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

High court says parliament must vote on triggering article 50 - as it happened

Victorious Gina Miller reacts to article 50 ruling: ‘this case was about process, not politics’ – video

Article 50 court ruling - Summary and analysis

Here are the Guardian’s main stories on today’s article 50 court ruling

This is the most important development in the Brexit story since the election of Theresa May as prime minister and easily the most encouraging day for those who backed remain since the referendum on June 23. I’ve posted vast amounts of commentary on this already, but here is what it means in six key points.

1 - The court ruling is much more definitive than anyone expected. (See, for example, David Allen Green at 4.10pm.) The government is appealing to the supreme court, but informed commentators seem to think it more likely than not that the government will lose again.

2 - Unless the government does win at the supreme court, parliament will get to legislate on invoking article 50. And that means a proper bill, passing through the Commons and the Lords, with MPs and peers getting the chance to amend it. Theresa May has been refusing to give parliament a vote on the terms of Brexit because, once power shifts from the hands of the executive to the legislature (see 8.49am), the prime minister loses some control. The key point about today is that MPs and peers have, for the first time, got a strong chance of shaping the start of the Brexit process.

3 - The chances of Brexit being overturned are still very minimal. It is just about possible to conceive how the UK could stay in the EU (parliament votes to insert a second referendum clause into the article 50 Brexit bill, and some economic catastrophe results in a sharp change in public opinion by 2018) but you would be unwise to bet on it. Most MPs and peers who voted remain accept that the result of the referendum should be honoured.

4 - But the chances of Brexit being “soft” not “hard” have increased significantly. There is a majority for a “soft” Brexit in parliament and, if there is a bill, it will now have the chance to exercise leverage.

5 - There is now a real possibility that Theresa May will not be able to trigger article 50 before the end of March. The government says it still intends to meet this deadline, but the need to legislate could lead to a delay.

6 - An early election, though by no means inevitable, now does look more likely than it did this time yesterday.

That’s all from me for today. I had been intending to cover other stories, but I’m afraid this one took over.

Thanks for the comments.

Updated

The votes of Northern Ireland MPs in the House of Commons could prove critical if Theresa May and the government is forced to ask parliament to trigger article 50.

All eight Democratic Unionist Party MPs are guaranteed to back Brexit in the Commons given that they were the only major political force in the Stormont Assembly to active back a leave vote in June’s referendum.

However, the position of the two Ulster Unionist MPs - Fermanagh/South Tyrone’s Tom Elliott and Danny Kinahan in South Antrim - is interesting. In June UUP leader Mike Nesbitt called for a remain vote.

The UUP has now switched position and said its MPs will back the government to allow for the referendum result to be implemented. The party will argue this is because the entire electorate of the UK has spoken in the referendum and it is their duty to back up that outcome in the Commons.

The switch though may also be due to fears of being further outflanked by the DUP especially given a number of recent defections from the UUP to the Democratic Unionists. In essence the UUP is again moving to the right in order to slow down its decline vis a vis the DUP.

All three SDLP MPs will definitely vote to block Brexit given that the party campaigned vigorously for remain and was involved in last week’s failed legal action in the Belfast High Court to declare Brexit null and void in Northern Ireland only.

Sinn Fein will not vote in the Commons because it boycotts the parliament although the party will come under fire accused of failing to add to the Remain voices in the chamber that could scupper Brexit.

Yet it is the votes of the unionist bloc that will prove far more critical if and when the referendum result is tested in the House of Commons. Expect more demands from DUP first Minister Arlene Foster for special treatment for Northern Ireland (guaranteed post-Brexit farming subsidies for Ulster agriculture for instance) in order to bolster the government’s numbers in a Brexit vote .... even one after a general election.

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 is Douglas Carswell, the Ukip MP, on the court ruling.

A majority of voters now want Britain to remain in the European Union, according to a poll, the Press Association report.

But there was little sign that the ultra-slim 51%-49% majority in favour of remain reflected a change of heart since the 52%-48% referendum vote to leave.

Just 3% of leave voters polled by BMG Research said they would now vote remain, while 4% of those who backed EU membership on June 23 said they would switch in the other direction.

The remain camp’s advantage came from voters who did not take part in the referendum, 46% of whom said they would now back EU membership, against 27% who would vote to leave.

BMG found that the Conservatives were ranked the best party to handle Brexit negotiations with the remaining EU, with the backing of 36% of voters, against 10% for Labour, 9% for Ukip and 2% each for Liberal Democrats and Greens.

Updated

Osborne calls for a 'substantive discussion' in parliament on Brexit

George Osborne, the Conservative former chancellor, has joined those saying parliament should now have a proper debate about what Brexit will entail. He told Sky News:

The question is not who makes the decision on whether we’re leaving the European Union because the public have made that decision in the referendum.

I think the sooner we get on to the substantive discussion in parliament with the government about the nature of our new relationship with Europe, how we’re going to trade with these key partners of ours like Germany and France, how businesses here in Manchester and across the country are going to have the certainty so that they can invest and hire people over the next couple of years - for me these are the key issues and I would be arguing for the closest possible trading and economic relationship with Europe, outside of the EU, because we’ve got to respect the referendum.

George Osborne
George Osborne Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA

Tyrie urges government to be 'much more transparent' about its Brexit objectives

Here is Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative chair of the Commons Treasury committee (and a remain voter in June), on the court ruling.

Whatever the supreme court decides, the government should be much more transparent about its objectives in the negotiations, in some detail, and the sooner the better. It should also ensure that parliament can scrutinise the objectives, and vote on them.

There are many good reasons for this. Among several, it can enable the construction of broad-based public consent for the UK’s future relationship with the EU. The UK is leaving; a public debate is needed about where we want to arrive. Before taking off, it is always a good idea for the pilot to discuss with the passengers and crew where they might want to land.

Second, clarity about the government’s objectives would enable a serious discussion with other Member States to get underway, prior to the triggering of article 50.

And third, it can reduce the economic damage caused by uncertainty over the likely shape of the UK’s future relationship with the EU. It is the uncertainty about the terms of that relationship, far more than the additional time required to clarify the negotiating position, that carries the more significant cost.

Andrew Tyrie.
Andrew Tyrie. Photograph: Felix Clay for the Guardian

Ladbrokes have cut the odds on a general election taking place next year. It’s now at 2/1.

The BBC’s Jeremy Vine seems to agree.

Glen O’Hara, a history professor, is thinking along the same lines.

An article 50 court ruling reading list

Here is an article 50 court ruling reading list.

The judgment looks, at early glance, to be almost appeal-proof. It was made unanimously by three experienced appeal judges, sitting exceptionally at first instance: they are the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the leading public law judge at the court of appeal. It is reasoned and detailed. At one point, the court appears to hold that the government’s case was too weak to win on its own terms, regardless of the claimants’ case.

Why did the government lose? It seems that the crucial issue is the impact on the rights of citizens. If the Article 50 notification is irrevocable then the argument is that these rights will be removed automatically in due course. This cannot be done, other than by an Act of Parliament.

The government could have side-stepped this difficulty by not accepting that the notification was irrevocable (and many, including Lord Kerr who wrote Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, say a notification must be revocable). But it saw this legally sensible move as politically unacceptable. Looking at the judgment, the impression is that the government’s concession on this crucial point determined the outcome of the case.

Imagine this. It is November 2018. The promised trade deals have failed to appear. Unemployment and inflation are on the rise. The public mood towards Brexit has turned ugly, and so have negotiations with our biggest and nearest trading partner. In that world, any rational MP would wish that, back in November 2016, she had left ajar the door to remaining in the EU. Why make the decision now, with modest evidence, if you have the opportunity to make it later with more?

These points will be debated in the Commons and they must also be debated in the Lords.

And, in practical terms, it is difficult to contemplate that these steps – drafting a Bill, debating it in the Commons, voting on amendments, placing it before the House of Lords and then addressing amendments introduced by the Upper Chamber in the Commons again – can sensibly be taken after the result of the Supreme Court appeal is known but before March.

So, whatever else the decision means, unless the Supreme Court overturns the High Court’s decision, Theresa May’s March deadline will be ancient history.

Will MPs and Lords vote to pass the bill?

This will of course come down to politics. Both the Commons and Lords have a majority of members who argued for the UK to remain a member of the EU. But politically, they may not wish to vote against the decision of UK voters taken through the referendum, particularly as most constituencies outside the Scotland, Northern Ireland and the major cities voted against remaining in the EU.

Nonetheless, they will wish to ensure that the decision to trigger Article 50 receives an appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny. Depending on how the bill is drafted – and it is likely to be very short – there may be moves to amend it to place conditions on the Government before it can trigger Article 50. These could take the form of timing or process requirements – for example, a requirement on the Government to provide Parliament with information about its negotiating position before triggering Article 50.

Now, in case of an appeal of the High Court’s decision before the UKSC, in my opinion, the referral to the CJEU is legally unavoidable (I will not deal for now with arguments of judicial politics or pragmatic views on the UKSC’s likely course of action). Even if the parties do not challenge or even raise to the UKSC’s consideration the matter of the (ir)reversibility of and Article 50 notification, it is a logical given that the UKSC needs to take a stance (even if implicit) on this point in order to be able to rule on the case. If it quashes the High Court’s decision, it needs to clarify the points of law which the High Court would have gotten wrong--one of which concerns the irrevocability of an Art 50 notification. if it upholds the High Court’s decision, it is (implicitly) accepting the assumption that an Art 50 notification is irrevocable. Either way, the UKSC cannot escape a substantial (implicit) consideration of the interpretation of Article 50.

In my view, this engages the UKSC’s obligation to request a preliminary ruling from the CJEU under Article 267(3) TFEU and not doing so triggers a risk of infringement of EU law by the UK due to the acts (or omission, in this case) of its highest court.

I don’t really remember the Poll Tax riots toward the tail end of Thatcher’s government. I mean, I remember seeing stories about it on the news, but since I was only eight years old the political ramifications of what I was seeing rather eluded me. But despite my hazy memory, I think it is safe to say were MPs (and it would have to include many Labour MPs representing constituencies which voted to leave the EU) to vote against giving the government authority to invoke Article 50, the resulting conflagration would make the Poll Tax riots look like a summer picnic on Hampstead Heath.

It is spectacularly delicious that leading Brexiteers are arguing that the High Court today got it wrong today in ruling that we cannot leave the EU without the assent of Parliament - in that almost their entire campaign to get us out of the EU was that British courts and Westminster must be sovereign, and no longer subjugated to Brussels.

The High Court’s decision is exemplary in its clarity and reasoning. Anyone interested in a tutorial on the UK constitution should read the first 56 paragraphs. The legal challenge was not supposed to be a major obstacle for the government. All it needed to assert and defend were the UK’s own constitutional requirements. In failing to understand the constitution of its own country, the government was taught an embarrassing lesson by the High Court on the Strand.

Here is the Guardian’s Politics Weekly podcast, with Heather Stewart, Jonathan Freedland, Hadley Freeman and Martin Kettle discussing the American elections and today’s article 50 court ruling.

Here is some complicated reasoning from the Times’ Sam Coates.

Grieve says ruling could 'delay slightly' triggering of article 50

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, has also been speaking to Sky News. Here are the key points he made.

  • Grieve said he thought the article 50 ruling could “delay slightly” the triggering of article 50. If the government’s appeal failed, there would have to be primary legislation, he said. It could be short, but it would be debatable and amendable. He said this would not necessarily take a long time.

At the end of the day you can get primary legislation through parliament quite quickly. It has been known to be done in 48 hours, but that’s as an emergency.

But he said this “might delay slightly” the triggering of article 50.

  • He said the government was not ready to trigger article 50 now anway.

It is worth bearing in mind that the government isn’t ready to trigger article 50 itself at the moment at all because it doesn’t really know at the moment what it is going to do next.

  • He said he did not think Jeremy Wright, his successor as attorney general, would have to resign if the government lost its appeal. “This is an issue of law, not politics,” he said.
  • Greive said the high court judgement was “utterly rational”.

There is a hugely well-established principle in this country that laws and statutes conferring rights on people passed by parliament cannot be removed without parliament voting to do it. That is what this question is about.

Dominic Grieve.
Dominic Grieve. Photograph: Sky News

Davis says government will have to pass act of parliament if its appeal to supreme court fails

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has been giving a statement about the article 50 ruling to broadcasters. Here are the key points.

  • Davis said that, unless the judgment is overturned on appeal, the government will have to pass an act of parliament to trigger article 50. Asked if it would be possible for the government to give MPs a say just by having a quick vote on a narrow resolution, he said: “That’s not available.” There would have to be an act, he said. (In other words, Matthew Scott is right - see 1.24pm.)
  • He said the government was appealing against the court ruling because, although it accepted parliamentary sovereignty, the people were ultimately sovereign and 17.4m people voted for Brexit. It was “the biggest mandate in history”, he said. And he said that MPs had voted six to one in favour of letting the people decide through a referendum.
David Davis.
David Davis. Photograph: Sky News

Here is the official Downing Street statement on the article 50 ruling. A spokesperson said:

The government is disappointed by the court’s judgment.

The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by act of parliament. And the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum.

We will appeal this judgment.

MailOnline made its views on the three judges responsible for the article 50 ruling quite clear in this headline earlier (which has since been amended.)

In an article for the New Statesman, Stephen Bush challenges liberal Brexiteers to speak out about views like this.

Updated

Sturgeon says UK government should accept article 50 ruling and shelve its appeal

Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, has put out a fresh statement about the article 50 ruling. She says the UK government should accept it and shelve its appeal. She said:

The high court’s judgment is not a surprise to anyone who has been following this case, and the UK government should now accept this decision rather than take it to the UK supreme court.

That the UK government is now in the position where the court has ruled against it and is insisting that parliament must vote before article 50 can be triggered underlines the chaos and confusion at the heart of the Tories’ handling of Brexit.

Let’s be clear – the prime minister has not tried to avoid parliament because of constitutional principles but because any vote in parliament would expose the complete lack of a plan for what Brexit means.

In whatever eventually comes forward from the UK government to parliament, SNP MPs will not vote in any way that would undermine Scotland’s interests.

Here is Arron Banks, the Leave.EU co-founder and leading leave campaigner, responding to the claim that Brexiteers complaining about the article 50 judgment are being hypocritical because they are supposed to favour parliamentary sovereignty. (See 1.01pm.)

On Twitter some people have been pointing out too that the government’s EU referendum leaflet explicitly said the government “will implement” the result.

Updated

Vote Leave campaign director says article 50 ruling is 'reasonable'

Dominic Cummings, the Vote Leave campaign director, has said on Twitter that the article 50 court ruling is reasonable.

Cummings is referring to people like Nigel Farage (see 10.50am) and Suzanne Evans (see 11.31am.)

In other words, Cummings accepts the argument that Jonathan Freedland makes in the article I flagged up earlier. (See 1.01pm.)

Dominic Cummings, the former Vote Leave campaign director.
Dominic Cummings, the former Vote Leave campaign director. Photograph: David Levenson/Getty Images

Updated

Ireland’s largest opposition party in the Dail (parliament) has welcomed the UK High Court ruling.

Fianna Fail’s spokesperson on foreign affairs Darragh O’Brien said:

I welcome today’s significant ruling, and although I am aware that the prime minister has signalled her intention to appeal the decision, it nevertheless may give the British government pause for thought as to how they are approaching Brexit.

The approach taken so far by Prime Minister May would indicate that the UK is moving towards a hard Brexit which would have very serious negative ramifications for the entire island of Ireland. I would hope that today’s ruling may soften the UK government’s stance and I welcome the fact that they will now have to consider and debate the views of the wider parliament before triggering article 50.

The significance of Brexit and its implications for the European Union and Ireland in particular cannot be underestimated. It is essential that there is a full and frank debate of the implications before article 50 is triggered. So much of the debate in the run up to the referendum was based on lies, hyperbole and xenophobic sentiment. I hope that this ruling will now give space to properly explore what Brexit actually means and the implications of such a momentous decision.

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.

Leave Means Leave (a successor to the Leave.EU campaign which argues for - well, you can work it out) has condemned the court decision. This is from its co-chair Richard Tice.

This is disgraceful – 17.4m people will be furious today.

Our democracy is being damaged by an elite band of people in the legal system.

There is absolutely no need for a parliamentary vote.

The question was put to the British people and they voted to leave the EU. British business has reacted well to the Brexit vote and it is essential that the process of leaving the EU begins as soon as possible to ensure confidence in the British economy continues.

A vote in Parliament is wholly unnecessary, time consuming and betrays the democratic will of the people.

The article 50 judgment is not explicit about what the government should do next, and some MPs and commentators have been unclear as to whether it means the government should have to pass an act of parliament to invoke article 50, or whether parliament could just give its consent by approving a motion to that effect.

But the legal blogger Matthew Scott says the logic of the judgment is clear. There would have to be an act, he says.

On the World at One Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, says he accepts that Britain should leave the EU. But parliament needs to be consulted on the terms of leaving, he says.

He says the government cannot get away with refusing to reveal its negotiating stance.

Sturgeon says Scottish government could join article 50 legal challenge

Nicola Sturgeon has said the Scottish government will “actively consider” whether it will formally join in the next legal battle over the right of MPs to vote on Article 50 after today’s high court defeat for the UK government.

The first minister told Holyrood the court ruling was “hugely significant and it underlines the total chaos and confusion at the heart of the UK government.”

The Scottish government already had legal counsel sitting throughout the article 50 hearing as an observer, partly in preparation for a decision by Sturgeon on whether to formally participate in the case. Sturgeon said she would now look at the judgement very carefully before deciding on the next steps.

She told first minister’s questions at Holyrood:

We should remember that their refusal to allow a vote in the House of Commons is not some matter of high constitutional principle it is because they don’t have a coherent position and they know that if they take their case to the House of Commons that will be exposed.

The job of this government is to protect Scotland’s interests; Scotland voted to remain in the EU and my job is therefore to protect our place in Europe and the single market as far as I possibly can. SNP MPs in the House of Commons will certainly not vote for anything that undermines the will or the interests of the Scottish people.

And this is what Sturgeon said about joining the court challenge.

We will look at the judgement very carefully and yes we will actively consider whether to become participants in that case. The judgment this morning I don’t think is a huge surprise to anybody who’s followed the case but it’s hugely significant and it underlines the total chaos and confusion at the heart of the UK government.

Nicola Sturgeon: UK government lacks ‘coherent position’ on Brexit – video

Updated

Here is a Guardian Comment panel on whether the article 50 court ruling could stop Brexit, with contributions from Jonathan Freedland, Schona Jolly, Tim Farron, and David Lammy.

And here’s an extract from Freedland’s article.

Surely those who should be cheering today’s high court judgment the loudest are the people who have been the most passionate defenders of parliamentary sovereignty. So rejoice, Daniel Hannan: the judges have heeded your earnest plea to make parliament supreme. Put out the bunting, Michael Gove: your insistence that Westminster be the ultimate arbiter of our national affairs has been given the judicial seal of approval. Let all those who spent the spring trumpeting the glory of England, hailing it as the mother of parliaments, can now celebrate their victory.

Except, of course, they won’t. Those who campaigned for leave in the name of wrestling power from Brussels to Westminster went strangely quiet when it came to the question decided by the court today: who has the power to trigger article 50? Suddenly they found that parliament was not quite so sacred or central, that some things were best left to ministers to decide. Well, the judges have called out that hypocrisy. They have decided that the Brexiteers should have to comply with their own logic – and bow to parliament.

Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, has warned that the high court ruling over article 50 adds to the uncertainty overshadowing the UK economy.

He told a press conference that it is “an example of the uncertainty that will characterise this process.”

“The negotiations haven’t even begun. There will be volatility as those negotiations proceed. I see it as one of the examples of that uncertainty,” Carney added.

He was speaking at the Bank’s quarterly inflation report, after leaving interest rates unchanged at 0.25% at noon today.

In the Scottish parliament Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, hinted that the Scottish government might seek to join the legal challenge to the UK government over article 50. She has been taking first minister’s questions. This is from the BBC’s Philip Sim.

Sturgeon also said the UK government was in “total chaos” over article 50. This is from Common Space’s Michael Gray.

Sturgeon has also posted this about article 50 on Twitter, commenting on a tweet about the court ruling.

And she retweeted this, from a Reuters correspondent.

Hilary Benn, the Labour MP and chair of the Commons Brexit committee, has just told the Daily Politics that he would vote to trigger article 50. He campaigned for remain, but he says he accepts the result of the referendum. But he says that should not stop parliament having a say on the terms of Brexit.

On the Daily Politics Dominic Raab, the Conservative MP and leading Brexit campaigner, said that the court ruling increased the chances of an early election. Referring to the Labour MP Stephen Kinnock, who was on the programme and who said MPs should be consulted over the Brexit negotiating terms, Raab said:

If we get to the stage where effectively Stephen and his colleagues are not willing to allow this negotiation to even begin, I think there must be an increased chance that we must go to the country again. I think that would be a mistake and I don’t think those trying to break the verdict of the referendum would be rewarded.

One of the more flamboyant figures outside the Royal Courts of Justice was Charlie Mullins, founder of Pimlico Plumbers, who turned up in a chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce. He helped fund the campaign challenging the government, though he is coy about how much he contributed.

“Whatever it was, it was worth it,” he said. Like others involved in the case, he insisted the case is “not about Brexit, it’s about who’s legally entitled to do it”.

Referring to the length of the hearing, he added: “It took three minutes to prove article 50 needs to be triggered by parliament not by the government. All the busybodies in the government saying it’s legally right, it’s a load of bollocks”.

He said the government’s appeal would be “throwing money down the drain”.

Mullin said he would contribute to the Supreme Court fund. “We’re on a winning horse, and a jockey doesn’t get off a winning horse.”

He dismissed claims by Nigel Farage that the decision might spark turmoil. “Why would you take any notice of Farage? He lied about £350m to the NHS, now he’s making himself busy about turmoil. We’re already in turmoil.”

Charlie Mullins poses for a photograph outside the High Court following the high court ruling on article 50.
Charlie Mullins poses for a photograph outside the High Court following the high court ruling on article 50. Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters

Updated

The first minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, called on the UK government to accept the high court ruling – and said votes should on Brexit should take place not just in Westminster but in Cardiff, Scotland and Northern Ireland. He said:

The high court ruling is extremely clear - the UK government cannot trigger article 50 using the Crown prerogative. Indeed, this is consistent with many of the arguments made by the leave campaign themselves about parliamentary sovereignty. It is a mistake, in my view, to challenge such a clear ruling and we should now try and move ahead to develop a fuller understanding of the UK government’s position.

The position of the Welsh government has been consistent throughout – we accept the decision made by the people and will not work against the referendum result - we are working hard to get the best possible exit terms for Wales. However, it is important that votes take place in all four nations to endorse the UK negotiating position.

The Welsh Conservative Leader, Andrew RT Davies – the only leader of a mainstream political party in Britain to back a vote to leave the EU – sees it very differently. He said:

A clear majority of the British people voted to leave the European Union in June, and parliament’s job is to enact that decision – not to subvert it. The people have spoken and their decision must be respected.

Parliament had its say when the referendum was approved by an act of parliament. There is no basis for a further vote in parliament, other than to aid those seeking to block the path of democracy.

Any attempts to row back on the referendum result will be met with anger and frustration by the British public.

This is an unnecessary distraction, and this side-show must not be allowed to distract the UK Government from getting on with the job of negotiating a new relationship with our European neighbours.

Plaid Cymru’s Brexit spokesperson, Jonathan Edwards, welcomed the ruling. He said:

It is ironic that after months of rhetoric around making parliament sovereign, the UK government wanted to bypass the parliament on a decision of such importance. It is right that the UK Parliament should have a say, but it is important too that the national parliaments of the UK have a say too, including the National Assembly for Wales.

Grahame Pigney, organiser of the People’s Challenge, which raised £170,000 to fund the article 50 legal action, said the case was “incredibly important to the UK’s parliamentary democracy”.

”We came here to force the situation, to ask the courts whether it’s parliament or government who is sovereign,” he told the Guardian outside the RCJ.

“In some ways it’s got to go to the Supreme Court to be decided at the highest possible level,” he added.

Pigney denied that the case aimed to challenge the referendum’s result. “Parliament has to go make the decision on all the facts, including the referendum result and what’s in the best interests of all four nations in the UK,” he said.

This morning he is elated, but already planning to raise a further £50,000 to fund the Supreme Court challenge.

Pigney said he hopes the case will galvanise politicians into more forceful action. “I’m hoping it will give MPs confidence to do something,” he said.

The People’s Challenge’s lawyer, John Halford, said the decision “completely vindicates the position taken by the People’s Challenge”. He went on:

[The government’s] arguments are rightly described as an executive power grab. What the court’s said is that’s completely wrong. When our parliament has enacted legislation to give our nationals a package of rights that they have engaged for 40 years, that can’t simply be overridden by the stroke of a minister’s pen.

Halford said the decision echoed an 800-year-old case in which Henry IV’s Lord Chief Justice ruled that parliament, not the king, was sovereign in a case about allowing foreign traders in London.

He was sanguine about the case at the Supreme Court. “We have the momentum and it’s very heartening the courts have had the courage to do what they’ve done.”

Halford said all 11 Supreme Court justices will hear the case. “I don’t think that’s ever happened before, and we are very confident they will reach the same decision.”

Owen Smith says, if there is article 50 bill, Labour should amend it to include 2nd EU referendum

Here is some more reaction to the ruling from MP and peers on Twitter.

From Nick Clegg, the former Lib Dem leader and former deputy prime minister

From Ben Bradshaw, the Labour former culture secretary

From Owen Smith, who challenged Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership in the summer

  • Owen Smith says, if there is an article 50 bill, Labour should amend it to include a second EU referendum.

From Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords

From Stewart Wood, a Labour peer

From Stewart Jackson, a Conservative

Tim Colbourne, a former aide to Nick Clegg, thinks this may be the key paragraph in the full 111-paragraph ruling.

In the Commons Sir Edward Leigh, a Consevative, asks David Lidington, the leader of the Commons, what the government has got to fear from giving MPs a debate on a substantive motion on triggering article 50.

Lidington dodges the question, and just repeats the point he made earlier about how the government is appealing against the judgement.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative former work and pensions secretary and prominent leave campaigner, tells Sky News that he thinks most MPs would vote to invoke article 50. But he says that he does not think the courts have the right to tell the government what to do. Parliament has already decided that the decision about leaving the EU should be taken by the people in the referendum, he says.

Updated

My colleague Anne Perkins has written a Q&A on what the article 50 judgement means.

Here’s an extract.

Can this stop Brexit?

Almost certainly not. But it does make the position much more confused. It risks driving an even bigger wedge between the leavers and the remainers, particularly since the leavers are likely to interpret this as one more desperate attempt by the Metropolitan liberal elite to thwart the will of the people (a suspicion that is going to shape the thinking of a lot of MPs).

The government has said it will appeal the decision and it has permission to go straight to the supreme court, which has set aside time on 7 and 8 December. All 11 of the justices in position will have a chance to decide on a matter that goes to the heart of the UK’s unwritten constitution.

It is by no means certain that the supreme court will buy the high court’s thinking on this. In particular, it is likely to be extremely sensitive to public opinion about the role of the court, and whether it is making decisions that are more political than judicial.

No 10 says it still intends to invoke article 50 before the end of March

Downing Street says it still intends to invoke article 50 before the end of March. This is from my colleague Rowena Mason, who has been at the morning lobby briefing.

Ukip leadership candidate Suzanne Evans suggests article 50 judges should be sacked

Suzanne Evans, a Ukip leadership candidate, is suggesting on Twitter that the judges who came up with today’s article 50 judgment should be sacked.

Actually, parliament does have the power to sack judges, although it has not been used for more than 100 years.

She also claims that article 50 will tie the UK into the EU for years.

This is an odd interpretation of EU rules because the whole point about article 50 is that it leads to state leaving the EU within two years.

Bookmakers Paddy Power have halved the odds of a second EU referendum taking place before 2019, taking them from 10/1 to 5/1, in the light of the article 50 court ruling.

The president of the European commission Jean-Claude Juncker will speak to Theresa May by phone on Friday, at her request, his spokesman told reporters in Brussels.

The spokesman declined to comment on the UK high court decision: “We will not comment on any issues that pertain to the legal and constitutional order of our member states.”

Government minister to make a statement to MPs about article 50 ruling on Monday

In the Commons David Lidington, the leader of the Commons, is taking business questions. He has just made a brief statement about the court ruling.

He said it was a lengthy and complex judgment, but he said it was the government’s intention to appeal.

He said a judgement from the high court in Northern Ireland came to an opposite conclusion on this issue.

So this will need to go to a higher court, he said.

He said there will be an oral statement in the Commons on this next Monday so that ministers can be questioned, subject to the normal restraints of sub judice.

Pro-leave campaigners are angry about today’s judgement because they think that, if parliament gets a chance to vote on article 50, MPs and peers will use that as a chance to overturn the referendum result.

But, even though a majority of MPs and peers backed remain, very few of them have said parliament should block EU withdrawal. In the House of Lords last week Angela Smith, the Labour leader, was quite explicit about how Labour would not block Brexit. She said:

We will scrutinise. We will examine. But my Lords – we will not block. But neither will we be bullied into abdicating our responsibilities.

We have to be adult about this. We can’t have the most enthusiastic Brexiters crying foul every time Parliament asks for more details or seeks to scrutinise.

This can’t be the only issue on which the Government is allowed a blank cheque without any accountability. It’s complex, it’s difficult. And the Government should see this House as an asset and not try to avoid helpful scrutiny.

Here is David Greene, a lawyer representing Deir dos Santos, one of the two claimants who took the government to court, responding to the judgement.

David Greene, representing Deir dos Santos.

Farage says he fears UK heading for a 'half Brexit'

Nigel Farage, the outgoing Ukip leader, has told Radio 5 Live that he thinks the UK is heading for a “half Brexit”. He told Emma Barnett’s programme:

We are heading for a half Brexit ... I’m becoming increasingly worried. I see MPs from all parties saying, oh well, actually we should stay part of the single market, we should continue with our daily financial contributions. I think we could be at the beginning, with this ruling, of a process where there is deliberate, wilful attempt by our political class to betray 17.4m voters.

He also said that, if the UK has not left the EU by the spring of 2019, he will return to full-time campaigning.

I’m not going to disappear. If come spring of 2019 we haven’t left the EU, then I would have to take up full-time campaigning again.

Nigel Farage.
Nigel Farage. Photograph: Patrick Seeger/EPA

Corbyn says government must tell parliament its Brexit negotiating terms

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, has said that in the light of the court judgement the government must bring its negotiating terms to parliament without delay. In a statement he said:

This ruling underlines the need for the government to bring its negotiating terms to parliament without delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament on the terms of Brexit.

Labour will be pressing the case for a Brexit that works for Britain, putting jobs, living standards and the economy first.

Here is Caroline Lucas, the Green party’s co-leader, on the court judgement.

We welcome this ruling which shows that ministers do not have the power to trigger article 50 without consulting parliament.

Parliament must have the opportunity to debate and vote on triggering Article 50, rather than a group of ministers at the top table having total control over this country’s future place in the world.

The Green party will continue to fight to protect free movement, workers’ rights and the vital environmental protections we currently have as part of the EU.

Nigel Farage, the outgoing Ukip leader, says he fears that those who voted to leave the EU are going to be betrayed.

Summary of the court judgment

Here is the full text of the official summary (pdf) of the high court judgment from the Lord Chief Justice (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd), the Master of the Rolls (Sir Terence Etherton) and Lord Justice Sales.

The question

1- The issue before the court is whether, as a matter of UK constitutional law, the Government is entitled to give notice of a decision to leave the European Union under Article 50 by exercise of the Crown’s prerogative powers and without reference to Parliament. This is a pure question of law. The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union: that is a political issue.

2- It is accepted by all sides that this legal question is properly before the court and justiciable: under the UK constitution, it is one for the court to decide [5]. It turns on the extent of the Crown’s powers under its prerogative [explained at 24-29]. The Government accepts that neither the European Union Referendum Act 2015 nor any other Act of Parliament confers on it statutory authority (as distinct from the Crown’s prerogative power) to give notice under Article 50 [67-72, 76 and 105-108].

Background

3 - On 1 January 1973 the United Kingdom joined what were then the European Communities, including the European Economic Community. Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1972 (1972 Act) to allow that to happen since it was a condition of membership that Community law should be given effect in the domestic law of the United Kingdom and primary legislation was required to achieve this [1 and 36-54]. The European Communities have now become the European Union.

4 - Pursuant to the European Union Referendum Act 2015 a referendum was held on 23 June 2016 on the question whether the United Kingdom should leave or remain in the European Union. The answer given was that the UK should leave [2].

5- The process for withdrawal is governed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which states that once a Member State gives notice to withdraw there is a two-year period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement. If no agreement is reached in this time then, subject only to agreement on an extension of time with the European Council acting unanimously, the EU Treaties shall cease to apply to that State. The Government accepts that a notice under Article 50 cannot be withdrawn once it has been given. It also accepts that Article 50 does not allow a conditional notice to be given: a notice cannot be qualified by stating that Parliament is required to approve any withdrawal agreement made in the course of Article 50 negotiations [9-17].

6 - Therefore, once notice is given under Article 50, some rights under EU law as incorporated into domestic law by the 1972 Act would inevitably be lost once the Article 50 withdrawal process is completed [57-66].

The constitutional principles

7 - The most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament. This principle is of critical importance and sets the context for the general rule on which the Government seeks to rely – that normally the conduct of international relations and the making and unmaking of treaties are taken to be matters falling within the scope of the Crown’s prerogative powers. That general rule exists precisely because the exercise of such prerogative powers has no effect on domestic law, including as laid down by Parliament in legislation [18-36].

8 - In the present case, however, the Government accepts, and indeed positively contends, that if notice is given under Article 50 it will inevitably have the effect of changing domestic law. Those elements of EU law which Parliament has made part of domestic law by enactment of the 1972 Act will in due course cease to have effect [76-80].

9 - The central contention of the Government in the present case is that Parliament must be taken to have intended when it enacted the 1972 Act that the Crown would retain its prerogative power to effect a withdrawal from the Community Treaties (now the EU Treaties), and thereby intended that the Crown should have the power to choose whether EU law should continue to have effect in the domestic law of the UK or not [76-81].

Conclusion

10 - The Court does not accept the argument put forward by the Government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it. In the judgment of the Court the argument is contrary both to the language used by Parliament in the 1972 Act and to the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the Crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers [82-94, 97-104]. The Court expressly accepts the principal argument of the claimants [95-96].

11 - For the reasons set out in the judgment, we decide that the Government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.

Updated

Downing Street has also said the government will appeal.

Here is the summary of the judgment (pdf).

And here is its conclusion.

Conclusion of summary of article 50 judgement
Conclusion of summary of article 50 judgement Photograph: Court service

International trade secretary Liam Fox says government will appeal to supreme court

In the Commons Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade secretary, asks Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, says the government should accept that the Commons will vote for article 50 to be triggered. But MPs want to be consulted about the negotiating terms, he says.

Will you acknowledge that the vast majority of members in this House are now committed to honouring the decision to leave the EU but that democracy demands that the terms of our leaving must be subject to the proper advanced scrutiny and consent of this democratically elected House and not negotiated in secret and smuggled through without the support of this sovereign parliament?

In his response Fox says Gardiner will have to wait for the government’s appeal to the supreme court.

  • International trade secretary Liam Fox says government will appeal to the supreme court.

Updated

Gina Miller, one of the claimants who brought the article 50 case to law, has just said in a statement outside the Royal Courts of Justice that the government should accept this ruling and give up its right to appeal to the supreme court.

Victorious Gina Miller reacts to article 50 ruling: ‘this case was about process, not politics’ – video

Updated

Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said he was delighted by the ruling

Given the strict two year timetable of exiting the EU once article 50 is triggered, it is critical that the government now lay out their negotiating to Parliament, before such a vote is held.

So far May’s team have been all over the place when it comes to prioritising what is best for Britain, and it’s time they pull their socks up and start taking this seriously.

Ultimately, the British people voted for a departure but not for a destination, which is why what really matters is allowing them to vote again on the final deal, giving them the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our job.

Former shadow Europe minister Pat McFadden, a supporter of the Open Britain campaign, said it was “a positive step but it needs to be more than just a symbolic act.”

It was always wrong for the government to try to stop Parliament having a meaningful say in how the UK leaves the EU. The terms on which we leave should be subject to rigorous debate and scrutiny - in parliament and the country. Parliament should have a clear role in the substance of the Brexit negotiations, not just the process.

Open Britain is calling on the government to bring forward their substantive plans for the negotiations - in the equivalent of a white paper - to be debated and voted on in parliament before Article 50 is triggered.

Here is the full court ruling.

Updated

Sterling rises after article 50 ruling

Sterling has gone up on the news of the court decision.

On Sky News Labour’s Pat McFadden says he thinks parliament will not block the triggering of article 50.

But parliament may also insist on getting more information from the government about its negotiating position, he says.

Here is the start of the Press Association story on this.

Campaigners have won their High Court battle over Theresa May’s decision to use the royal prerogative in her Brexit strategy.

In one of the most important constitutional cases in generations, three senior judges ruled the prime minister does not have power to use the prerogative to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to start the UK’s exit from the European Union - without the prior authority of Parliament.

The ruling against the government was made by Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, sitting with two other senior judges in London.

Government given right to appeal court ruling

Updated

On Sky News Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative MP and pro-leave campaigner, has described the result as “very surprising”.

Pat McFadden, the pro-remain Labour MP, says this is a “complete humiliation” for the govenrment.

Goverment loses article 50 case

Lord chief justice says prerogative powers are normally a matter for the executive

According to Sky, the LCJ (Lord chief justice) has said the court accepts that some fundamental rights will be lose once article 50 is triggered.

That is an argument that helps the claimants.

But we still have not got the result yet.

This is from the barrister and legal blogger Greg Callus.

This is from the barrister and legal blogger Jolyon Maugham.

The Times’ Sam Coates thinks Jeremy Wright’s job as attorney general will be on the line if the government loses.

Joshua Rozenberg doesn’t agree.

This is from BuzzFeed’s Jim Waterson.

And this is from the legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg.

Court 4, the largest in the Royal Courts of Justice, is filling up in readiness for the judgment being handed down.

Speculation growing that the Welsh and Scottish governments may join in the case on the side of the claimants if it is appealed to the supreme court.

The scene outside the RCJ
The scene outside the RCJ. Photograph: Alice Ross

This is from Sky’s Faisal Islam.

This is from the Times’ Sam Coates.

If you are looking for some light relief amidst all this constitutional law, here are three of the speeches from the Spectator’s parliamentary awards last night. They include Boris Johnson saying the government was going to make a “Titanic success” of Brexit. George Osborne had to remind him that the Titanic sank.

These are from the Spectator’s editor, Fraser Nelson.

Theresa May presented an award to George Osborne at the event, and dressed up in hi-vis to mock his favourite photocall garb.

May’s speech is well worth listening to. It includes a sharp put-down directed at Johnson, and an uncharacteristically offensive joke about Craig Oliver, David Cameron’s former communications director.

Theresa May presenting George Osborne with an award at the Spectator dinner last night.
Theresa May presenting George Osborne with an award at the Spectator dinner last night. Photograph: Robbie Gibb/BBC/PA

Inside the vast Gothic rabbit warren that is the Royal Courts of Justice, there’s an expectant crowd gathered outside Court 4, where the judgment will be handed down shortly. But nobody expects this morning’s decision to be the final word - whichever way the judges rule, an appeal is almost certain.

Here are two blogs on the article 50 case from legal commentators that are worth reading.

Until now, it has been assumed that the government would appeal if it loses in the High Court. But there is increasing speculation in legal circles that the prime minister would not take the risk of being defeated a second time in the Supreme Court.

That court would probably not deliver its ruling before January, leaving Theresa May with relatively little time to get legislation passed before her self-imposed deadline of 31 March.

If she accepts the court’s decision, she could introduce legislation next week.

It’s thought that a bill would be approved by MPs with little difficulty but might run into difficulties when it reaches the House of Lords. Critics of Brexit hope that delays in the Lords would encourage the government to think again.

The more time there is for the bill to go through parliament, the less effective any delaying tactics would be.

Just as Boris Johnson’s policy on cake was “pro having it and pro eating it”, the prime minister might introduce legislation as well as pressing on with an appeal. The case would not be moot until the legislation was passed.

My colleague Alice Ross is outside the Royal Courts of Justice.

Article 50 can be reversed, says Lord Kerr, the diplomat who drafted it

It is often said that, once article 50 (the process triggering the EU withdrawal) is invoked, there is no going back. That is because the text does not say anything about how the process can be reversed.

But according to Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the British diplomat who drafted article 50, it is not irreversible. This is what he told the BBC in an interview.

It is not irrevocable.

You can change your mind while the process is going on.

During that period, if a country were to decide actually we don’t want to leave after all, everybody would be very cross about it being a waste of time.

They might try to extract a political price but legally they couldn’t insist that you leave.

According to the BBC’s Norman Smith, it’s rather quiet at the Royal Courts of Justice at the moment.

According to the YouGov, a majority of voters support the government’s position and think the prime minister, not parliament, should have the final say over triggering article 50.

Power in a democratic state like Britain is conventionally accredited to three bodies: the executives, which rules and proposes laws; the legislature, which passes laws; and the judiciary, which determines whether laws are being obeyed. Today we’re going to get a landmark ruling in which powerbase 3 (the judiciary) has to decide whether the most important foreign policy decision for more than 40 years gets decided by powerbase 1 or 2. For anyone interested in this sort of thing, it should be fascinating.

This is the case about whether the government has the right to trigger article 50 (the process that will start the two-year EU withdrawal process) without consulting parliament. The judgement will be delivered at 10am. Here is my colleague Owen Bowcott’s preview story.

I will be covering the ruling, and the reaction to it, in detail. But this won’t necessarily be the end of the story, because, whatever the result, there is likely to be an appeal to the supreme court in December.

But over the course of the day I will be covering other stories too. Here is the agenda for the day.

9am: Gordon Brown, the former prime minister, gives a speech on Brexit at a Fabian Society conference.

10am: The high court rules in the article 50 case.

10am: Labour MPs including on Cruddas, Lisa Nandy and Steve Reed speak at a Labour Together conference in Westminster about the future of the party.

10am: Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

10.40am: Greg Clark, the business secretary, speaks at the Innovate UK conference in Manchester.

12.30pm: Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, holds a press conference as he publishes the Bank’s quarterly inflation report.

As usual, I will be covering the breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I will post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.

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
A Hazmat Situation Unfolded At Disneyland, And Several Cast Members Were Affected
This wasn't a "2319."
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Does A$AP Rocky Know Ivanna Ortiz? Rihanna's Attempted Shooter Allegedly Had an Affair With Rapper
The alleged motive behind the shooting of Rihanna's home has just been released, and it involves allegations of cheating by A$AP Rocky.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
Avengers: Secret Wars Rumor Will Please Longtime Spider-Man Fans (If It’s True)
Big changes may be ahead for the wall-crawler.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Gwen Stefani Addresses Her Christian Pivot After Promoting Controversial Anti-Abortion App
Critics pointed to a prayer asking God to guide women considering abortion, including pregnancies from non-consensual acts.
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
One Move Kanye West’s Wife Bianca Censori Is (Allegedly) Considering If They Split
This would be a big decision.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
“I was a good bass player, and I am proud of my Celebrity Skin work, but oh my God, it changed my level of musicianship forever”: Melissa Auf der Maur on what she learned from playing with Billy Corgan and The Smashing Pumpkins
Auf der Maur joined the Pumpkins in October 1999 following a five-year stint with Hole
Guitar World
Guitar World
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play