Commons motion 'will not impact Brexit court case'

A motion calling on the Government to unveil its Brexit plans will not impact a court case over the Prime Minister's right to trigger Article 50, the Supreme Court has heard.

Lord Pannick QC, who is opposing an appeal by the Government against a High Court ruling over Britain's exit from the EU, told the court's 11 justices that a Brexit motion debated in the Commons cannot alter the "law of the land".

The motion, which called on Theresa May to "publish the Government's plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked", was voted through in Parliament by a majority of 373.

Speaking on day three of the Government's Supreme Court appeal, Lord Pannick said: "Our submission is that a motion in Parliament can't affect the legal issues in this case.

"A motion in Parliament simply cannot rectify what is otherwise a legal deficiency in the appellant's case."

Earlier, he said that triggering Brexit will "frustrate or render insensible" a large number of UK laws and is a reason why Parliament must be involved in the notification process.

:: As it happened: Day three of Brexit appeal

James Eadie QC, representing the Government, insisted that Number 10 does have the legal power to use the royal prerogative to trigger Britain's exit from the EU - and rejected the suggestion that its Brexit strategy was an "affront" to parliamentary sovereignty.

Lord Pannick hit back, telling the justices: "Parliament is sovereign. What Parliament created, only Parliament can take away."

He added: "I invite the court not to accept any suggestion that the legal limits on ministers' powers are to be left to, or influenced by, political control - or Parliamentary control - short of an Act of Parliament."

The Supreme Court's 11 justices were also told by Scotland's most senior law officer that Holyrood should have "a voice" on Brexit.

Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC said he was not asking for a veto, but asserted that the Scottish Parliament is entitled to a vote before the triggering of Article 50.

Whether Scotland consented is "a matter of constitutional significance," he said.

Meanwhile, a lawyer representing a group of Northern Ireland politicians accused the Government of being "cavalier" over the extent of its prerogative powers to trigger Brexit.

David Scoffield QC told the court there is concern about "how withdrawal from the EU will uniquely effect Northern Ireland".

He claimed that in authorising Article 50, Number 10 would be "driving a wedge" between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Away from Supreme Court, police arrested a man in connection with threats made to Gina Miller - the businesswoman spearheading the Brexit legal challenge against the Government.