UK govt agrees under pressure to divulge Brexit plan details

“That sets the bounds to the use of the prerogative and precludes the UK Government from asserting a power to make significant changes to laws of the land by virtue of the prerogative”. “A motion in parliament can not effect the legal issue in this case”.

“Prior to the news yesterday we had been digesting nothing but upside surprises in the data, and markets had got themselves teed up for a softer exit scenario – wrongly, in my view”, said Cole.

Earlier today the anti-Brexit lawyer, acting on behalf of businesswoman Gina Miller, was slapped down in court by suggesting that the referendum had no legal backing.

At one stage, Pannick said that the judges were asking him questions that were created to “divine a goal, intention and effect from the act [2015 referendum act] that simply isn’t there”.

The People’s Challenge has raised over £150,000 to fight the case.

Lord Pannick QC was put through his paces by the Supreme Court judges on Wednesday morning in the most gripping session of the Article 50 appeal so far.

MPs then backed the changed motion calling on the Government to publish its Brexit plan and to trigger Article 50 before March 31, by 448 votes to 75.

Earlier, Pannick sought to turn U.K. Brexit Secretary David Davis’s words against him by highlighting an October 10 speech in which the cabinet member suggested that European Union laws built up over 40 years in Britain would disappear “on exit”.

The Supreme Court in London has heard that the “Royal Prerogative does not allow ministers to nullify statutory rights and obligations”.

“If the [UK government’s] prerogative powers can be used to short-circuit this dialogue, it’s to ignore the modern dynamic which we now have”.

Prime Minister Theresa May plans to launch European Union exit talks by the end of March using ancient powers known as royal prerogative, which enable decisions about joining or leaving worldwide treaties to be made without a parliamentary vote.

Sir Keir insisted Labour’s hands had not been tied because it will “challenge” the Government if the plan is too vague.

The case risks being referred to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which could be politically awkward for the Prime Minister.

She said the proposal was “eminently sensible and supportable”.

Her attorney general, Jeremy Wright, argued before an 11-judge panel that the power is “not an ancient relic” but instead “a fundamental pillar of our constitutional state”.

THE judges are expected to deliver their decision in the New Year.

Many politicians in May’s Conservative Party and some pro-Brexit newspapers say the courts would be overstepping their constitutional role if they ignored the express will of the people by putting obstacles in the government’s chosen path.

Prime Minister Theresa May has said she intends to trigger Article 50 by the end of March, and the government’s fear is that going through parliament could disrupt her timetable and give lawmakers opportunities to water down its Brexit plans.

Jeremy Wright, Britain’s attorney general, speaks at the “150 years of global humanitarian law: the United Kingdom perspective” event, in London, on 29 October 2014.

It has accepted a Labour motion which demanded Parliament should know the UK’s aims ahead of the invoking of Article 50.

MPs voted 461 to 89 in favor of the motion on Wednesday.