in such a way as to allow substantive amendments.

Philip Hammond, the chancellor, has just tweeted about the judgement.

Labour’s Diana Johnson asks why the government is so opposed to publishing a white paper.

Davis says the Brexit committee wanted a plan as quickly as possible. He told the committee that that would be difficult. But the prime minister was able to make a speech more quickly. That got attention around the world, he says.

Richard Drax, a Conservative, asks if the judgment means a member of the public could challenge a decision by the government to go to war.

Davis says he does not think that is the case.

Labour’s Mike Gapes asks Davis to accept that neither the words customs union or single market were on the ballot paper.

Davis says this is like people arguing they were told you would sell the car, but not told you would sell the engine and tyres separately. These are components of the EU, he says.

Updated

Davis says there was only one Lib Dem MP in the chamber for this statement. That shows how seriously they take this, he says.

He says the public can see that the Lib Dems are using Brexit for their own political advantage.

Labour’s Owen Smith asks whether the government stands by the estimate it made before the EU referendum about leaving the single market costing the UK £66bn.

Davis says Smith should reflect on what the Bank of England chief economist, Andy Haldane, says about economic forecasters having a Michael Fish moment.

Updated

Stephen Hammond, a Conservative, says Davis should publish a white paper based on Theresa May’s speech. That would make him even more popular with May, he says.

Davis says he has already said he will publish as much information as he can.

Labour MP Gloria De Piero asks how much the supreme court appeal cost.

Davis says he does not have that figure, but that he will get it and will give it to her.

He says lawyers are expensive. Like Sir Keir Starmer, he jokes. But it is incredibly important that decisions like this are made on a solid legal basis. So, whatever the government paid for the supreme court ruling, it will have been worth it, he says.

  • Davis says it was worth spending money on a supreme court appeal because the government needs legal certainty.

Updated

Here is a Guardian video with the Jon Henley explaining what the supreme court judgment says.

What we learned from the supreme court’s article 50 ruling

Sheryll Murray, a Conservative, asks Davis to categorically rule out a second referendum.

Davis says he can do that. He says it is a patronising proposal from people who think the British people did not understand what was at stake first time round.

Updated

Labour’s Liz Kendall asks whether there will be a vote in the Commons at the end of the trade negotiations.

Davis says it will not work like that. The EU almost always insists on not finalising an agreement until all parts of it are agreed. But there will be a vote at the end, he adds.

Updated

Davis says he wants the article 50 bill to be “as straightforward and as comprehensible as possible” because the public will be watching the process closely.

He adds that he wants it to go through the Commons as quickly as is consistent with it getting proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Updated

Sylvia Hermon, an independent MP from Northern Ireland, asks Davis to rule out the use of “Evel” (the English votes for English laws procedure) for the great repeal bill. She says that is objectionable to other parts of the UK.

Davis says he can’t think of where Evel might apply. But he cannot give that assurance. It will be for the Speaker to decide whether Evel applies to any part of the bill, he says.

Updated

The pound went down after the supreme court judgment, Bloomberg reports.

Davis rules out a second referendum, saying that would lead to EU offering the UK the worst possible deal

The Lib Dem MP Tom Brake asks if the government will agree to give people a say on the final deal in a second referendum.

Davis says Brake should think about this. If the government were to do this, that would encourage the EU to offer the worst possible deal, in the hope of getting the UK to vote in favour of staying.

  • Davis rules out a second referendum, saying that would lead to EU offering the UK the worst possible deal.

Labour’s Helen Goodman says the Commons spent 25 days debating the Maastricht treaty, including 11 days in committee. There are 66 days between now and 31 March, she says. How many days will the government allow for the bill’s committee stage.

Davis says this bill will just be about triggering article 50. He says that there will be plenty of other chances for votes.

Updated

Peter Bone, a Conservative, asks whether “ample time” will be given for the bill’s committee stage. And he asks when we will find out when the debates will be.

Davis says the judgment runs to more than 90 pages and so the government needs a bit of time to study it. But there will be a business statement anyway on Thursday, he says. He says that might cover the timings of the article 50 bill debates, adding that his intention is to allow ample time for the committee stage.

  • Davis says government may announcing article 50 bill debate timings on Thursday.

Updated

Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative, asks Davis to call an early election if Labour MPs try to block the article 50 bill. He suggests Labour would not want that.

Davis says a decision about an early election is well above his pay grade. The person whose pay grade does cover it, Theresa May, has now left the chamber, he says.

Here is an extract from David Davis’s opening statement.

The purpose of this bill is simply to give the government the power to invoke article 50 and begin the process of leaving the European Union. That’s what the British people voted for and it’s what they would expect. parliament will rightly scrutinise and debate this legislation. But I trust no one will seek to make it a vehicle for attempts to thwart the will of the people or frustrate or delay the process of exiting the European Union ...

The supreme court has ruled clearly in the government’s favour on roles of devolved legislatures in invoking article 50. But whilst this provides welcome clarity, it in no way diminishes our commitment to work closely with the people and administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as we move forward with our withdrawal from the European Union.

Updated

Davis says the supreme court judgment is “a very good judgment, a very sound judgment”.

Updated

Nicky Morgan, a Conservative former education secretary, says that when MPs voted in December for article 50 to be triggered by the end of March, they were also voting for the publication of a plan. So will the government publish a white paper?

Davis says, again, he is getting boring on this. The government will publish as much information as it can.

Updated

Luciana Berger, a Labour MP, calls for a white paper on Brexit.

Davis says he is at risk of boring the House on this. The government will release as much information as it can, he says.

Updated

Gisela Stuart, a Labour MP and leading Vote Leave campaigner, says there is a reason for triggering article 50 before the end of March. It is so Brexit is over before the next European parliamentary elections, she says.

Davis says this is one reason for triggering article 50 before the end of March. But there are other reasons why that deadline is “incredibly important”. There are elections coming in France and Germany, and people want the UK government to get on with it, he says.

Updated

Davis says the UK has already passed “the point of no return” in terms of leaving the EU.

Davis says parliament will have 'great influence' over the Brexit process and 'many, many, many votes'

Labour’s Pat McFadden says Theresa May promised in her speech to put the final deal to a vote in parliament. Will parliament vet a vote on both the article 50 agreement and on the final deal?

Davis says there will be votes on both. But those will not be the only votes. There will be “many, many, many votes”, he says.

Parliament will have great influence on this process, and it will have the final says.

  • Davis says parliament will have “great influence” over the Brexit process and “many, many, many votes”.

Updated

Anna Soubry, a Conservative pro-remain MP, says the government has decided to leave the single market and abandon free movement without a vote in parliament.

She says she voted to back the government in December, but that was on the understanding it would publish a plan. She calls for a white paper. What is wrong with that?

Davis says Theresa May laid out a clear approach in her Brexit speech. She has delivered on the promise made in December.

He says the referendum was about leaving the EU. It is hard to see how you can do that without leaving the single market, he adds.

Updated

Labour’s Kate Hoey, who was pro-leave, says the public will oppose amendments intended to delay the process. But they might back amendments that clarify what the government is doing.

Davis agrees.

Updated

Labour’s Yvette Cooper says she agrees that parliament must not frustrate the will of the people. But leaving the single market will have an effect on people’s lives. When will parliament get a vote on this?

Davis says there will be votes on a whole range of issues coming up over the next few years.

Davis says the government will publish a “straightforward, easily comprehensible bill”.

Updated

Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Commons Brexit committee, asks whether Davis will follow the unanimous recommendation of the committee and publish a white paper on its plans. He says Davis proposed this himself before he became Brexit secretary.

Davis says Theresa May’s Brexit speech was the clearest statement of policy he has seen from a prime minister.

The government has not avoided answering any questions on this, he continues. The only ones it has not answered are those that would undermine the government’s negotiating position.

He says Keir Starmer said on TV recently he wanted to know how much the UK would pay for access to the single market. That is exactly the kind of thing the government should not reveal, Davis says.

Updated

Iain Duncan Smith, a Conservative former work and pensions secretary, says the fact that this was a split judgment shows that the government was right to appeal. Will the government keep the bill short, simple and swift, he says.

Davis says the government wants it to be straightforward and that he wants to ensure it gets taken through parliament swiftly.

Updated

Stephen Gethins, the SNP’s Europe spokesman, says at the election the Conservatives got their worst result in Scotland since 1865. He asks for an assurance that the government will not try to legislate over areas which are the responsibility of the Scottish parliament.

Davis says the UK government will not take powers from Edinburgh. But there are powers being repatriated from Brussels. The UK government will have to decide where those powers land.

Ken Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor, says his recently-published memoirs are cited at paragraph 195 of the judgment. That is in the minority judgment.

He asks for an assurance that the bill will be drafted in such a way as to enable MPs to have a say on the Brexit talks.

Davis says he and Clarke have been skirmishing over Europe for 30 years. Going forward, there will be a bill to authorise triggering article 50, he says.

Then there will be the great repeal bill.

Then there will be legislation repealing EU legislation.

Then there will be a vote on the final Brexit deal, he says.

Here is the reference to Clarke’s book in the judgment.

Secondly, it is not difficult to contemplate circumstances in which ratification might not have occurred. The passage of the 1972 act was hard fought (as the former minister Ken Clarke’s memoir, Kind of Blue (2016), pp 66ff, makes clear), and the possibility of a future Labour government taking the UK out of the European communities was apparent.

Updated

Davis is responding to Starmer. He defends Theresa May. She was not being undemocratic, he says.

He says he has always said he will give the Commons as much information about the government’s Brexit plan, as long as that does not undermine the government’s negotiating position.

He says Starmer mentioned the single market. But Labour has not been able to decide its position on this. He says May’s speech last week was 6,500 words long and was “an epitome of clarity”.

There have been five statements, 10 debates and 30 select committee inquiries covering Brexit, he says. And he says that for the former director of public prosecutions to say that taking a case to the supreme court is “quite extraordinary”.

It was important to get the best possible guidance on what the law says on this constitutional matter, he says.

Updated

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, says this has been a good day for parliament.

It was wrong for the prime minister to try to deny MPs a vote on this, he says. He says he hopes the supreme court judges will not be criticised. He asks Davis to confirm that the government will not try to stop people amending the bill.

Theresa May set out a high risk approach to Brexit, he says. If she fails, the costs will be borne by ordinary people.

Labour accepts the referendum result, he says. But it will be tabling amendments to hold the government to account. That starts with a plan. A speech is not enough. There must also be a reporting back procedure and a meaningful vote at the end of the process.

He says the government’s decision to appeal to the supreme court was a waste of money. He says 82 days [since the high court decision] have been wasted. How much did this cost, he asks.

Updated

Davis says he knows people found the case frustrating. But the supreme court was given a question and answered it, he says.

The government will respect the supreme court decision. And parliament must respect the views of the people expressed in the referendum.

Updated

Davis is now summarising what the supreme court said.

He says the government has given thought to what it would need to do in the event of losing.

First he wants to make clear that the government values the judiciary, he says. So the government will respect it.

Second, the judgment does not change the fact the UK is leaving the EU.

Third, a bill will be introduced within days. It will be as straightforward as possible. He says it will give the government the power to trigger article 50. He hopes no one will try to frustrate the process.

Fourth, the timetable for invoking article 50 still stands. That timetable has given certainty to people about the UK’s plans, including to the EU, he says. He says the Commons voted in favour of this timetable by a majority of 373 in December.

Fifth, he says the government wants the best possible Brexit.

Updated

David Davis's Commons statement on the supreme court judgment

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is making his Commons statement now.

He says the government will “shortly” publish an article 50 bill.

It will be a “straightforward” bill, he says. It will not be about leaving the EU, because that decision has already been taken.

The government will work with MPs and peers to ensure that it can be passed in time for article 50 to be triggered before the end of March.

  • Davis says the government will ‘shortly’ publish a ‘straightforward’ bill on triggering article 50.

Updated

Earlier Liz Truss, the justice secretary and lord chancellor, put out a statement defending the supreme court judges. (See 10.08am.) When the three high court judges who first ruled against the government on article 50 were vilified by some papers last year, Truss was criticised for not speaking out, and today she is keen to show that she is doing her duty as lord chancellor and defending the judiciary.

Yet Truss does not seem to have had much impact on the Daily Mail, where the website lead headline accuses the supreme court judges of showing their “contempt for Brexit voters”.

Daily Mail website front.
Daily Mail website front. Photograph: Daily Mail

Shami Chakrabarti, the shadow attorney general, told the Guardian that newspapers that were now attacking unelected elites ought to consider that it wasn’t the judges that caused the delay. The government was to blame for pursuing an appeal that was “doomed to fail”, she said.

We have to be absolutely clear. The courts have done their job. They have not made a political judgment, but just upheld a principle of parliamentary sovereignty which the Brexit supporters said their campaign was all about.

The three judges in the [high court] were vilified and put at personal risk and that is unacceptable. We need more than a statement from Liz Truss, which is too little too late, we need something from Theresa May.

Updated

A number of Conservative remain supporters are preparing to stand up in the House of Commons today to call the government to publish its plan as a white paper, to allow consultation and more scrutiny.

Ben Howlett MP, told the Guardian: “I believe that the government should publish a white paper in order to enable my constituents to have their views heard.”

A white paper would be separate to the legislation so would not delay article 50, they say.

Updated

Despite being on the remain side in last year’s EU referendum, the Ulster Unionist party has welcomed the supreme court ruling that the Northern Ireland assembly and the other devolved parliaments will not have a say on article 50.

The UUP’s two MPs – Tom Elliott representing Fermanagh/South Tyrone and Danny Kinahan who holds the South Antrim seat – confirmed that they will both be voting for the UK to leave the EU when the vote is put to the House of Commons.

Overall, the majority of Northern Irish MPs will back article 50 despite the fact that 56% of the electorate in the region voted to remain in the referendum.

On top of the two Ulster Unionist MPs, the Democratic Unionist party, which was solidly pro-Brexit back in June, holds eight seats. All of of its MPs are guaranteed to support the triggering of article 50.

It remains unclear as to the intentions of the sole Independent Unionist MP, Lady Sylvia Hermon who represents North Down in the Commons. Lady Hermon has been strongly pro-EU in the past and also normally votes with Labour in parliament.

The only MPs certain to vote against article 50 will be the three SDLP members – Alasdair McDonnell (South Belfast), Margaret Ritchie (South Down) and Mark Durkan (Foyle).

Sinn Féin holds four Westminster seats but is wedded to the traditional republican policy of boycotting the London parliament and will therefore have no say in the vote.

Updated

The former attorney general Dominic Grieve QC, welcomed the supreme court decision. and backed the government’s decision to defend the case. “I have never been critical of the government for getting the law clarified,” he said.

Asked whether he would be putting down amendments to the bill, Grieve commented:

We will have to see first of all what the government is proposing and the extent to which the government provides clear explanation of what it is trying to achieve.

I don’t wish to be an irritant to the government. Any amendments have to have a use. I have an open mind as to what we should or should not do.

Grieve said the government could adopt a “belt and braces” approach to forestall future legal challenges and include in the bill mention of the UK’s intention to also leave the single market and the European Economic Area.

A separate challenge is due to be heard in the high court soon on the issue of whether the UK automatically leaves the EEA when it quits the EU.

Labour MP Chuka Umunna says he will be seeking an amendment on the article 50 bill, or the great repeal bill, forcing the government to commit to the Brexit campaign promise that leaving EU would mean £350m extra a week for the NHS.

“I want a reference in the bill to the NHS. This was a key pledge made in the course of the referendum campaign and it was a promise that I want to ensure is delivered to voters,” he said outside the supreme court.

He said the mechanics of such an amendment are still not clear.

We are just learning about this article 50 bill now, we do not know yet if this will be a one-sentence bill or something more complex.

He confirmed he would support the triggering of article 50, saying it would be “undemocratic” to go against the will of the people.

Nicola Sturgeon has challenged Scottish voters to decide whether they are content to have the country’s fate decided by rightwing Tories in London or would rather vote for independence.

The first minister again raised the prospect of a snap referendum on independence after the UK supreme court in London unanimously rejected her argument that Holyrood had to be consulted about triggering article 50.

In an angry attack on the UK government’s approach to Scotland’s pro-EU stance, Sturgeon said the ruling meant all Westminster assurances that Scotland was an equal partner in the union were worthless.

This raises fundamental issues above and beyond that of EU membership. Is Scotland content for our future to be dictated by an increasingly rightwing Westminster government with just one MP here – or is it better that we take our future into our own hands?

It is becoming ever clearer that this is a choice that Scotland must make.

To drive that point home, Sturgeon confirmed her government would table its own legislative consent motion in Holyrood, regardless of the supreme court’s ruling.

Updated

A spokesman for the European Commission said in its regular press briefing in Brussels:

On the decision this was a judgement for the UK supreme court to take. It’s now up to the British government to draw the conclusions of that.

The spokesman was asked about a tweet from the EU Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, last week which said: “Agreement on orderly exit is prerequisite for future partnership. My priority is to get the right deal for EU27. #Brexit”.

The spokesman said that in “a divorce ... first one needs to agree on the terms of the orderly separation”.

He added that an orderly separation would be where where both sides keep to “their obligations and then on this build a future new good relationship”.

Updated

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, set out earlier some of the demands Labour will be making as the article 50 bill goes through parliament. (See 11.11am.)

On Twitter the Labour MP Matthew Pennycook, a shadow Brexit minister, set out his further proposals for article 50 amendments.

In December last year Starmer set out five conditions that Labour believed should apply to the Brexit plan it was demanding from the government.

Updated

The Welsh government has welcomed the supreme court judgment. A spokesperson for the Welsh government said:

We welcome the supreme court judgment today, which means that the UK government must seek parliamentary approval in the form of a bill before it can trigger article 50 to leave the European Union. It is vital that the UK government develops an approach to negotiations which reflects the interests of Wales and the UK as a whole – an approach to which the prime minister has already publicly committed.

The judgment preserves and recognises the importance of the Sewel convention whereby parliament will not normally legislate on areas devolved to Wales and devolved governments without their consent.

Updated

At the No 10 lobby briefing the prime minister’s spokesman would not commit the government to publishing a white paper on Brexit. “The prime minister’s speech [last week] very clearly set out the government’s objectives,” the spokesman said.

The spokesman also said Theresa May had full confidence in Jeremy Wright, the attorney general. There have been some reports claiming that he has been criticised in government circles for not presenting the government’s case effectively.

Updated

Here are verdicts on the supreme court judgement from a Guardian Comment panel, featuring Polly Toynbee, Mark Wallace, Schona Jolly and Gisela Stuart.

Hywel Williams, Plaid Cymru’s leader at Westminster, has welcome the supreme court judgment. He said:

Plaid Cymru has worked alongside other parties in good faith to achieve a position with the UK government that would work for all of the UK’s countries. The prime minister must recognise that she is there to represent more than one country’s interests.

It is quite clear that Wales, as an exporting nation with a substantial trade surplus, would suffer if we were to sever our economic ties with the single market and the customs union, so it is our duty as politicians to fight tooth and nail to maintain Wales’ economic links.

We recognise that those representing other parts of the UK have a duty to fight for their own countries’ interests, but what we cannot accept is one country dictating how all UK member countries should move forward, regardless of its impact on each country’s economic prospects and its people’s wages.

We will be submitting our amendments to the article 50 legislation and will be supporting other parties in ensuring the views of all of the UK’s countries’ views are represented, respected and reflected in the bill, and our colleagues in the national assembly will be doing all they can to ensure the people of Wales have their rightful say.

Updated

And Ken Clarke, the Conservative pro-European and former chancellor, told BBC News that he did not think ministers would be able to stop MPs having a say on the detail of the Brexit deal.

What [ministers are] trying to do is minimise discussion. They’re going to try and have a bill of two lines, so that you don’t talk about are we going to have new tariffs, any regulatory barriers, what fisheries policy are we going to have, what’s the position of continental students.

No two cabinet ministers agree about any of those things, so once they’ve agreed, parliament’s not allowed to talk or vote about that. That won’t last, and I think once parliament gets underway, if the government actually eliminates discussion on the act of parliament, in order to rush on with it, parliament I trust will start holding the government to account for the policies, the objectives it’s pursuing.

The idea that parliament is suspended for two-and-a-half years, and when the government has finally done a deal, then parliament can vote on whether it agrees with it or not, is about the strangest proposal I’ve heard.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative former work and pensions secretary and prominent leave campaigner, told BBC News that the supreme court was stepping into “new territory” with today’s judgment.

They [the supreme court] have stepped into new territory here, where they have actually told parliament not just that they should do something, but actually what they should do. I think that leads further down the road to real constitutional issues about who is supreme in this role.

Arron Banks, the Leave.EU chairman, says the supreme court judgment shows that “true democracy is being thwarted”.

Today’s judgment gives our out-of-touch Establishment the ability to soften or delay the clean Brexit a majority of the British people voted for.

The people have been let down. Parliament gave us a referendum and the people had their say yet the power has now been handed back to Westminster by our unelected Establishment judges. This decision shows how broken the system is - true democracy is being thwarted.

This Tory government wants to be a champion for ordinary people, now May must prove it by driving Brexit through parliament post-haste - 17.4m voters will be watching her every move.

Starmer sets out Labour's article 50 demands

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has been on TV giving more detail of Labour’s response to the judgment. He set out more details of how Labour would try to amend the article 50 legislation.

  • Starmer said the government should not just publish a one-clause bill.

I think it would be against the spirit of the judgement if the government tried to introduce a one-clause bill. The judgement clearly envisages the normal procedures, and that would involve amendments and consideration in both houses. So I hope now we’ll have the proper and full debate and a proper role for parliament as envisaged.

If it’s a simple piece of legislation we would then want to amend it to ensure parliament should have a proper role, and a meaningful role in the process. So if it is a short-form bill we do indicate that we will be putting down amendments.

  • He said Labour wanted the government to publish a proper Brexit plan. Theresa May’s speech last week was not a sufficient substitute, he said. (The government promised last year to publish a Brexit plan, but Number 10 says that the speech last week was the plan and that it is not planning anything more.) Starmer said:

It’s important in the first instance that the government actually produces the plan they said they actually would produce. We need to have something in writing, a formal document, that we can test and progress against ...

It’s very important that we have a formal statement of the government’s negotiating objectives. We had a speech last week, but a speech isn’t a formal document. Parliament and the select committees and the public need something formal that they can test. Otherwise it’s very hard to see how accountability will really work.

  • He said that Labour wanted “proper reporting back throughout the [Brexit] process, so we know how the negotiations are going”.
  • He said Labour wanted to ensure that MPs get a meaningful vote on the final deal. Theresa May has promised a vote on the final deal, but she is just planning to give MPs a choice between backing the government’s Brexit deal or Brexit with no deal. In those circumstances MPs would probably feel obliged to back the government because the alternative would be much worse. Starmer wants MPs to get a better choice. He said.

The vote at the end of the exercise is really important. In other words parliament needs to have a meaningful role at the outset in knowing and setting out the objectives, but also a grip on the process until we get to a conclusion.

  • He said Labour was not trying to block Brexit.

We’ve said repeatedly that we accept and respect the outcome of the referendum. It follows from that we don’t seek to block the prime minister from starting the negotiations. But we’ve said all along that the terms of the negotiations and the role of parliament in this is really important. So we will be pushing for amendments.

Sir Keir Starmer.
Sir Keir Starmer. Photograph: Nick Ansell/PA

And here are some of the more interesting tweets about the judgment from Conservative MPs.

Many other MPs have been tweeting about the judgment. Many of their tweets are quite predictable, but here are some of the more interesting ones from Labour MPs.

Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary and leading Brexit campaigner, has been tweeting about the judgment too.

Nick Clegg, the former Lib Dem leader and former deputy prime minister, has in effect criticised the government for fighting the article 50 case in the first place.

Updated

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, will make his statement in the Commons responding to the supreme court judgement at 12.30pm.

Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, is planning to stage a Holyrood vote on article 50 even though the supreme court unanimously ruled that the UK government is not legally required to seek Scottish consent, as she edges slowly towards staging a second independence referendum.

Sturgeon had anticipated the court would reject the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish government’s claims that the “legislative consent” of all three parliaments was needed before triggering article 50.

But she will use the Holyrood vote to challenge opposition parties to support her demands that Scotland is given special access to the single market, even though that has been ruled out by the prime minister and other cabinet ministers.

Sturgeon used her new column in the Record on Monday to warn:

No matter what the supreme court decides, I want to make this crystal clear: I intend to make sure the Scottish parliament has the chance to vote on triggering article 50.

And if the UK government doesn’t start showing Scotland some respect, I’ll make sure that people across Scotland have the chance to choose their own future, before the Tories drag us off an economic cliff edge.

Updated

The Cambridge law professor Mark Elliott has been tweeting some key passages from the full judgment.

This is from the legal blogger Matthew Scott.

Since you’re here, we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever – but far fewer are paying for it, and advertising revenues are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe that independent reporting and plurality of voices matter. If everyone who reads our reporting helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure. Support us with a monthly payment or a one-off contribution. - Guardian HQ

Farron says Lib Dems will vote against article 50 unless government agrees referendum on final Brexit deal

Here is Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, responding to the supreme court judgment.

I welcome today’s judgment. But this court case was never about legal arguments, it was about giving the people a voice, a say, in what happens next.

This Tory Brexit government are keen to laud the democratic process when it suits them, but will not give the people a voice over the final deal. They seem happy to start with democracy and end in a stitch up.

The Liberal Democrats are clear, we demand a vote of the people on the final deal and without that we will not vote for article 50.

Updated

And this is what David Greene, the lawyer for Miller’s co-claimant Deir Dos Santos, said outside the supreme court after the judgment was given.

[Deir Dos Santos] always said his motivation in bringing this claim was a lawful process applied to triggering art 50 and today’s decision vindicates his decision to shine a spotlight on a legal process as well as a role the law plays in ensuring a lawful political process.

Greene called the challenge a “unique and difficult fight where the legal issue were often clouded by a politically charged backdrop”. He described the judgment as “a victory for democracy and the rule of law” and said Theresa May’s promise the MPs would have a vote on the final deal with EU was not a replacement for a vote on the triggering of article 50.

We can speculate that she may not have done so had not the cases of my client and that of Gina Miller been brought. Is Mrs May’s recent concession sufficient? The answer is no. Having served the article 50 notification the UK will withdraw from the union on the second anniversary whether a deal is done or not. Parliament may then be left with a choice, vote yes or no deal at all. The time for a vote is now, on the withdrawal and the inevitable withdrawal of citizens’ rights here and UK citizens in the EU.

Greene said his client and Miller had been “vilified” and “received hate mail of the most vile and threatening nature”. However, the court had made its decision “based purely on the legal issue as it should be”.

Referring to the headlines on the front page of the Daily Mail after the high court verdict, Greene said:

Judges are not the enemies of the people, they are for the people to stop arbitrary action by a government. The government and the lord chancellor should affirm today their unquestioning support for the claimants in this case and 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 these sacred principles have been reaffirmed.

Updated

SNP promise to table 50 'serious and substantive' amendments to article 50 bill

Alex Salmond, the Scottish National party’s foreign affairs spokesman, says the SNP will table 50 “serious and substantive” amendments to the UK government’s article 50 bill including a demand that Theresa May gets agreement from all three devolved governments before she triggers article 50.

Salmond, the former Scottish first minister and SNP leader, said May should also publish a full white paper on Brexit alongside the article 50 bill as demanded by the cross-party Commons select committee on exiting the EU.

Salmond said May “must treat devolved administrations as equal partners – as indeed she promised to do.”

However, in a statement released by the SNP, Salmond ignored the supreme court’s unanimous rejection of the Scottish government’s claim it had a constitutional right to be formally consulted.

Updated

Here is the full text of Gina Miller’s statement outside the supreme court.

Today, eight of the 11 supreme court judges upheld the judgment handed down by the high court in November, in a case that went to the very heart of our constitution, and how we are governed.

Only parliament can grant rights to the British people and only parliament can take them away. No prime minister, no government, can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged. Parliament alone is sovereign.

This ruling today means that MPs that 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 in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations – negotiations which will frame our place in the world and all our destinies to come.

There is no doubt that Brexit is the most divisive issue of a generation. But 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 foundation for the government to trigger article 50.

I want to express my gratitude to the supreme court, my team at Mishcon de Reya, Lord Pannick QC and my other counsel, for conducting 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 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 forward, 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, I would like to wholeheartedly thanks those who have sent me the most heartwarming messages of support. They have truly helped to bolster me in this most arduous process.

  • Miller says supreme court judgment means MPs will get a chance to help shape the Brexit deal.

Updated

Corbyn says Labour will seek to amend article 50 bill but will not 'frustrate' article 50 process

And Jeremy Corbyn has responded to the judgment too. This is from a spokesman for the Labour leader.

Labour respects the result of the referendum and the will of the British people and will not frustrate the process for invoking article 50.

However, Labour will seek to amend the article 50 bill to prevent the Conservatives using Brexit to turn Britain into a bargain basement tax haven off the coast of Europe.

Labour will seek to build in the principles of full, tariff-free access to the single market and maintenance of workers’ rights and social and environmental protections.

Labour is demanding a plan from the government to ensure it is accountable to parliament throughout the negotiations and a meaningful vote to ensure the final deal is given parliamentary approval.

Updated

No 10 has put out a reaction to the judgment. This is from a spokesperson:

The British people voted to leave the EU and the government will deliver on their verdict – triggering article 50, as planned, by the end of March. Today’s ruling does nothing to change that.

It’s important to remember that parliament backed the referendum by a margin of six to one and has already indicated its support for getting on with the process of exit to the timetable we have set out.

We respect the supreme court’s decision, and will set out our next steps to parliament shortly.

Updated

Here is video footage of Gina Miller’s statement.

Gina Miller reacting to the supreme court judgment.

Liz Truss, the justice secretary and lord chancellor, has put out this statement about the judgement.

Our independent judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law and is vital to our constitution and our freedoms. The reputation of our judiciary is unrivalled the world over, and our supreme court justices are people of integrity and impartiality.

While we may not always agree with judgments, it is a fundamental part of any thriving democracy that legal process is followed. The government has been clear that it will respect the decision of the court.

After the high court ruled against the government over article 50 last year Truss was widely criticised for failing to speak up for the judges (one of her duties as lord chancellor) after pro-Brexit newspapers denounced them. The Daily Mail famously labelled them “enemies of the people”.

Updated

Why the supreme court decided Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland don't get a veto over article 50

And this is what the supreme court’s press summary (pdf) says about why devolved legislatures do not have to agree to article 50 being triggered.

The devolution Acts were passed by Parliament on the assumption that the UK would be a member of the EU, but they do not require the UK to remain a member. Relations with the EU and other foreign affairs matters are reserved to UK Government and parliament, not to the devolved institutions. Withdrawal from the EU will alter the competence of the devolved institutions, and remove the responsibilities to comply with EU law. [129-130].

In view of the decision of the majority of the Justices that primary legislation is required for the UK to withdraw from the EU, it is not necessary for the court to decide if the NIA imposes a discrete requirement for such legislation [132].

The decision to withdraw from the EU is not a function carried out by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in relation to Northern Ireland within the meaning of section 75 NIA. Moreover, section 1 NIA, which gave the people of Northern Ireland the right to determine whether to remain part of the UK or to become part of a united Ireland, does not regulate any other change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland [133-135].

As to the application of the Sewel Convention to the decision to withdraw from the EU given the effect on the devolved competences, the Convention operates as a political constraint on the activity of the UK Parliament. It therefore plays an important role in the operation of the UK constitution. But the policing of its scope and operation is not within the constitutional remit of the courts. The devolved legislatures do not have a veto on the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU [136-151].

Gina Miller, who brought the case, is speaking outside the supreme court now.

She says the judgment means MPs will now have a chance to frame the Brexit decision.

Brexit is the biggest decision for a generation. But this case was about process, not politics, she says.

She says the government can now proceed with certainty.

She says she has been shocked by the amount of personal abuse she has received for simply asking a legitimate question. She says she hopes that in the future, people in power will be much quicker when it comes to condemning abuse like this.

And she thanks those who have sent messages of support. They have truly helped to bolster her, she says.

  • Gina Miller says politicians should do more to condemn the abuse that she has endured for bringing the article 50 case.

Updated

Why the supreme court decided parliament had to vote on triggering article 50

Here is the extract from the press summary (pdf) explaining why the supreme court decided the government needs an act of parliament if it wants to trigger article 50.

Section 2 of the ECA authorises a dynamic process by which EU law becomes a source of UK law and takes precedence over all domestic sources of UK law, including statutes [60]. So long as the ECA remains in force its effect is to constitute EU law as an independent and overriding source of domestic law [65]. It operates as a partial transfer of law-making powers, an assignment of legislative competences, by Parliament to EU institutions, unless and until Parliament decides otherwise [67-68].

It is common ground that UK domestic law will change as a result of the UK ceasing to be party to the EU treaties and the rights enjoyed by UK residents granted through EU law will be affected [69].

The government argues that the 1972 act does not exclude the power for ministers to withdraw from the EU treaties, and that section 2 of the act actually caters for the exercise of such a power as it gives effect to EU law only so long as the power of withdrawal is not exercised [75]. However, there is a vital difference between variations in UK law resulting from changes in EU law, and variations in UK law resulting from withdrawal from the EU treaties. Withdrawal makes a fundamental change to the UK’s constitutional arrangements, by cutting off the source of EU law, [78-80]. Such a fundamental change will be the inevitable effect of a notice being served [81]. The UK constitution requires such changes to be effected by parliamentary legislation [82].

The fact that withdrawal from the EU would remove some existing domestic rights of UK residents also renders it impermissible for the government to withdraw from the EU treaties without prior parliamentary authority [83].

It would have been open to parliament when enacting the ECA to authorise ministers to withdraw from the EU treaties, but clear words would have been required; not only are there no such clear words, but the provisions of the ECA indicate that ministers do not have such power [87, 88]. Withdrawal is not authorised by section 2, which envisages ministers taking part in the EU law-making processes: withdrawing from the EU is doing the opposite [95].

The fact that ministers are accountable to parliament for their actions is no answer constitutionally, if the power to act does not exist in the first place and where (as the court has been asked to assume) the exercise of the power would be irrevocable and pre-empt any parliamentary action [92].

Subsequent EU-related legislation and events after 1972, including the introduction of parliamentary controls in relation to decisions made by UK ministers at EU level relating to the competences of the EU or its decision-making processes, but not to the giving of notice under article 50(2), are entirely consistent with an assumption by parliament that no power existed to withdraw from the treaties without a statute authorising that course [111].

The 2016 referendum is of great political significance. However, its legal significance is determined by what parliament included in the statute authorising it, and that statute simply provided for the referendum to be held without specifying the consequences. The change in the law required to implement the referendum’s outcome must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by legislation. The government accepts that the resolution of the House of Commons on 7 December 2016 calling on ministers to give notice under article 50 by 31 March 2017 is a political act which does not affect the issues arising in the appeals [116-124].


Updated

Here is a two-paragraph summary of what the court has decided, from its press summary (pdf).

The supreme court by a majority of 8 to 3 dismisses the secretary of state’s appeal (Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge in the majority with Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes dissenting). In a joint judgment of the majority, the supreme court holds that an Act of Parliament is required to authorise ministers to give notice of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the European Union. Each of the dissenting justices gives a separate judgment.

On the devolution issues, the court unanimously concludes that neither section 1 nor section 75 of the NIA [Northern Ireland Act] is of assistance in this case, and that the Sewel convention does not give rise to a legally enforceable obligation.

Updated

Wright says government “disappointed” by the result but will comply with it

Jeremy Wright, the attorney general, is giving the government’s first reaction outside the supreme court.

He thanks the judges.

Of course the government is “disappointed”, he says. But we have the good fortune to live in a country where everyone has to obey the law. So of course the government will comply.

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, will make a further statement in the Commons later today.

  • Wright says government “disappointed” by the result but will comply with it.

Updated

UK government does not have to consult devolved administrations before triggering article 50, court rules.

Neuberger says the court has ruled that the UK government does not have to consult the devolved parliaments.

  • UK government does not have to consult devolved adminstrations before triggering article 50, court rules.

Neuberger says that the Sewell Convention, which says that normally Scotland has to give legislative consent to any legislation at Westminster affecting devolved matters, is a convention, ie not law) and not within the jurisdiction of the court.

Updated

Supreme court judgment published in full

Here is the press summary of the judgment (pdf).

And here is the full judgment (pdf).

Neuberger says leaving the EU would affect a fundamental change, cutting off the source of EU law as well as affecting rights.

Supreme court rules by 8 votes to 3 that government cannot trigger article 50 without act of parliament

Neuberger says the government generally has a prerogative power to change treaties.

But it cannot do that if it will affect people’s rights.

He summarises the claimants’ case, and the government’s response.

Today, by a majority of 8 to 3, the supreme court has ruled that the government cannot trigger article 50 without an act of parliament.

  • Supreme court rules by 8 votes to 3 that government cannot trigger article 50 without an act of parliament.

Updated

Lord Neuberger starts by saying the UK joined the EEC on 1 January 1973.

This was achieved by ministers signing a treaty, and parliament passing an act.

There were further European treaties, agreed by acts, and some of those curbed the powers of ministers. One of those approved the inclusion of article 50 in EU treaties.

Article 50 governs countries leaving the EU.

On 23 June last year a referendum produced a majority for leaving the EU. The government said it would trigger article 50.

This judgment is not about leaving. It is about the right of the government to trigger article 50, and whether the devolved legislatures must be consulted.

Updated

Supreme court gives its judgment in article 50 case

The judges are coming in now, led by Lord Neuberger, the president of the supreme court.

Lord Neuberger, the supreme court president, will read out a summary of the judgment.

That will take six or seven minutes, Joshua Rozenberg tells Sky.

Updated

Sky News is now showing footage from inside the supreme court.

But the 11 supreme court judges have not arrived yet.

These are from David Allen Green, the FT’s legal commentator.

Owen Smith, the Labour MP who challenged Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership last summer, is on the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire show. He has just said he cannot understand why parties such as Ukip, which are so keen on repatriating powers to Westminster, are opposed to parliament having a say on article 50 being triggered.

Updated

I presume Peston has one of these.

It looks like ITV’s Robert Peston has upset the supreme court clerks.

Here’s Gina Miller outside the supreme court.

Gina Miller at the supreme court.
Gina Miller at the supreme court. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA

My colleague Owen Bowcott has more on the (negligible) supreme court protests.

It was reported on Sunday that Theresa May would be told the result of the judgment at 9.15am this morning, 15 minutes ahead of everyone else. But the prime minister’s spokesman was dismissive of this at the lobby briefing yesterday, saying you should not always believe everything in the Sunday papers.

There are not many protesters outside the supreme court, but my colleague Lisa O’Carroll thought this chap was worth recording.

Gina Miller, who initiated the article 50 case, has arrived at the supreme court.

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, spoke at the parliamentary Labour party meeting last night about the opposition’s stance on Brexit and article 50. Labour is focusing its efforts on a plan to amend any article 50 bill so as to give MPs a chance to influence the Brexit talks. It wants parliament to have a “meaningful vote” on the deal, not the kind of vote at the end of the process that Theresa May is proposing, which would just be a choice between endorsing the government’s Brexit deal or Brexit with no deal.

Paul Nuttall, the Ukip leader, has tweeted a link to the article claiming it shows Labour’s position to be “shambolic”.

Here is Jeremy Wright QC, the attorney general (the government’s most senior law officer), arriving at the supreme court to hear the result. He is with Richard Keen QC, the advocate general for Scotland.

Jeremy Wright QC (at the front, on the left)
Jeremy Wright QC (at the front, on the left) and Richard Keen QC (at the front, in the red scarf) Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA

And here is David Pannick QC arriving. He is lead counsel for Gina Miller, who triggered the case by challenging the government’s right to trigger article 50 without consulting parliament.

David Pannick arrives at the supreme court
David Pannick arrives at the supreme court Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters

As YouGov are reminding us, the public seem to be quite happy with the idea of the prime minister, not parliament, having the final say over triggering article 50.

My colleague Owen Bowcott is there too.

My colleague Lisa O’Carroll is at the supreme court, which is housed in the Middlesex Guildhall building facing the House of Commons from the other side of Parliament Square.

On the Today programme Ken Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor and an arch pro-European, said he might be the only Tory MP who actually votes against triggering article 50. But many other Conservatives thought parliament should have a say in the process, he said. Denying a role for parliament would amount to “the tyranny of the majority”.

The idea that because the public voted to leave the European Union, the cabinet can now argue with each other about what they do instead, and parliament can be told, ‘You’re not allowed to vote on this, we’re not going to ask for a parliamentary majority’, strikes me as totally undemocratic. It is not exactly mob rule but it is the tyranny of the majority to silence people’s opinions on complicated issues of due importance to the future.

Updated

Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, was on ITV’s Good Morning Britain this morning. He said a lot of people were getting “very angry” because the establishment, represented today by the supreme court, was trying to delay Brexit. But he said that ultimately a ruling against the government today would not matter, because article 50 legislation would get through parliament because Labour would not dare block it.

Politics is ultimately about power and today, in the most important constitutional ruling it has ever had to make, the supreme court will determine who gets to take the decision that will take Britain out of the European Union by triggering article 50 – Theresa May and the executive, or MPs, peers and the legislature. It will also clarify exactly what say the Scottish parliament and the other devolved legislatures have in the process.

The government is expected to lose, and if it does within days MPs will start debating a bill that would give the government the authority to trigger article 50. There is virtually no chance of this stopping Brexit, and even the chances of this delaying the triggering of article 50 seem minimal, but there is a very real possibility that the legislative process could result in some constraints being imposed on the way May negotiates Brexit.

We will get the judgment at 9.30am. Later a minister, probably David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is expected to respond with a statement in the Commons. Today I will be focusing exclusively on this story.

Here is our preview story:

And here is a more detailed analysis of what the judgment might mean:

You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time. Alternatively, you could post a question to me on Twitter.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
What Happened To Kelly Osbourne? BRIT Awards Appearance Sparks Frenzy As She Slams 'Ozempic Face' Speculation
Kelly Osbourne confronts body-shaming comments following her appearance at the 2026 BRIT Awards, addressing speculation about her weight loss and health.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
SNL Was Forced To Change A Sketch At The Last Minute And Complained About It On The Air
Fear. Rage. Chaos.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Woman sees her favorite singer started following her on Instagram and jumps with excitement. Then she opened their account: ‘This is humiliating’
TikTok creator Paloma (@whor3chata_) is sparking a massive wave of sympathy (and second-hand embarrassment) on TikTok with her recent grwm story. The creator shared the “before and after” of being followed by one of her favorite singers on Instagram. Sadly, the “after” is humiliating.
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Harry Styles, fake stage invaders and a censored Peter Mandelson joke: the biggest moments at the Brit awards
The ITV censors had their work cut out in a protest-filled, relatively edgy ceremony that hosted ultra-expressive performances from Rosalía, Wolf Alice and more
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Meet the Gen Z college students who turned Excel into a competitive esport—they’re competing in spreadsheet challenges and it’s helping them land jobs
Microsoft-backed spreadsheet competitions are turning Gen Z college students into job-market standouts.
Fortune
Fortune
As Jennifer Lopez’s Kids Turn 18, An Insider Drops Claims About Their ‘Atypical’ Childhood
The kids are alright.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play