24/01/2017 Victoria Derbyshire

Hello, it's Tuesday, it's nine o'clock.

I'm Victoria Derbyshire, welcome to the programme.

In exactly half an hour's time, the highest court in the land

will rule on whether Parliament or the PM is in control of the UK's

I will be reporting live problem the Supreme Court, we will bring you the

decision as it happens, and all the reaction from the court.

We'll bring you that decision live as it happens,

and throughout the programme we'll bring you plenty of reaction

I am a professor of public law, I am going to explain the meaning of the

judgment, not about whether we leave, about how we leave the

European Union. Plus, we'll bring you reaction

from senior politicians, and our audience of voters

are here to give their Judges are not hell-bent on

dismissing the views of British people, they just want to ensure it

is carried out with the correct mandate. It is correct that judges

clarify the detail of the law, citizens have a right to clarify

important questions. The judges have no right to interfere with the

democratic wishes of the electorate, let's stop wasting time and get on

to repealing the European Community act.

As always, really keen to hear from you - do get in touch

Hello, welcome to the programme. We're live until 11.

As you'd expect, the programme will be dominated by reaction

to that Supreme Court ruling, due in just under

As always, do get in touch- use #VictoriaLIVE,

and if you text, you will be charged at the standard network rate.

Our top story today - in half an hour's time,

the Supreme Court will deliver its ruling on whether the Prime

before she can start the process of leaving the EU.

The long-awaited judgment will decide how the EU's Article 50

The Government argues that ministers have the power to do that,

but opponents say they need Parliament's approval,

The European Union ignites strong passions.

Almost seven weeks ago, protesters gathered outside

the Supreme Court as the 11 most senior judges in the

Hour after hour of dense legal argument

followed on the biggest question in politics -

Is it behind the door here in Downing Street?

The Prime Minister says she can start the UK's divorce from the EU

herself, but campaigners led by the businesswoman Gina Miller,

says MPs and peers have to have a say first.

This morning, we will find out who has won.

If the Government loses, they will also lose complete control

of the timetable for starting the process

It will have to rush its plan through Parliament

Today is not about whether Brexit should or will happen

That is why it matters, and that is why there

was a lot of interest here in what the judges had to say.

Our correspondent Ben Brown is at the Supreme Court.

morning, Ben! Good morning, Victoria, this

judgment, whichever way it goes at night column 30, is going to make

legal, constitutional and political history. -- at 9:30. It will have

huge obligations for the way the Brexit processes implement, is it

Parliament that triggers Article 50, or is it the Government through its

prerogative powers? Let's just tell you that we can see Gina Miller, the

businesswoman who brought this case originally, Gina Miller, the

investment fund manager who brought the case. And the Government

appealed against her victory in the High Court in November and brought

it here to the Supreme Court. Gina Miller says she has had death

threats, threats to her business interests, threats to boycott her

business as well, because of this case that she has brought. And she

will be hoping that the 11 Supreme Court Justices will rule in her

favour and against the Government, and will say that it is Parliament

that is sovereign, and it is Parliament that has to trigger

Article 50. Let's talk to Clive Coleman, our legal affairs

correspondent, the 11 Supreme Court justices have been deliberating over

Christmas and the New Year, and we are going to hear their judgment at

half past nine. Let's not underplay this, this is quite simply the

biggest case about where power lies in our constitution as between

ministers on the one hand and Parliament on the other, this is a

case that will define the limits of executive power of the government,

which wants to trigger Article 50 using these ancient powers, these

prerogative powers, they say they can do that because, effectively,

they are working with an international treaty that is an area

where the prerogative can legitimately be used. Gina Miller

says, no, what is at stake here is rights enjoyed by you and I,

citizens of the UK that are enshrined in an act of Parliament,

the 1972 European Communities Act, and you cannot reach in with the

prerogative and rip those out. So this case is, as you say,

constitutionally of enormous significance, we are going to hear

the ruling, it will come through the president of the court, Lord

Neuberger, who will come into court with the other justices, and they

will take about five minutes to give a summary of the ruling. We will get

a full judgment to pick over later in the day. 11 Supreme Court

justices, it is a bit like a jury, they could be a majority verdict, it

could be something like 7-4. Absolutely, and Lord Neuberger will

tell us any dissenting judgments are from, but it is historic - 11

justices have never sat before, and not just since the Supreme Court was

established in 2009. Its predecessor, the judicial committee

of the House of Lords, which used to sit in Parliament, going back to the

19 -- 19th century, they never sat in that number, so this is really

huge. Clive, thank you very much indeed. We will get their judgment

at half past nine. The Prime Minister, Theresa May, just up the

road in Downing Street, will be getting a sneak preview. We gather

she will hear the judgment at 9:15. That is it from me for now.

So a few minutes for the Prime Minister to find out, 23 minutes for

the rest of us, we will bring you the ruling live on BBC News. Joanna

has the rest of the morning's news. President Trump has signed an order

to formally withdraw America fulfilling one of

his campaign pledges. The trade deal involving

a dozen countries President Trump has also cut funding

for international groups and has frozen the hiring

of some federal workers. Motorists caught driving

well above the speed limit will face bigger fines

after a review of the sentencing guidelines

for courts in England and Wales. to impose much tougher

penalties on drivers, and are intended to make sure

the punishment for speeding is a lot higher

for the worst offenders. after a 15-year-old boy was

stabbed in north-west London. He was attacked on a street

in Willesden yesterday. Ambulance crews treated

the boy at the scene and took him to hospital,

where he was later pronounced dead. Detectives have yet

to release his name, Heathrow Airport says 100 flights

have been cancelled because freezing fog in south-east England

has again reduced visibility. The airport has apologised to those

affected and has advised passengers to check the status of their flight

before travelling to the airport. Flood management in England

and Wales is still fragmented, inefficient and ineffective,

according to a group of MPs. Members of the Commons Environment

Committee have criticised two months after

they recommended major reform. The Government says its plans

will help protect 300,000 homes. The citizens of this country

want to see the Government We've asked them questions.

We've made some recommendations. It's the Government's

responsibility to protect its citizens, and as far

as we're concerned, and explaining how best

it's going to do it. The nominations for

this year's Academy Awards Critics have tipped

the modern musical romance It's expected to face

stiff competition from the domestic drama

Manchester By The Sea a coming of age drama

set in drug-torn Miami. That is a summary of the latest

news, more at 9:30. We have voters from all over the UK

here this morning, they will give their reaction to the Supreme Court

ruling at 9:30. Wherever you are, get in touch, what do you think of

the fact that 11 justices will make this decision as to whether it is

the Prime Minister or Parliament who has the final say on triggering the

process of leaving the European Union? Do get in touch in the usual

ways. Reshmin has the sports news. Bernie Ecclestone, in charge of

Formula One for nearly 40 years, has been removed from his post. He makes

way following a ?6.4 billion takeover by US giant Liberty Media.

Chase Carey, the new chief executive, has appointed the former

supremo as a chairman and merit is, and honorary chairman and adviser to

the board, but Bernie Ecclestone says he has no idea what the title

means and insists he was forced out. Some of the tennis old guard

enjoying a renaissance at the Australian Open.

Yes, Venus Williams has booked a place in the semifinals, for the

first time in 14 years, remarkable, rolling back the years. She beat

Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova in straight sets. Venus has never won a title in

Melbourne before, next up for her is Coco Vandeweghe. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga

was beaten by Stan Wawrinka in straight sets. Roger Federer is in

quarterfinal action today, up against the man who knocked out Andy

Murray, Misha Zverev. Murray is likely not to play in Great

Britain's Davis Cup tie next week against Canada, that news just in

this morning. The Six Nations cakes off next month, a big name missing

from the England team. Flanker James Haskell has not travelled with the

squad to Portugal, he could miss the opener against France in February.

He has spent the last six months on the sidelines with an injury, but

despite returning to action for wasps, Wasps on Sunday, he will not

train with the England squad, so still a lot of waiting to do. And

Ryan Mason has responded well to surgery, what is the latest on his

condition? That is absolutely right, he has responded well to surgery,

the Hull City midfielder whose family have thanked well-wishers for

their support after age attic 24 hours. He underwent surgery on

Sunday after picking up a fractured skull at Stamford Bridge. He was

injured in a clash of heads with defender Gary Cahill during the

Premier League fixture. He was described as conscious, talking and

in a stable condition yesterday, but he will be monitored in hospital

over the coming days, so really positive news for Ryan Mason. Back

with more sport in the next hour. Cheers, Reshmin, thank you. Viv

says, Parliament has voted, what is the point in all of this today?!

Another says, this is the democratic process, it is really simple to

non-idiots. Roy says, and elected judges should not interfere. So who

decides? That is the question, Prime Minister and Parliament?

What is at stake is who controls the divorce

proceedings with the EU - the triggering of what's

known as Article 50, which begins the formal process

The British people have spoken, and the answer is we're out.

has asked me to form a new government,

and we're going to make a success of it.

It's about our United Kingdom and all our futures.

What I am proposing cannot mean membership of

OK, so what could happen in the next 15 minutes?

We can speak now to Professor Alison Young from Oxford University,

Plus, a group of politicians from various parties.

Theresa Villiers for the Conservatives,

Labour's Owen Smith, who voted to remain.

Ukip's Suzanne Evans, who voted Leave.

Tom Brake for the Lib Dems, who voted Remain.

And we've got an audience of voters from right across the UK.

Alison Young, what do you expect to happen? That's the ten million

dollar question. A chance to prove myself wrong in 15 minutes! My guess

would be probably you need an Act of Parliament, but I don't think they

will say that legally you have to consult the devolved governments as

well. That would be my guess. So MPs will get a vote? Yes. It may not be

11, but a majority. Exactly. Owen Smith it the Government loses and

you and your colleagues get a vote, will you vote against triggering

Article 50? Possibly. I'm going to try and amend the Bill because I

think we will have a Bill. I think that's right in order to make sure

that we've got a decent opportunity on behalf of the people we represent

to scrutinise that Bill and crucially, in order to give us an

opportunity at the end of that process in two or three years time

when we've concluded negotiations to determine whether it is going to be

good for Britain or bad. If your amendments fail and sources suggest

the word of the Bill will be so tight that there won't be a chance

for critics to amend it. If it is a Bill, it must be amendable. There

can be new clauses tabled to any Bill even if it is a one clause

Bill. Even if the Tories try and truncate scrutiny. They wanted to

simply enact it for party political purposes, but if we get to that

point, I will table amendments and others will table amendments and the

liberals and the Labour frontbench will table amendments, we will try

and hold the Government to account and make sure we can get the best

for the British people. I don't feel if we are unable to get those

amendments through in all conscience I can vote to trigger Article 50.

What do you think of that, Suzanne Evans? In there has to be an Act of

Parliament, that's fine. If either House decides to vote against the

will of the people, it will probably trigger a general election and we

will have a new House of Commons. Do you think really think that's a

realistic possibility? I think they will be signing their own death

warrant. Public confidence in the House of Lords is low as it is. If

they try and frustrate the referendum outcome, I think they're

in trouble. You will vote against it as a Lib Dem? The thing we will

press for is the idea there should be a second vote on the terments of

the deal so people voted for departure and voted to leave the EU,

but did not vote for what the shape of our are you nip with the EU was

going to be like. If we don't get that, we will vote against. Is that

not unacceptable because you would be voting against the will of the

majority of people in this country? We would be saying in fact the

people should have their say. So actually I think it is

reinforcing... People had their say? Very they voted to leave the EU. The

polling suggests that people whether they voted for Brexit or for Remain

are in favour of us staying in the single market. How do you respond to

the Lib Dems argument Theresa Villiers? The Lib Dems want to

frustrate, implementation of the result of the referendum. That's not

what he said? The reality is referendums are not best out of

three. We had a vote. The turn-out was high. More people voted Leave in

this country that had ever voted for anything else in the history of

British democracy. As the elected House, we need to obey the will of

the people and vote to trigger Article 50. Do you want to respond?

The difficulty for Theresa, she knows that what the EU is going to

look like is different from the views articulated by many members of

the Leave campaign. So there was no consistent view of what our

relationship was going to be like of the that's why we think people

should have their chance in saying either we like what the Government

are proposing in terms of the deal, or alternatively, actually, we think

that the current arrangement is preferable. I have to disagree. The

Leave campaign made it very clear what leaving the EU was going to

look like. It meant taking back control of our borders and taking

back control of our money and sovereignty of the British

Parliament. It was made also clear Tom, as you know, time and time

again the Remain campaign said we'll have to leave the single market. The

Remain campaign used that as a scare tactic. We have to leave the single

market and then we have to in order to get the control back. Can I pick

up on that point? We were promised by the vote Leave campaign by

Michael Gove that Scotland would get powers over immigration if we voted

to leave. I asked the Home Secretary about that yesterday and we were

told we're not getting it, a broken promise. Just as we were told that

if we voted no to independence we would be able to stay in the

European Union, another broken promise. So vote Leave does not have

a great record. You can't pawn on a blank page and you didn't tell us,

and the little we have been told has been broken. Depending what the

Supreme Court justices say in eight minutes time, potentially, you, the

Scottish Parliament, could block Brexit or at least have a greater

say over the process. What will you do? Well, it is up to the Scottish

Parliamentarians, I'm not a Scottish Parliamentarian, but the people

sitting except Ukip are represented in the Scottish Parliament. Now, the

UK Parliament have never legislated for something that is a

responsibility of the Scottish Parliament without getting the

Scottish Parliament's permission to do so-so I think that's appropriate

that given any moves to leave the European Union will have a

significant impact on each and every citizen in every part of the United

Kingdom. We will have to see what they say. They may or may not

spesify how the Government should consult Parliament. If indeed, they

decide that is the way to go. A general question about judges having

a say at this point. Suzanne Evans, you talked in December, you were

really cross with the High Court ruling, you talked about in December

judges should come under some form of democratic control and scrutiny

of Select Committees, do you stand by that? What I was trying to say

that judges should be subject to some kind of democratic scrutiny...

With independence comes accountability. And I think Ukip is

looking at possibly talking about how the judicial Appointments

Commission works and say shouldn't the chair of the justice Select

Committee have some say in the appointment of judges. Because of

the High Court ruling? No, because it is a general principle of

democracy. The situation we have a the moment... Why are you smaolg?

Judges are appointed by a quango or a self appointing oligarchy. That's

wrong. You're undermining it if any of the controls you were talking

about were put in place. Scrutiny, not controls. The other thing to

remember here is this is a point of law that the judges are deciding on.

It is not a political decision. They're deciding whether it is right

for ministers and the Prime Minister to simply decree that we are moving

Article 50 as opposed to asking Parliament. What I never understood

is why Ukip and the other people who campaigned so hard to bring back law

making powers to the UK and to Parliament then get annoyed about

the prospect of the Parliament exercising its rights. It is a

nonsense argument. What do you think about democratic accountability

slash control? I don't think that works with regards to the way the

judiciary works. The judiciary is there, its independence is important

so it can give you an independent point of what the case law says.

There is that element of independence. There is

accountability. You are distinguishing between how you

appoint them so we can discuss separately whether the appointment

process is independent. I don't think you should make them

democratically appointed. That's not the way to go. The justices

considering this point of law. Is it the right? Are you cross about it?

Anthony, what about you? It is one of the key parts of the separation

power and it's absolutely important that they have their say because the

decision to leave the European Union will affect every citizen in this

country. The terms that were put to the nation, were spurious at best.

We're still waiting on the ?350 million to the NHS. We're still

waiting on World War three as well. Let's hope that doesn't happen. The

Remain campaign told all sorts of lies. Judges should have a say. It

is a long-standing democracy and long may that continue. You think

this is interference in the democratic process. Explain why.

Because I think it's all very good, yes, we won the independence of the

judiciary, however, we have had a referendum and the people have

spoken. So, every time we don't like a result of an election or a

referendum, we go back and try to undermine it. So what's the

difference between our democracy and a dictatorship? So when the

president of the Supreme Court said this is not about overturning the

referendum, it is about the process by which we leave the European

Union. Did you not believe him? No, I do not believe him and I just want

to talk about Tom Brake because his constituency in London, most of his

electorate voted to leave and here he's coming and saying that he wants

to stay and he wants to fight against it. Aren't you undermining

democracy? Members of Parliament are elected to represent their

constituents, but we are also entitled to hold our own view. I'm

against the death pen aland if the majority of my constituents favour

the death penalty, that doesn't mean I will support the death penalty.

Nobody is going to chop your head off to leave the EU. Most voters,

they will have known for sometime that voting for a Liberal Democrat,

you're going to get someone who is pro-European. So it was a very small

margin, but I think in relation to judges, there are many countries

around the world where they exert democratic control... Are you

suggesting I'm saying that, come off it, Tom. Come off it. The first

point I want to respond to is the ?350 million. You have to be quick

because we're going live any second. It wasn't a promise made by the

campaigns... Apart from the bus advert. It wasn't a promise. The

point I want to make I believe that judges should have the power to

decide on this point of law, but there is an argument to be made

though the fact that Parliament was ignored for 40 years when British

people didn't get a chance to lobby their MPs to have a vote on whether

the issue would be part of the European Union or not. That is an

important point and that might be one of the reasons why people

decided that OK, well, this is the first chance I'm going to be heard,

then I might as well just stick it to the guys that didn't give me the

chance. All those treaties we signed handing over power to the European

Parliament that you did nothing about.

Kenneth says, "The ruling is a tactic to obstruct and achieve

nothing. It's quite frustrating. What do they hope to adhef?" Marie

says, "The real story is the rip and but we areful can't accept our

decision to leave the EU." Glen says, "The courts must decide. Or we

have a dictatorship." Robert says, "How much has Gina Miller and her

banker backers cost the public purse? This money could have been

spent on the NHS, rather than defending the tantrums of the 1%."

Let's go live to the Supreme Court as we await the judgement. Ben Brown

is there. Ben, what's going to happen in the next few minutes?

Yes, Victoria, at 9.30am we will hear from Lord Neuberger who is the

president of the Supreme Court. And he will deliver the judgement of the

11 Supreme Court justices. They sat for four days last month to hear

this case and essentially they have to decide whether it is Parliament

that must trigger Article 50 to begin the process of the UK leaving

the EU or whether the Government can do that with its prerogative powers.

The Prime Minister already knows the judgement. Theresa May was told

about it at 9.15am, the top lawyers involved in this case already know

as well. They have had advance sight of this judgement. We will get it at

9.30am in a minute's time, a five minute summary of the judgement and

then well' get the full judgement online. Let's talk to our legal

affairs expert Clive Coleman, in a nutshell, what have they got to

decide? Well, it comes down to a simple issue, can ministers alone

trigger Article 50 this process by which the UK leaves the EU? Can they

do that using prerogative powers, executive powers or do they need the

authority of an Act of Parliament to empower them to do that? That's the

single issue that the court has to decide. There is a question about

whether if there is Parliamentary legislation on this, Scotland and

Wales and Northern Ireland should have a say in it?

Absolutely, some say this is more than a political as you, because it

is only a convention that says the devolved assemblies or Parliament

have to give their consent. It is convention, it doesn't have legal

force, but it will be interesting to hear what they have to say on that.

Also interesting, the pressure on these 11 Supreme Court justices,

because with the High Court decision, there was a lot of talk in

the press, one headline was that they were enemies of the people. So

there is political pressure on them. There is, they have got pretty tough

hides, they will not be susceptible to that kind of pressure, we have an

independent judiciary in this country, this is a critical part of

our constitutional arrangement, and this demonstrates something very

important - that nobody is above the law, including the Government. What

is being argued by Gina Miller is that ministers are seeking to do

something that is unlawful under our constitution, and the judicial

review was triggered by two ordinary citizens, to have the right to go to

court and ask the court to scrutinise whether the actions of

ministers were lawful or not. Many people regard that as a pretty

democratic part of our country. The 11 Supreme Court justices could be

split on this, it could be a majority decision, say 7-4 something

like that, and that will be explained. Lord Neuberger will let

others know whether there are dissenting judgments, who they come

from, they may be descending on a specific point, we will get the full

picture from Lord Neuberger within minutes. We are just waiting for

those 11 Supreme Court justices to come to the bench. And if it is

against the government, and if it is for Gina miller, that means the

Government pretty quickly have to push some legislation through

Parliament. There is only one option if they lose, they will have to put

a bill through parliament, and that means that the Government loses

control of the process. It is a bit embarrassing. They didn't want to do

it that way, but once a bill is put into Parliament, the Government

ministers lose a little power, and Parliament gains power, so

Parliament could decide to lay down amendments. I do not think there is

any appetite for Parliament to block this process, they are not going to

stand in a way of the Democratic juggernaut that was the referendum

vote, but it becomes more difficult, somewhat embarrassing for the

Government, and it may mess with the timetable that Theresa May has set

herself to trigger by the end of March. So it becomes a messier, more

difficult process. Lord Neuberger did say, before they went off to

retire and consider their judgment, this is not about what we think

about membership of the European Union, this is not about trying to

rerun the referendum. Of course it isn't, some people have advertised

it as bad, but the referendum results determined that we would

leave the EU. This is about what the lawful mechanism is under our

constitution, applying the rule of law, for that process to be

triggered. You know, is it something that can be done at the stroke of a

minister's pen, or is it something that needs the authority of

Parliament in order to trigger it? And that is a legal question, and

you need judges to determine that legal question. Well, we were

expecting this judgment at half past, so it has been slightly

delayed. We do not know whether they are still working out their

judgment, still arguing! I doubt it! Do they just sit in a room and argue

it out? About a week after the hearing ended, they meet together as

a group of 11, they give their views, starting with the most junior

justice, and after that I am sure there is some lively debate. Here we

go! Here we go, they are now coming to the bench in the Supreme Court,

the 11 Supreme Court Justices, and we will hear from Lord Neuberger arm

of the president of the Supreme Court with this historic judgment.

Judgment in the appeal between Miller and another and the Northern

Ireland references. On the 1st of January 1973, the United Kingdom

joined the European Economic Community, now the European Union,

the EU. This was achieved by government ministers signing a

treaty of accession and Parliament enacting the European Communities

Act 1972. Over the next 40 years, developments in the EU resulted from

further treaties, many of which were adopted in subsequent acts of

parliament, and some of those acts curbed the exercise of the powers of

UK ministers in EU institutions. One of those acts of Parliament was in

2008, and it approved the inclusion of Article 50 into the EU treaties.

In broad terms, Article 50 provides that a country wishing to leave the

EU must give a notice in accordance with its own constitutional

requirements, and that the EU treaties shall cease to apply to

that country within two years. On the 23rd of June 2016, a UK wide

referendum reduced a majority in favour of leaving the EU, and the

Government then announced its intention to trigger Article 50. The

issue in these proceedings have nothing to do with whether the UK

should exit from the EU or the terms or timetable for that exit. The main

issue is whether the Government can trigger Article 50 without the prior

authority of an act of Parliament. The other issues concern the

obligations of the UK Government and the devolution legislation before

triggering Article 50, and in particular whether legislatures in

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland must be consulted. So far as the

main issue was concerned, as a general rule, the Government has a

prerogative power to withdraw from international treaties as it sees

fit. However, the Government cannot exercise that power if it would

thereby change UK laws unless it is authorised to do so by Parliament.

The claimants argue that, as a result of leaving the EU, UK law

will change and legal rights enjoyed by UK residents will be lost.

Accordingly, they say, the Government cannot trigger Article 50

unless authorised by Parliament. In reply, the Government argues that

the 1972 act does not exclude the power for ministers to withdraw from

the EU treaties, and that section two of the 1972 act actually caters

for the exercise of such a power. Today, by a majority of 8-3, the

Supreme Court rules that the Government cannot trigger Article 50

without an act of Parliament authorising it to do so. Put

briefly, the reasons given in a judgment written by all eight

justices in the majority are as follows - section two of the 1972

act provides that, whenever EU institutions make new laws, those

new laws become part of UK law. The 1972 act therefore makes EU law an

independent source of EU law until Parliament decides otherwise.

Therefore, when the UK withdraws from the EU treaties, a source of UK

law will be cut off. Further, certain rights enjoyed by UK

citizens will be changed. Therefore, the Government cannot trigger

Article 50 without Parliament authorising that course. We reject

the Government's argument that section two caters for the

possibility of the Government withdrawing from EU treaties. There

is a vital difference between changes in UK law resulting from

changes in EU law, and those are authorised by section two, and

changes in UK law resulting from withdrawal from the EU treaties.

Withdrawal affects a fundamental change by cutting off be source of

EU law, as well as changing legal rights. The UK's constitutional

arrangements requires such changes to be clearly authorised by

Parliament, and the 1972 act does not do that. Indeed, it has the

opposite effect. The referendum is of great little significance, but

the act of Parliament which established it did not say what

should happen as a result, so any change in the law to give effect to

the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the UK

constitution, namely by an act of Parliament. To proceed otherwise

would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching

back many centuries. The dissenting justices consider the Government can

trigger Article 50 without an authorising act of Parliament. Their

view is that the 1972 act, taken with the 2008 act, renders the

domestic effect of EU law conditional on the EU treaties

applying to the UK. In their view, Parliament has not imposed any

limitation on the Government's prerogative power to withdraw from

the treaties, and if Article 50 is triggered, EU law will cease to have

effect in UK law in accordance with the 1972 and 2008 acts. On the

devolution issues, the court unanimously rules that UK ministers

are not legally compelled to consult the devolved legislatures before

triggering Article 50. The devolution statutes were enacted on

the assumption that the UK would be a member of the EU, but they do not

require it. Relations with the EU are a matter for the UK Government.

The convention plays an important part in the operation of the UK

constitution, but the policing of its scope and its operation is not a

matter for the courts. We thank all those who have played a part in

helping us determine these important legal questions. Copies of the full

judgment and of the summary version are now available on the Supreme

Court website. The court is now adjourned.

So that is Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court, delivering

that judgment, which makes legal, constitutional and political

history, and as many people had speculated, the Government have lost

this case, 8-3 was the decision. There were 11 Supreme Court Justices

hearing it. Initially, some people said that the law on this was pretty

clear, but it might even be an 11-0 result against the Government, but

it is a split judgment, 8-3. Lord Neuberger was making it clear that

he believes that, because the British Parliament enshrined EU law

into British law and gave British citizens rights, then only

Parliament can take away those rights that it has conferred. And he

said, to proceed otherwise, in other words for Parliament not to be the

one that triggers Article 50, would be a breach of settled

constitutional principles stretching back many centuries. So that

judgment was very clear. Let's get some thoughts on it from our legal

affairs correspondent Clive Coleman, who has a copy of the full judgment,

which I know you will be ploughing through later on! But we have just

got the five minute summary there, and it was pretty much as we

expected, the Government all along were not really expected to win

here. No, the Government face a major problem in this case,

essentially arguing against Parliamentary sovereignty. We don't

have a written constitution in this country, but the founding principle

of our constitutional arrangement is that Parliament is sovereign,

Parliament creates the laws, and only Parliament camera move those

laws, and that was the real problem for the off. Some thought that I

come and very ingenious, arguing that effectively the rights

enshrined were not nailed down statutory rights. -- some thought

that the Government had a very ingenious argument. A treaty is

something where the royal prerogative can be used, it can be

used to reach in and remove those rights. The Supreme Court has this

morning, by a majority of 8-3, said that is not the case, these are

rights enshrined in UK law... And here is the Attorney General for the

Government. I want to thank the Supreme Court

for the careful consideration they have given to this matter. It is a

case that it was wholly appropriate for the highest court in the land to

decide. Of course, the Government is disappointed with the outcome. But

we had the good fortune to live in a country where everyone, every

individual, every organisation, even government, is subject to the rule

of law. So the Government will comply with the judgment of the

court and do all that is necessary to implement it.

The court has been very clear throughout the hearing of this case

that it has not been deciding whether the United Kingdom should or

should not leave the European Union. The people of the United Kingdom

have already made that decision. And now enacting that decision will be a

political matter and not a legal matter. And so, the Secretary of

State for Exiting the European Union will make a further statement in

Parliament later today. Thank you very much indeed. So that's Jeremy

Wright, the Attorney-General, speaking there on behalf of the

Government with immediate reaction to that decision, that judgement

from the Supreme Court that, eight to three judgement by the 11 Supreme

Court justices that it is Parliament that has to trigger Article 50. The

Government cannot do it alone through its prerogative powers as it

wanted to. Jeremy Wright, the Attorney-General saying it was

wholly appropriate for the highest court in the land to hear this and

in That the Government will comply and do that is needed now to trigger

Article 50. We gather that the Government already have several

pieces of draft legislation that they're planning to put to

Parliament. They will chose which Draft Bill they put to Parliament,

depending on the exact wording of the judgement when they've had a

chance to read all the details of the judgement itself. The Prime

Minister, Theresa May, we gather was given a copy of the judgement at

9.15am so she knew ahead of Lord Neuberger telling us, she knew that

decision. So that's the latest from the Supreme Court, Victoria, 8-3 is

the decision. Let's just have a another listen in. This is the

solicitor for another of the complainedants, David Greene.

-- complainants, David Greene. The rightful process as well as the role

that the law plays in ensuring a lawful political process. This has

been a unique and difficult fight where the legal issues were often

clouded by a polarized and politically charged backdrop. Yet,

as has been made clear by the Supreme Court and the divisional

court, this is a case not about whether we should withdraw from the

European Union, but about the constitution of the UK and the

relationship between Parliament and Government. The result is a

reassertion, by the court, that we live this a Parliamentary democracy

in which having been elected, our MPs in Parliament have the sovereign

power to grant rights and remove them. A power only constricted by

consideration of Human Rights and the rule of law. These rights affect

people's lives, family lives, where they live, where they work, their

very right-to-work in this country, they are vital rights in day-to-day

life. The court has decided that the rights attaching to our membership

of the European Union, were given by Parliament and can only be taken

away by Parliament. This is a victory for democracy and the rule

of law. We should all welcome it. Some have asked what is point of

this judgement now that the Prime Minister has said she will give

Parliament a vote on the Brexit deal after negotiations? We can speculate

that she may not have done so had not the cases of my client and Gina

Miller been brought to the court. Is Mrs May's recent concession

sufficient? The answer is no. Having served the Article 50 notice we will

withdraw from the union on the second anniversary whether a deal is

done or not and whether Parliament approves it or not. Parliament may

then be left with a choice - vote yes for the deal put to them or we

leave with no deal at all. The time for the vote then is now. On the

principle of withdrawal and the inevitable removal of citizens'

rights that will follow both for citizens here and indeed, UK

citizens in the European Union. In considering an Article 50 statute,

we are sure that MPs will have those rights in mind. Finally, this is

also a victory for our judicial process, both my client and his co

claimant Gina Miller has received hate mail of a vile and threatening

nature, and yet have had their case heard and were treated by the courts

with the greatest respect. Judges were subject to intense media

scrutiny and indim tation. A determination has been made based

purely on the legal issues which is as it should be. The judges are not

the enemies of the people. They are for the people to stop arbitrary

action by a Government. The Government and the lorge chancellor

should today confirm its unquestioning supporting for the

rights of the claimants in this case and their respect for the court's

decision this. Is a victory for Parliamentary democracy and the rule

of law and whatever changes we are about to face, as a result of

Brexit, it is reassuring that the sacred principles have today been

reaffirmed and will hopefully endure. Thank you.

So that's David Greene who is a solicitor for one of the claimants,

a hairdresser, along with Gina Miller, the businesswoman who

originally brought this case saying that Parliament should decide on

this. He said it was a victory for democracy and the rule of law. Let's

listen in. We've got another of the participants in the case. Involved

in this historic case since the outset representing the two million

or so British citizens who live in other parts of Europe. We are

delighted and relieved by the decision of the Supreme Court today.

There can now be proper, control by the MPs, the British people elect

over the process of the UK leaving the EU. Together with three million

nationals of other European countries who live here, we are the

people who will be most profoundly affected by all of this. Everything

people in Britain take for granted in their daily lives rests for us,

on our being EU citizens. From being able to work, to accessing vital

healthcare and our children's education. Let me give you an

example. Healthcare is absolutely key. Many UK pensioners are entitled

to join the healthcare systems of the countries in which they live.

These rights would be lost and thousands of UK expatriates unable

to continue to receive the healthcare to which they are

entitled. My friend Paul from the village we live in, sadly now

deceased, lived in Exeter four-and-a-half years because the

French healthcare system was able to provide him with treatment that our

wonderful NHS was not able to do. I have cancer for the third time and

yet treatment in France. So it is a matter of life or death. Despite

this, a large number of us would not permit me to vote in the referendum

at all. Many of us now face losing our basic citizenship rights without

ever having a say so. The rights of these millions of people went

largely overlooked in the referendum. Proper Parliamentary

scrut nigh now offers the best chance for our circumstances to be

considered in the lead up to the Brexit negotiations. This is the

human side of Brexit. We would urge the Government not to use us as

bargaining chips. We will be calling on the Government and the European

Commission to ensure hard guarantees are put in place about what the

future holds for such a large number of ordinary people. We ask that

governments across the EU do the same. I would like to thank our

excellent legal team and the 11 Supreme Court justices. That's John

Shaw. He is from an organisation called Fair Deal For Ex-pats. You

have been watching history being made by 8-3, the Supreme Court

zwrisz ruled that the Government cannot trigger Article 50, that's

the process of leaving the EU, without an Act of Parliament. Let's

go to Norman, our political guru, reaction from the Labour leader,

Jeremy Corbyn. Hi Vic. So Jeremy Corbyn has put out a statement. The

significant thing as expected. He says Labour will not frustrate the

process for invoking Article 50 Article 50. So Labour will not vote

against Article 50. However, here is the but. Let's cross back. Gina

Miller is probably just talking now. 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, we have elected, will rightfully have the

opportunity to bring their invaluable experience and expertise

to bear in helping the Government select the best course if in the

forthcoming Brexit negotiations. Negotiations that will frame our

place in the world and all our destinies to come. There is no doubt

that Brexit is the most decisive, divisive issue of a generation. But

this case was about the legal process, not politics. Today's

decision has created legal certainty based on our democratic process and

provides the legal foundations for the Government to trigger Article

50. I want to express my gratitude to the Supreme Court, my team, Lord

Pannick and my other counsel for being to conduct themselves with

such integrity and thoughtfulness in the face of extraordinary and

unwarranted criticism. In Britain, we are lucky, we are fortunate to

have the ability to voice legitimate concerns and views as part of a

shared society. I have therefore been shocked by the levels of

personal abuse that I have received from many quarters over the last

seven months for simply bringing and asking a legitimate question. I

sincerely hope that going forwards people who stand in positions of

power and profile are much quicker in condemning those who cross the

lines of common decency and mutual respect. Lastly, I would like to

wholeheartedly thank those who have sent me the most heart warming

messages of support. They have truly helped to bolster me in this most

arduous process. Let's go back to Norman. You were

explaining how Labour are going to approach this historic ruling,

Norman. Yeah. Yeah. The key thing to understand is that Labour are not

going to oppose triggering Article 50. But Jeremy Corbyn has set out a

range of amendments which he is going to table. Let me run you

through them. There are three key amendments. Amendment one is he will

press for tariff-free access to the single market. Amendment two is a

guarantee of workers rights. Both those can probably be agreed by

Theresa May. The killer amendment will be around what he calls a

meaningful vote. What does that mean? It means that Theresa May has

promised there will be a vote at the end of the whole Brexit process on

the deal she negotiates. Now, the view in Team Corbyn, that's not good

enough because basically, it will be a take it or leave it deal. What

Labour will try and press for is a vote, before Mrs May signs on the

dotted line. So MPs will get a chance, before Mrs May as it were,

takes us out of the European Union, to say, "Hang on. That deal is not

good enough. Go back and get a better deal." That's the critical

amendment which Labour are going to table if it is expected we get this

Government Bill. The short Bill. The other reaction is from the Liberal

Democrats. Tim Farron. The Liberal Democrats are clear we demand a vote

of the people on the final deal. So reiterating that he will press for a

second referendum to approve the final deal done by Mrs May. So we

are getting a sense of the likely battles ahead. Yes, Article 50, MPs

will probably, probably, approve that, but they are going to try and

insert in that all sorts of conditions. Labour to try and get

what they call a meaningful vote. And the Liberal Democrats, to try

and ensure there is a second referendum before we leave the EU.

So we're getting a sense of the battle lines ahead. So there will be

some wrangling then in the Commons. How could that impact on Theresa

May's timetable for triggering this whole thing by the end of March?

Well, I think the truth is, Theresa May is going to be able to trigger

Article 50 and yes, she is going to be able to do it by March because

although there are plenty of MPs who want to frame the way she goes about

this negotiations, there are amendments that are going to be

tabled. No MP, well there are a few, but not many MPs want to be seen to

be publicly seen, to be blocking Article 50. Because frankly it will

look as if they are defying the will of the people, that they are

spitting in the face of the referendum result. They don't want

that. Not many are going to vote against triggering Article 50. The

real political tussle is over the terms of any deal that Mrs May

eventually strikes with the EU. OK, thank you, Norman. I know you'll be

back with us, bringing more reaction.

By girl says elite judges voting in favour of the elite, this is

disgusting. -- Might. Brigid says, a sensible verdict, now it is up to

MPs to stop Brexit, they brave enough? Yes! There is not an

overview to stop Brexit, let's be realistic. I think that is probably

right, because the majority of MPs will vote in favour of Article 50,

Jeremy Corbyn is right to be tabling amendments, we will not have a

meaningful vote, but now we know there will be the hardest of hard

Brexits, they are prepared for us not to be in the single market, or

the customs union, for us to tumble out of the EU into a fantasy world

where they imagine we will strike global trade deals. We always have

been a global trading nation, we have to get some reality back into

this process, so at the end of it, if we get to a point where we have

the worst set of outcomes, which is where I feel we may end up, the

right thing to do then is to allow the British people, one small in an

ultra-democratic moment, to confirm whether they really want the hard

Brexit that they are likely to get, including the expats and

16-year-olds who did not get a vote last time. I want the reaction of

voters to the ruling from the Supreme Court this morning, then I

will ask you, if you were to vote before Britain leaves the EU, on the

deal that Theresa May has come up with. Your reaction first of all? I

am happy with the ruling, Parliament do need to have a vote on what

happens, it is Parliamentary sovereignty, that is what we voted

to leave the EU four. Tomasz Dominic team-mate pre-empted this by saying

she would give a vote to Parliament. -- Theresa May. The solicitor for

the Dos Santos made an interesting point, it is pretty clear that for

the Remain as, they regard this as a rearguard aim to stop Brexit, it is

somehow about stopping Brexit in them mines. What you think?

Absolutely the right decision, we are here because the Government

failed to plan adequately for what would happen in the event of Brexit.

They said they wouldn't use public money, but they used public money to

argue for one side, and they did not allow the civil service to plan

adequately for what happened if we left. I expected this from the

judges, so I am not wholly disappointed, but this is another

example of frustrating the will of the people. I just want it to carry

on. I will come back to you in a second, Norman, you have reaction

from the SNP. From the SNP, they say they are going to table 50 serious

and substantive amendments to Article 50. They are also calling

for the publication of a government white paper on its plans for Brexit,

something the Government has said they are not going to do. But 50

serious and substantive amendments. That is an awful lot of amendments,

I have to say, I suspect most of those will not be ruled in order by

these Speaker of the House of Commons, but the SNP signalling that

they want to lead the charge against the triggering of Article 50. We

know Nicola Sturgeon has already drawn up a fairly firm battle line,

warning that if Theresa May goes down the line of hard Brexit, it

makes another independence referendum more likely. But a signal

from the SNP that they are going to go toe to toe with the Government

over Article 50. Thank you very much, Owen Smith said the SNP just

showing off. 50? Really 50 substantive amendments? The EU has a

significant impact on jobs, I think about university jobs, the food and

tricks sector, the single market. These are threatened by this. If the

Government was confident in what it was doing, it would not be afraid of

Parliamentary scrutiny, so I am not sure why the Government was afraid

of Parliamentary scrutiny over actions that will have an impact on

each and every one of us in every part of the UK. What does it mean

for the devolved assemblies, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh

Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly? There will be some

annoyance, certainly in the Scottish Government, they would hoping the

Scottish Government would get a vote, so MSPs could express their

views on Brexit and Article 50, and we know the majority of them were

opposed. Now the Supreme Court is saying, no, legally, you don't have

to do that. I have not spoken to Nicola Sturgeon's people, but the

question for her is whether she decides to hold a symbolic vote

anyway, just to underscore opinion in Scotland, is that a way of

building momentum for her argument that if Theresa May is going for

hard Brexit, it will increase momentum for an independence

referendum? I mean, we don't know. I suspect she is sitting down now with

advisers and trying to work out, OK, how do we play this now that the

Supreme Court is saying we don't automatically get a vote? Let's talk

more to Hywel Williams from the Welsh party Plaid Cymru, Wales voted

to leave the EU, but his party wanted to remain. Gavin Robinson is

from the DUP, Northern Ireland voted to remain, his party wanted to

leave. I am aware I have not got reaction from half of the voters, we

will be with you, do not worry. Hywel Williams, first of all, UK

ministers, according to the Supreme Court Justices, do not legally have

to consult the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern

Ireland December - your reaction. I am disappointed, clearly the needs

of people in Wales have been overruled by central London, I think

we should all be properly consulted, and that is the unified view, by the

way, of both the governments and the official opposition in Wales, as we

showed yesterday when we published the white paper. Gavin? Today is the

last day of the Northern Ireland executive, we have a political

crisis at home, so even if there had been a requirement, we would not

have had an executive to respond to that. But it is not a surprising

outcome at all. The UK is not a federal state, we are a union, our

Attorney General was very clear back in November and December that there

was not one question which suggested that the devolved institutions would

have a veto on this process. My constituency voted to leave, our

country voted to leave, and the Government will seek can secure the

approval of Parliament to enact Article 50. Hywel Williams, what are

you going to do, if anything? We will be putting our own amendments

down. How many? I don't think it will be 50, but we will be

supporting our friends in the SNP and possibly also the Liberal

Democrats and the Labour Party. There will be enough MPs to vote to

trigger... It is a Parliamentary process, a matter of debate. You

cannot say nothing will change, who knows? Of course, it is a process,

not an event. People should realise this is going to go on for years,

and we will be having debates like this and stating a very consistent

standpoint. Back to Norman, we heard from the Government's lawyer not so

long ago that they were disappointed to lose this case, reaction from

Number Ten, Norman. We have got words now from Number Ten, a defiant

message despite losing today, and a determined message to press ahead

with legislation to trigger Article 50 by the end of March, as Mrs May

said. Let me read you the e-mail they have sent me, the British

people voted to leave the EU, and the Government will deliver on the

verdict, triggering Article 50 by the end of March. In other words, no

change, and it goes on to say, today's ruling does nothing to

change that. In effect, OK, the judges have spoken, we will proceed

with Plan A. We suspect? Respect the Supreme Court's decision and will

set out our next steps to Parliament shortly, which will probably be this

afternoon, when we will hear from David Davis, who was presumably

going to say, right, we are now going to introduce legislation as

the Supreme Court said. The key thing for many of us is to see the

bill, and all the indications are it is going to be an extraordinarily

short bill, two clauses, and the reason the Government have stripped

it back to this very minimal as piece of legislation is the less

words there are, the less Frasers, the less scope there is for MPs to

table amendments, and their hope is that it will prove very difficult

for opposition MPs to successfully get amendments tabled to this bill,

and that they will be ruled out of order by the clerk of the House of

Commons. That said, do not doubt how ingenious, there are loads of

lawyers in Parliament, they will find ways to table amendments, but

as far as possible the Government wants to minimise that. Watch out

for the timetable from David Davis, house with does the government

Matchroom. They have aids week stops to do that. -- how swift does the

Government move? There is a big EU jamboree in March, and they want to

get it done before that, or it will be a bit embarrassing. They have

really got seven weeks, they lose about a week for Parliamentary

recess, down to six weeks. I think what we will see is the Government

will probably clear out, -- will probably clear at House of Commons

business, leaving them acres of time to deal with the House of Lords, who

could be much more problematic. But that detail is what we would expect

or hope to get from David Davis this afternoon. But an interesting

message of defiance, I would suggest, from Number Ten. And you

will hear David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, live on BBC News, of

course. In the last hour, the UK

Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament must give authorisation

to the Government before Prime Minister Theresa May can

trigger Article 50 to formally Let's get reaction from our

politicians here and our voters from around the UK, from the SNP, Stephen

Gethins, your reaction? Well, obviously, it is good that

Parliament will have a say, disappointed that the devolved

administrations will not. Critically, the judge did say that

was a political decision. Are we a partnership of equals, do the

devolved administration still count? That is a decision for the

Government. Theresa Villiers, your government has lost, how do you

react? Lord Neuberger is right that this is about process, so the

important thing is for Parliament to get on and table Article 50

according to the timetable set by the Government, and that is how to

respect the result of the referendum. If the Government had

not appealed, you could be cracking on. I think we can still stick with

the timetable, the good news is the confirmation that this is not a

matter for the devolved assemblies. If the Supreme Court had ruled in a

different way... As a devolved parliament, you have to keep up with

the devolution set up. Critically, the UK Parliament has never

legislated for an area that is a responsibility of the Scottish

Parliament without the Scottish Parliament's consent. Do you think

we should give our consent to the areas under with the Scottish

Parliament's responsibility? It is clear that European Union matters

are reserved, that is clear in the settlement, and it would have been a

radical change to our constitution if the Supreme Court had said

something else. Our behalf of the Lib Dems, Tom Brake. This is a very

embarrassing result for the Government, because the Supreme

Court have said that if Theresa May had progressed in the way she had

wanted to, it would have been illegal. So no planning was actually

done in respect of this. What the Supreme Court has said, Parliament

is sovereign, if the Government are going to come forward with a one

line bill, I am not sure that sort of truly reflects what the Supreme

Court has said about Parliament being sovereign. So I hope that we

will not see the Government attempting to truncate the process,

to abandon all the Parliamentary conventions that exist around the

timetabling of bills, the time that is allowed to debate them, and I

think there is the potential, perhaps around the meaningful vote

that Jeremy Corbyn is talking about, to get Labour, the Liberal

Democrats, the SNP and indeed some Conservatives on board to really

challenge the Government on how they are intending to proceed. Suzanne

Evans, Ukip. I am disappointed to hear people continuing with their

threats to frustrate this process. The ball is in Parliament's court,

it is up to them to respect the will of the people and not keep

frustrating this. Please, do what the people wanted you to do, let's

get out of the EU as soon as possible. Reaction from you as a

voter, good morning. I think the crucial thing to recognise is that

this Government does not like scrutiny, we found that yesterday

with the Trident misfire. It doesn't like questions, and it doesn't like

looking at amendments. It is crucial that Parliament have that ability to

proposed amendments to bills. If it is a one line bill, the Government

is being pretty much and democratic as anything. -- undemocratic.

What about yourself? I'm pleased with the judgement. It is the common

sense thing to do, but the work will come after and accept that we have

got to trigger Article 50, but that's the process. That's when the

work starts. We need to get as much into this Bill that's coming out

that enables us to fight. To fight what? Well, I don't particularly

want to live in our British kay men islands. I want it to be a country

that has industry, that we can people have rights, workers rights,

all the things that we got under the European Union. You voted Leave. How

do you react to the ruling today? I come from an area what's been

blighted, blighted by EU rules. It lost out considerably and a lot of

people I know have voted Brexit and supported Ukip purely because for

them Labour hasn't represented them. OK. In terms of the ruling today...

I will bring it back to that. I think technically, the Government

has the ruling, the Government has won because it is still going to

happen. It's only a few lead weights along the way. You can place as many

clauses as you wish. The Government is determined that it will be no

more than two inserted. She wants complete clarity upon this because

people in general within the country as a whole, we're tired of the

jargon. What's best for us? We know what's best for us. We're sick of

the nanny state and we just want to hopefully go along with the correct

procedure. I'm quite supportive of what the Government is trying to do

because I think they're trying to be honest with people in the only way

she can be, Theresa May, I don't think she is a bad Prime Minister. I

supported Remain. I think the fact that the unelected House of Lords

will have a vote and the Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament won't is

a disgrace. Personally very disappointed to hear that from

Teresa Villiers who was our Secretary of State for Northern

Ireland, who knows the hard Brexit is against our interests and I think

it is another example of the disdain that this Tory Government and the

last one has shown for Northern Ireland in particular and the

devolved regions. I'm going to say thank you to our

guests. Thank you for time and your patience. We watched history being

made. Let's go back to the Supreme Court and Ben Brown.

Yes, Victoria, I've got two of the key lawyers with me here from this

case. The lawyers representing the two claimants, Gina Miller the

business come and the hairdresser. James, represents Gina Miller,

solicitor for Gina Miller and David Greene is a solicitor. You must be

delighted, an 8-3 majority? Very, very pleased. Right decision, but

very pleased. You can never predict anything, but relieved as well. What

about you David, 8-3, were you maybe hoping for a unanimous decision from

the justices? From a law of point of view, it doesn't matter whether it

is majority or not, that's the decision is majority. That judges

are willing and do express their views is a great part of the

process. We had an e-mail into the Victoria Derbyshire programme from a

viewer saying, "Why do I bother to vote when you have all this legal

process?" People think they voted in a referendum for a result and it has

been challenged in the courts? We made it clear and the courts made it

clear, this is not about shall we withdraw or stay in? It is not about

the Brexit or the remain argument. It is purely a point of law and this

is about people's rights. I think the message we should get from this,

it is about people's rights. For instance, citizens living in France,

what are their rights? UK citizens living in France, what does the

future hold for them? What about EU citizens living here. It is about

family life and education and all those things that affect, this is

about rights and individual rights. As I have said previously, I think

what the Parliament should be doing is looking at those rights when they

consider these issues. It may not be re-running the referendum, James,

but it might delay the implementation, the triggering of

Article 50 and that will anger some people? Well, it won't delay the

triggering at all. The courts made it clear they could accommodate

their timetable to the Government's timetable. The Government said they

wanted to trigger Article 50 by the end of 2016 and the court said they

will have our process done by then. The Government said they want to do

it by March and the courts have made sure that their judgement is

received in plenty of time to allow president Government to do what it

wishes to do. There has been huge pressure on the judges. Enemies of

the people was what they were called after the High Court decision and

your client Gina Miller, had death threats. A lot of pressure? Yes, and

regrettable. As we heard Gina say just now, very regrettable, very

upsetting. We should be celebrating this process. It is part of our

constitution, the separation of powers is part of the constitution.

We all cherish and all citizens in this country cherish and we should

be celebrating this process rather than again grating it. You must be

glad and your clients must be glad, not only that they've won, but that

it's over. Indeed. It's over, but obviously delighted with the result,

but even if the result had gone the other way, it is all about the

process and what we have had here is a properly regulated process to get

to an answer. And that's what matters. As I said, it is not about

going in or out, it is about the process and the rule of law. And

that's what we've achieved. All right, very good to talk to you

both. Congratulations from your point of view on the result.

Two of the key solicitors in this case and celebrating that 8-3

judgement which they will see as a victory.

It is 10.22am. Reaction coming in thick and fast. Let's talk to Keir

Starmer. Good morning to you Sir Keir Starmer. We hear Labour will

table three amendments, the most tricky a meaningful vote at end of

the negotiations. Can you explain to our audience in lay man's terms what

that means, please? Firstly, we welcome the judgement. It is really

important that Parliament has a proper role. If it is going to have

a proper role we need a white paper that sets out the objectives. I know

we had a speech, but we need a formal document setting out what the

Government is seeking to achieve. We need an ability to hold the

Government to account during the two years and Parliament needs a say on

the outcome because that's meaningful involvement. The Prime

Minister said in her speech that she will offer a vote to Parliament on

the final deal. We need to make sure that's a meaningful vote and there

is an anxiety if it is a vote between the deal on the table and no

deal that wouldn't be meaningful. Meaningful. This is about making

sure now it is established that Parliament should have a proper

role, that it is a role that means something. OK. I'm sorry to be

stupid, but what do you mean by meaningful? We have got to have a

vote at a point in which beck still influence the outcome. Not simply,

I'm concerned that the Prime Minister might say here is the deal,

take it or leave it. It has got to be an appropriate point to make sure

there is a degree of influence over the outcome. So you can say this

deal is not good enough Mrs May, go back and get a better one? I hope

that the Government will seek the best deal for Britain and be able to

bring it back to Parliament in a form that is supportable across the

House in the best interests and in the national interest. That's what

we hull should all ed aiming for, but given that we have got the

objectives, we need to test whether the Prime Minister has achieved what

she set out it achieve and take a decision then, but what we can't

have is very important ruling today, constitutional ruling, telling us

that Parliament must have a proper role and then attempt by the

Government to minimise the role of Parliament. It has got to be a full

and meaningful role. In the end, is your leader going to tell your

colleagues, you and your colleagues, to vote to trigger Article 50 at the

end of March? Many of my colleagues and I campaigned passionately to

stay in the EU. But we accept and respect the outcome and that means

that we will not seek to frustrate the process. OK. So those Labour MPs

and we've spoken to some already who are going to vote against. Those

Labour MPs who rebel, what will happen to them? Well, we haven't

made decision about precise voting. We haven't decided how many

amendments we will put down. We're having discussions with colleagues.

I would just say this - this is a difficult set of decisions for many

colleagues who feel very strongly about these issues. And we're

handling it cold lej atly and talking about it in the Labour

Party. What do you say to voters who voted to leave the European Union,

who are watching this ruling this morning and still saying, "Just get

on with it." Well, frankly, the Prime Minister could have got on

with it 82 days ago. We had the High Court ruling 82 days ago. The Prime

Minister could have said that ruling has gone against me, I must involve

Parliament, let's just get on with it. We've delayed to this point

purely because the Prime Minister wanted to have an appeal to try and

stop Parliament having a vote. And so... It sounds like you want to

delay it more? If it lies anywhere, it lies with the Prime Minister

because we could have been having this Bill in Parliament 82 days ago.

Trying to lay any sense of the delay at the floor of the Labour Party

when it is the Prime Minister who has taken 82 days to delay by having

this appeal at taxpayers cost I might add, it is a little bit

unfair. We simply say that Parliament should have a proper role

and meaningful role and that's what the Supreme Court ruled and get on

with it. Let's have that meaningful role. What adjectives would you use

to describe the way Jeremy Corbyn has been handling Brexit in the last

weeks and months? Well, we have been clear that we accept the result. We

have been clear that the priority for us is jobs and the economy. And

because that's so important to working people, to businesses across

the country, I have been across the whole of the UK talking to

businesses, they're concerned about things like tariffs, about making

sure that trade isn't anymore difficult in the few fewer than it

is now and we have been been standing up and making the case for

them and trade unions, if you look at the messages and the position, it

is to respect the outcome, but make sure, make sure that the new

relationship between the UK and the EU is the right relationship and it

actually works for businesses, for communities, and for working people

up and down the country. Has your boss handled it well? Well, I think

we have handled it well, but I'm not pretending, I'm not pretending that

this is easy for colleagues across the Labour Party. We were a party

that campaigned to remain in the EU. I campaigned to remain in. We're

accepting the result. We have two-thirds of our MPs in

constituencies that voted to leave the EU and one-third in

constituencies that voted to remain. Of course, that means there are

strongly held views and I'm not pretending they aren't there, but I

do think they have to be seen in their context. This isn't a

political split in any traditional sense, it is a party working through

a series of difficult situations with its MPs.

OK, thank you very much for your time, we appreciate it. That was Sir

Keir Starmer. We have some Labour voters and some ex-Labour voters.

Let me ask you how you think Jeremy Corbyn handled Brexit in the last

few weeks and months. I think that he is in a very difficult situation.

I think that half the Labour voters voted in and half voted out. He got

63% of Labour voters voted in. But I think in Labour heartlands it is

very difficult for him and I think that he's just trying to work his

way through it. I think he accepts that we have to trigger Article 50.

But it is then what happens from that point onwards that we have to

worry about, you know. He is leader of her majesty's sop circumstances.

It is all well and good, he has to work things out, but we have to deal

with the issues here and now. I disagree. I feel like we don't want

people who voted Leave to block the process. What Jeremy Corbyn is doing

is correct, it is to go through. He is trying toen sure it is done

properly. The ruling today was, I was happy with the ruling and I feel

it is unfair to say this whole ruling is delaying the process and

upsetting leave voters when at the end of the day Leave voters were

coerced into voting for something that the Government couldn't legally

provide. Whose fault is that? The leave campaigners or the people who

wanted to Remain? You voted Ukip at the last election? Corbyn is trying

to hold together a party. Part of the party wanted to vote in. Part of

it wanted to vote out. Whether it was 2-1, whatever. He's trying to

hold together a party to keep that strong opposition. But eventually if

it does come to a 2020 election, they will have to vote with their

feet whether they like it or not. They will be swayed to vote one way

or the other. If their constituents voted out and they are an in person,

that's unfortunate because under the Old Labour system, they were given

lists of people who they could vote for to represent them in their

constituency and now that's backfiring on them. Now, he can't

get the people he wants, who he has and what he has as his values.

45 minutes ago, the news that the Government lost its historic battle

in the Supreme Court, Parliament will have to give consent of the

tree -- triggering of Article 50. It will not overturn the referendum

result, which saw the UK vote to leave the EU, but it determines

which course is lawful. We can talk to John Whittingdale, former Culture

Secretary, Conservative MP, a high profile leave campaigner. Iain

Duncan Smith is a former Conservative leader and former Work

and Pensions Secretary, he has just finished it done like playing a

five-a-side football match, it says here! Were you not watching the

historic ruling? I watched a replay of it! I have got so more people to

introduce, not just MPs, peers will get a vote, so Lord Young boat and

Leave, and Baroness Kramer voted remain. -- voted. We have heard that

this is damaging, what do you say? I am very relaxed about the decision,

there is a frustration amongst people who voted leave that we have

not made much progress towards it, but I am pleased that the Government

has made clear we will be triggering Article 50, I hope they bill will be

passed as quickly as possible, and the one thing which would have

potentially held up the process would have been if the Supreme Court

had ruled that we had to consult all the devolved administrations, the

nations and regions, but they have said that is not necessary. So I

think the timetable can be achieved. Iain Duncan Smith, your reaction to

the ruling. Well, this is in two parts, you have to understand that

there is the European issue, but also the issue about who is supreme,

Parliament or the court. This is the easy right now, so I was intrigued

that it was a split judgment. I am disappointed that they have told

parliament how to run their business, after all there was a vote

overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50, so they have stepped into New

Territories whereby they are telling Parliament what to do. -- into new

territory. That leads to further constitutional questions. The second

element, in terms of the European side of it, they were ruling on two

issues, they have upheld the English High Court ruling that Parliament

should have a vote, and they have gone slightly further. I am

disappointed they have taken the step because there are wider

constitutional implications. As John said, I expect the Government to

bring forward a very simple bill, and to get it through both Houses of

Parliament. The Lords should not try and frustrate the vote that was in

the House of Commons late last year, and I think we will trigger Article

50 in time, the end of March deadline. Ken Clarke is here as

well, you must be delighted, but from what I am hearing from your

colleagues, it changes nothing. Well, it does restore Parliamentary

democracy, wholly predictable, I don't know why the Government

bothered to resist it. What they were trying to do was minimise

discussion, as we have heard, they will try to have a bill of two lines

so that you don't talk about it. Are we going to have new tariffs?

Regulatory barriers? Fisheries policies? What is the position of

continental students? No, the public have decided, no two Cabinet

ministers agree about any of those things, but now Parliament is not

allowed to talk about it. It won't last, and once Parliament gets under

way, if the Government actually eliminates discussion on the Act of

Parliament in order to rush on with it, Parliament, I trust, will start

holding the Government to account - the policies, the objectives it is

pursuing, and we have got here is to go. The idea that Parliament is

suspended for two and a half years, and when the Government has done a

deal, then Parliament can vote, that is about the strangest proposal I

have heard. Ian Duncan Smith is tied to come back. Kent knows very well

we are bringing forward the repeal of the 1972 European Communities

Act, covering every single element of our relationship with the

European Union, so I don't quite understand, going forward, there

will be a vast amount of the date in both Houses of Parliament beyond

whatever this very simple bill may be, this is only about triggering

Article 50. We will have more than ample discussion about elements that

the Government may be engaged in, what Parliament think they should or

should not do, that will all be there, as he knows, and I know,

having both been involved in Maastricht, the public will be sick

and tired of debating it. You and I have debated these things very

often, as you say! The Great Repeal Bill, apparently we are not go to

change any of the rules, we are getting rid of the European rules,

but we can't think of one we want to change at the moment, so we're

making them all British rules. We will take a long time debating

whether they should be British or European rules. I hope it gives the

opportunity not just for discussion, but normally you and I have been in

government together for four years, we were in government because we

could command a majority in parliament for the policies we are

pursuing. Where the Great Repeal Bill will give us the opportunity to

make the Government and Strobel for the policy it is pursuing an

environmental issues. -- answerable. Well, it will. It won't, in the way

it was described, it was a very good slogan at the party conference. Why

don't we have ordinary Parliamentary democracy? When you were opposing

Maastricht, you took up weeks and weeks and weeks of Parliamentary

time trying to defeat the Government on its policy. You are saying I am

ordered to abandon my lifelong convictions and not challenge the

Government. If you have lost this referendum, you would be behaving in

the way you did up to Maastricht. Well, Ken, I fully agree with you!

If we had won in Maastricht, nothing would have happened, because we

could not have gone back to the EU and said, sorry, we don't agree any

more, that deal was done. You could have stopped it. But Ken, you know

very well, in a way Parliament works, the repeal of the 1972

European Communities Act will allow you to debate and amend anything you

like on every element of this, so you and I both know there will be ad

nauseam debate about this, and we will both be, I'm sure, in studios

discussing how Parliament voted the night before more than we want to

be! Let me bring in the voters from around the UK, listening to former

Conservative colleagues debating this. When you hear Iain Duncan

Smith and Ken Clarke talking about this in these terms, what are you

thinking? That epitomises the problem with the referendum debate

as a whole. It became about personalities. Now, the British

public made their decision, and I think what is important now is that

there is enough scrutiny in the process to make sure that the

decision is not one that is of self harm to the country. I think the

decision today shows that. There is no political agenda from the judges,

they are not self appointed, that is very dangerous language, and you

start to play with fire when you get into this territory. We need to make

sure the decision is respected. Carl, sorry, Carl, go ahead. I think

that just any issue of debate about delaying it or trying to get in a

way of it, I don't think that is particularly relevant. I don't think

any politician worth their salt is really wanting to stop it, well,

there are a few, sorry. You will vote against it, Ken Clarke. I

always go with my best judgment in the national interest, I will vote

against, but I will be a tiny minority of eccentrics! Look at the

Daily Mail, the modern politicians, they look at opinion polls, they are

ordered to vote. Once we have got past that process, as somebody has

just said, the devil is in the detail. The referendum was the

Borazon Dave show, we didn't discuss fisheries policies. -- Boris and

Dave. The result of the referendum was to leave, I believe in

democracy, the decision was to leave, and my view is that we have

to back the result of the referendum. Baroness Kramer, for

give me, but some of our audience will be thinking, what has it got to

do with you two? We worked together in the mid 1980s, and our views have

not changed one whit, we had the same argument back then. It has a

great deal to do with me and Baroness Kramer, we are citizens of

the UK. I voted, 40 years ago, to enter a free-trade area. Nobody ever

asked me, from that day until this, whether I wanted to be part even of

the EU. What are you going to do when this gets to the Lords? I am

going to vote for leave, I will do, and if the Lords as a whole do not

vote in that way, they will be bringing on Lords reform much

quicker. The vote that will come to the Lords will not be yes or no, but

whether or not we scrutinise this, and whether we try to introduce

amendments. I will be strongly voting to amend, because you only

have to listen, almost everybody who voted for Brexit had a different

view of what it was going to deliver, and I think the British

people need to see the deal at the end, and the British people that

need to make a final decision. You are agreeing with Baroness Kramer.

We are elected to parliament to have a debate and hold the Government to

account, about important decisions. That is not to say that we should

thwart the referendum, we must uphold the referendum result. The

other thing we should be aware of is that once Article 50 is triggered,

this is a one-way process. There is not a stop or handbrake, we are

going to be leaving from that point, so it is important that everyone

involved recognises that, and we have the opportunity to investigate

the process in the interests of constituents. Now until the end of

March, is that enough time? It is the key window to have a debate, but

there will be two more years after that to hold the Government to

account. These sectors that are affected... The Lords are an

amending body, we are not elected, we are appointed. This is a yes or

no decision, and when legislation goes through, there is time to

amend, but this is not the right time for the Lords to start saying

no. Baroness Kramer? It is a key thing to amend, and we will be

looking to amend. He is saying it is the wrong time. Entirely the wrong

time! There will be some who take that view, many others in the Lords

are very active and they say that it is absolutely our role, our job, the

reason we are there is to scrutinise and improve. Are you prepared for

the criticism which will undoubtedly come, where opponents will say you

are unelected, trying to thwart the will of the people? I have taken an

oath to scrutinise and to improve, and others will take that view.

These are the words - scrutinise and improve, not to change, but this is

yes or no. Improvement is amending, and whether we succeed or not is an

entirely different issue, but what is important is this is that it is a

bigger message to the Government today, which is that it has to

recognise the importance of Parliamentary democracy, and we have

seen this government before trying to get around Parliamentary

democracy, trying to sideline Parliament, and it will be crucial.

We talked about the Great Repeal Bill, there will be a lot of

discussions about whether it has clauses that let the Government do

exactly what it wants. It is the wrong title, it is not going to

repeal anything, is it? It is just going to subsume things into British

law. John Whittingdale... All kinds of things, this is a clear message,

we live in a Parliamentary democracy, Parliament has that

responsibility. Democracy is the word. The idea that Parliament is

not talking about the EU and how we leave is ridiculous, we debated

every week. I sit on the Brexit select committee in Parliament which

is scrutinising the Government's process for negotiating exit. Now,

the House of Commons is an elected chamber, and the House of Lords has

to accept the will of the House of Commons. In this case it goes

further, both houses have to accept the will of the British people as

clearly expressed, and I have to say that I agree with David Young, if

the House of Lords tries to frustrate the will of people

expressed in the referendum, than I think the House of Lords is not

going to survive. Iain Duncan Smith. I agree completely with that, the

point here is that I am all for debate, we will have lots of debate,

we will have time for that, but what I think would be unacceptable is if

the Lords then decide to block this, because it was the decision of the

British public. Take the Lib Dem position, Baroness Kramer, they have

a handful of MPs in the House of Commons, but over a hundred peers in

the House of Lords, so they are disproportionately represented in

the Lords, and they shouldn't use that is proportionate representation

to thwart the will of the House of Commons ultimately. By all means

debated, but be very careful that the disproportion and position that

they have got should not be wheeled in deliberately to try and block the

will of the House of Commons and ultimately of the British people.

Try and use that power to amend and that's key. A final word. No one is

going to block in the House of Commons. I'm sure there will be lots

of general debate. The Government are trying to provide lots of

debate, the question is in the end the Government has to get

Parliament's approval for the policies it is pursuing, not the

details of the negotiations, but the objectives it's going to seek. It

hasn't decided, they haven't agreed amongst themselves what their

objectives are. Stop there. Stop there. Thank you very much and thank

you for your patience as well. So we've heard the view of various

Conservatives. Plus, of course, a Lib Dem peer, what about Labour?

Norman is at Westminster. Just recap their position, please, Norman?

Well, Jeremy Corbyn's position is that Labour MPs will not seek to

frustrate Article 50, but he does want to table serial key amendments.