What is the Article 50 appeal, when is the Supreme Court ruling and what effect could it have on Brexit?
JUDGES are have ruled that MPs should vote on starting the Brexit process this morning.
Ministers appealed to the Supreme Court over a ruling that parliamentarians should get a say on triggering Article 50.
For live updates on the ruling follow our live blog.
Judges heard from the government last year after the High Court ruled there must be parliamentary approval before divorce proceedings are kicked off with the EU.
The appeal came after more than 200 business leaders urged PM Theresa May to get on with Brexit to avoid economic uncertainty.
We explain all you need to know about it:
What is the Article 50 appeal?
Last year, High Court judges ruled there must be parliamentary approval before Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty can be triggered and Britain can leave the EU.
The government argued it could do so without an act of Parliament, using executive powers. Pro-Europe campaigners said it couldn't and the judges agreed.
The case was brought to the High Court, by two claimants - investment manager Gina Miller and hairdresser Dier Dos Santos.
The ruling means a bill would have to be introduced in Parliament and Theresa May's timetable for Brexit could be blown off course.
She was hoping the High Court ruling would be overturned during an appeal at the Supreme Court - the highest judicial body in the country however the judges upheld the ruling.
The Brexit vote merely signalled the British public’s wish to leave the EU but did not in itself actually set the process in motion – that only begins when Article 50 of The Treaty of Lisbon is triggered.
When will we know the result of the Article 50 hearing?
The Supreme Court judges heard four days of evidence – the hearing started on Monday December 5 at 11am and finished on December 8.
They will then retire to make a decision about what happens next.
The judges are set to return a verdict on Tuesday January 24, and will be broadcast live.
All 11 Supreme Court Justices took their seats at 9.30am as Lord Neuberger gave a brief, five-minute summary of their decision.
In an unusual move all of the 11 Judges have sat on the case, in a sign of how important the decision is to the country.
The unprecedented move has not happened since 1876 when the court's predecessor, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords - which sat in Parliament - was established.
The chances of the government winning the appeal could go down to the wire, according to ministers.
And now it is thought the judges will agree with the High Court.
What if the Supreme Court upholds the High Court's decision?
Lawyers have said in the past that, ironically, the case could be further appealed to the European Court of Justice, but that this is highly unlikely.
If the Government chooses to accept the decision then Members of Parliament will get a vote on the timing of triggering Article 50 – and that is most likely to happen before March.
Leading lawyer Geoffrey Robertson predicted that MPs will vote against Brexit until there has been a second referendum.
If that’s the case, Brexit could be delayed until after the 2020 election but is looking increasingly unlikely.
What effect could the Article 50 ruling have on Brexit?
Theresa May plans to trigger Brexit by the end of March, but this could be thrown up in the air if the ruling sticks.
The Government have already drawn up plans for a bill that could be tabled to get Parliament’s support if they lose the case.
It argued that they had the right to trigger Brexit under so-called royal prerogative powers.
If Parliament had not wanted it used, the government argued, it would have said so in the 2015 European Union Referendum Act - the law that allowed the Brexit vote.
And the Scottish and Welsh Governments have now argued that they want to get involved too with how Brexit takes place, which could slow down the process even more.
If the government loses the appeal, they will forced to take a bill through the House.
Article 50: What it says
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.
The bill is likely to be short and worded in such a way that reduces the chance of it being amended and delayed by pro-EU MPs in the House of Commons who do not want Brexit.
Some MPs have warned that they will use debates in the House to try and elicit more information from the Prime Minister about what Brexit might look like.
Experts say it is very unlikely that MPs will block Brexit because they have a duty to respect the will of the people and their constituents.
This was shown in December 7's vote in the Commons where an overwhelming number of MPs backed Theresa May's plans to start the Brexit process by the end of March.
The PM’s pledge to deliver on June’s landmark referendum verdict was backed by a massive majority of 372.
The showdown vote – called by Mrs May to call pro-EU MPs bluff – was seen as the first crucial test of the House of Commons’ support for Britain’s EU departure, after MPs campaigned against by a ratio of two to one.
Despite the Premier’s comfortable victory, 89 MPs still voted against Brexit and her timetable to begin it by March 31, 2017.
And 60 more abstained, including 56 Labour MPs – leaving Brexiteer Tories to accuse them of “sabotaging democracy”.
What has happened at the Article 50 appeal?
The Supreme Court's top judge questioned whether a second vote on triggering Article 50 exit talks were now even needed on the third day of the appeal.
Hearing the government’s legal bid to press on with Brexit without a binding Commons bill to authorise it, Lord Neuberger said it would “seem a bit odd” to the man in the street if MPs were asked to go back and do it all again.
What is going on in the Article 50 Supreme Court case?
What’s it about?
THE hearing is all about who decides when and how Britain leaves the EU, the Government, Parliament or the people. The public voted for Brexit in the referendum but High Court judges ruled that MPs and lords should get a vote before the PM can trigger Article 50, which begins our exit. The Government is challenging that ruling.
Who’s involved?
THE original case was brought by an 11-strong group of Remainers led by financier Gina Miller. Her supporters raised £170,000 online to launch the hearing in October. Today’s appeal is a fight between lawyers for the Government, led by Attorney General Jeremy Wright, above, and the 11, who are represented by Dominic Chambers, QC.
What’s next?
THE judges are expected to deliver their decision in the New Year. If the appeal is allowed, the PM can start the Brexit process before the end of March as planned. But if not, it will throw her timetable into chaos. If MPs and peers start deliberately stalling the process, she may have no option but to call a snap General Election
It came after Lord Pannick QC said legislation would be needed to go through both Houses of Parliament, which could set the Brexit process back weeks.
In his concluding remarks to the court, he said: “the law is not altered by a motion in parliament. A motion in parliament cannot effect the legal issue in this case.”
But earlier this week the Government lawyer James Eadie had said that if it lost the appeal, ministers would put down a bill containing just a “one line” statement, which would be quicker.
Anti-Brexit lawyer Lord Pannick QC, acting on behalf of businesswoman Gina Miller, was slapped down in court by suggesting that the referendum had no legal backing.
Lord Pannick said that there were no powers that could nullify the 1972 Act that took Britain into the EU.
He said that the referendum was not legally binding, and it was not enough to start Brexit negotiations.
But the argument raised eyebrows, and Lord Neuberger suggested that the Referendum Act may have been enough to concede power to the people.
READ MORE
Theresa May’s plan for leaving the EU in tatters after judges rule Parliament needs approval on Article 50 in Brexit legal challenge
What is Article 50, why is it key to EU Brexit and will Parliament get to vote on it?
Theresa May uses first Tory conference speech as PM to vow Britain will quit the EU by April 2019
Conservatives could QUADRUPLE their majority in the Commons if Theresa May called a snap election