24/01/2017 Victoria Derbyshire


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


One guaranteeing access to the single market, two ensuring workers


rights are protected and Labour are after what they call a meaningful


vote. What does that mean? The Government said OK, you can have a


vote at the end of the whole process when Theresa May has done a deal,


she will come back to the Commons and say, "Here it is, what do you


think?" MPs with vote for that or reject it and if they reject it, we


are walking away from the European Union with no deal. Labour wants to


have an opportunity to grab Mrs May by the collar at the last minute and


say, "Hang on, that's not good enough. You've got to go back to


Brussels and do better." But let's be honest, Labour are


profoundly divided over Brexit. I mean, you had Keir Starmer on saying


it is a very difficult issue for my colleagues. Oh boy, it is a really


difficult issue because the party is divided from the very top to the


bottom, through the Shadow Cabinet, through the Parliamentary party,


through ordinary parties, amongst Labour voters. Basically between


traditional working class Labour voters who are pro-Brexit,


protighter controls on I will immigration and the middle-class


supporters who by and large are pro the EU and Labour is trying to sort


of face both ways and you get a sense, I have been sent some e-mails


by some of the Labour Leave MPs who are signalling a warning to those


Labour MPs who might be tempted to vote against Article 50. Kate Howey


says, "If Labour MPs are seen to be frustrating the will of the people


by opposing Article 50 then they will lose their seats Q says Kate


Howey. Another MP says, "My colleagues in the House of Commons


need to realise if they are seen to frustrate the will of the British


people, Labour could find themselves in a position where they will never


form a Government again." Let's talk to four Labour MPs.


Mr Gapes and Mr Stringer voted to leave the EU. So, I mean when it


comes to you voting in the Commons, Graham Stringer, yes, to Article 50


or no to Article 50 Article 50? Obviously yes. I campaigned to come


out. We won the debate. The British people have decided, in all the


previous debates in the Commons, there was never a question that it


wasn't being handed over to the British people. Obviously Parliament


has to implement that. I'm pleased with the decision today. I


campaigned for this country to become a sof governing country and a


democracy again. So that means that Parliament should have a vote. OK.


Rushanara Ali? I'm going to make my decision based on what's in our


national economic interests. What is that? I represent a seat which


borders on Canary Wharf and the City of London, some 47,000 jobs in the


financial services are at risk. Thousands of jobs have an announced


by some of those sectors to leave our country. Now, in the end my


judgement will be based on whether we have access to the single market,


whether our rights are protected, we cannot have a race to the bottom.


Workers rights will be protected. Well, we will see about that. Those


would be the tests because people won't thank us whether they voted


for or against if we damage our economy and our prosperity going


forward. OK. Well, the referendum said we would leave the European


Union. It didn't say we would leave the customs union and leave the


single market. I think that we are going to be put on an escalator by


this process by the speech of Theresa May which basically


Parliament won't be able to stop and we will either be faced with a


position which is very bad for our economy and our national interests


or an even worse one of no deal at all. Does that mean you're going to


vote against triggering Article 50? I am going to vote against because


we have got no White Paper and no plan and once we are on the


escalator we can't stop it. It is a no from me. I replaced a Lib Dem in


Bermondsey and Southwark. I made a simple pledge to my constituents I


won't vote for anything I believe with harm their interests and we are


seeing the harm in my constituency from manufacturers and importers and


from the financial sector of the referendum result alone. What harm


are you seeing? Jobs will be moved to Frankfurt and Paris from my


constituency. I met with importers of Greek, Polish and Spanish


produce, they have already seen a 15% increase in their prices to


import goods as a result of the pound crashing since the referendum.


This is before we even get into the worst deal that Theresa May has


indicated she wants from the negotiations. What do you say to


your colleagues, Graham Stringer who will vote against the will of the


people? They didn't make those arguments. I have had the second


reading debate and those arguments were not made when we decided to


give the people the choice, it was all about the people having the


right to choose and the Labour Party recommended them to vote to stay and


they rejected that. The country is against all the predictions of those


people who wanted to remain. The economy has done very well since we


decided to leave partly because, no, but the preDibs was on the 24th June


the economy would go down to the tubes. We have been told repeatedly


that it is about the economy, it will be bad for the economy. All


predictions have been wrong. Reducing the value of the pound is


actually creating jobs. You're ignoring the evidence from this


gentleman's constituency. There will be pluses and minuses. They just


have to suck it up. There have been always been pluses and minuses in


the EU because jobs have been destroyed by the EU because of


regulations of different types. What I would like to say to all four of


you. Labour has this reputation of being spineless. The three of you,


thank you for taking a stand for the people in your constituencies. I


think Jeremy Corbyn is doing a very sensible thing in stating that


Labour MPs, you know, he might put the whip out, we don't know about


that yet, but it is his right as a party leader of a party that is


divided by this to let the people and the MPs vote according to their


consciences and their constituents. It is not a question of stopping the


EU, us leaving the EU, that will go through anyway, we know that, enough


of the Tories are going to vote that way anyway, so thank you to you


three for taking a stand. Without a coherent position of the Opposition


how can the Government be held to account? It is not going to happen


so you have got parties like the SNP or the Liberal Democrats providing


the opposition in place of Labour. This isn't a question of opposition


or Government for me, it's a question of the future of our


country in regards to what we get at the end of this deal. It's not a


question of just disagreeing with the Government for the sake of the


Government. I want to bring in another guest if I may? The case


against the Government has been led by an investment banger and


philanthropist, Gina Miller. They challenged the Government's


presumption that it had the right to trigger Article 50. One of the


supporters is Charlie mullens, the head of Pimlico Plumbers. He helped


fund the case. Hello Mr Mullens. Good morning. So even with MPs


getting a vote, ministers don't expect anything to change, the UK


will begin the process of leaving the EU, triggered at the end of


March, what was the point of it all? Whether they were legally entitled


to trigger Article 50. With Parliament involved hopefully we can


get a softer Brexit. That's your motivation. Do you think that's


realistic? Given what Mrs May has said? Well, yeah. I mean, of course,


it's realistic, I mean Theresa May and the Government can't just get on


with it now and do what they want and form an hard Brexit. We need to


do the best what's for the UK and for everybody in Britain and I


believe now that Parliament being involved that's what is going to


happen. A softer Brexit to you, means what? Well, ideally still


trade with the single market and still have free movement and still


trade with the customs unionment we don't cut ourselves off completely


from the EU. It would be madness to come away, 500 million customers,


now we can have a soft Brexit which would be better for everybody in


Britain. Remind us how you voted in the referendum? I'm a Remainor. Bev,


you want to talk to him. I think Graham Stringer is right, the


economy is doing fine, thank you. But don't loose sight of the fact


that we're paying down a deficit. You just said that imports have


reduced great because the pound has gone weaker. OK, twhaes we want. No,


no, I didn't say that. No, I said importing is costing more. It is not


that people are using... Fine and it costs more, we bring less in. You


cannot make chorizo in the UK. It is a Spanish produce. But this is an


English country. Go ahead. I'm from Redcar. In October 2015 we lost our


steelworks. Thousands of jobs. That was because the EU state aid rules


stopped our Government from saving the steelworks, your Government


didn't save your steelworks in 2009. What do you say to those people that


was the year that stopped them? If you think that outside of the


European Union we're going to be able to compete with Chinese imports


into the European Union then sadly, we're very much mistaken. There was


a risk that, you know, at the moment we haven't left. We have got two


years negotiations to come out of the European Union. We have got


another five years, manufacturing jobs in particular and steel are


lost whilst we even negotiate the new terms of any agreement. If we


stay in the EU, you will re-open Redcar steelworks? My position I


will be opposing triggering Article 50 but we're not in Government. You


never will be. I hope, I very much hope I will be.


The European Union actually put tariffs on Chinese steel that the


British Conservative Government, the British Conservative Government were


not in favour of that and the fact is, it's our national Government


that sold out Redcar. A final word. Hang on, a final word from Charlie


mullens. Sorry, it is a really bad line, what did you say? I was asking


you for your final word on funding this case. Final word is, the result


we got today was always going to be that way. We now need to move on and


get the best Brexit we can for the UK by getting Parliament involved


and now we just need to move on and Brexit. OK. Thank you very much.


Thank you. Thank you for coming on the programme. Thank you for your


patience and time this morning. Plenty more reaction to today's


Supreme Court result on today's BBC News. I'm back tomorrow. Have


It's just pain, but it doesn't feel like pain,


it feels much more violent, dark and exciting.


Download Subtitles