We will study the detail of the judgement in the High Court ruling that Parliament must vote on the triggering of Article 50.

We are very aware that the government will appeal this decision in the Supreme Court and we will wait for the outcome of that.

Parliament voted to give the people of the United Kingdom the opportunity to vote in a straight in/out referendum.

On the 23rd June the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union and on that basis, should the appeal be unsuccessful, our MPs will vote to trigger Article 50. </s> The MP for Boston and Skegness has said he will vote to trigger article 50 if it came to Parliament following yesterday’s (Thursday’s) High Court ruling.

In a statement issued on his Facebook last night, Matt Warman said he believed it would be ‘incumbent on all MPs to vote for the triggering of Article 60.

He said: “I’ve had a lot of you contact me today about the Article 50 court ruling announced this morning.

“The Government is appealing this ruling, but either way I think it would be incumbent on all MPs to vote for the triggering of Article 50 because the British people voted to leave the EU.

“A Parliamentary vote should not stand in the way of the democratic will of the electorate, who clearly expressed their will to leave.

“Most MPs, including myself, have already said that we should accept the result of the referendum, so I would vote in favour of triggering Article 50 if this comes to Parliament.”

The High Court decision yesterday insisted Parliament must have the final say on Britain triggering divorce deal negotiations with Brussels.

Theresa May had planned to trigger Article 50 and begin the UK’s official withdrawal from the European Union without a vote in Parliament.

Campaigners said this was unconstitutional, and mounted a legal challenge to Mrs May’s plan to use what is known as ‘the Royal Prerogative’ to act without a vote by MPs

However, yesterday, three senior judges ruled in the High Court that she could not start the UK’s exit from the EU without the prior authority of Parliament.

Click here for a quick guide to what you need to know about the ruling. </s> The High Court sprang a surprise today when it ruled that MPs must get a vote on whether Britain leaves Europe.

Three senior judges have ruled the Prime Minister does not have power to trigger Brexit despite the referendum decision.

They say that Parliament must vote on the issue before Theresa May can trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to start the UK's exit from the European Union.

It is a surprise victory for campaigners who were seeking to challenge the Brexit decision - who say that Parliament must also be consulted.

But what happens next? The Mirror's political staff offer some answers - and predictions ...

The High Court was asked to look at claims Brexit shouldn't be triggered without MPs' approval.

Today it sided with the campaigners who brought the claims - i.e., against the government.

Three of England's most senior judges gave the ruling, which is rare because usually just one judge gets involved.

They were Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and Lord Justice Sales.

What exactly does the ruling say?

Theresa May wanted to use ancient "royal prerogative" to invoke Article 50 - the mechanism under EU law that starts the two-year process of Brexit.

Judges said she couldn't do that without consulting Parliament first.

Lord Thomas said: "This is a pure question of law. The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union. That is a political issue."

Mrs May was relying on ancient 'royal prerogative' - which a packed team of campaigners said was not enough to ignore elected MPs.

Lord Thomas added: "The court does not accept the argument put forward by the government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 [European Communities] Act to support it.

"The court expressly accepts the principle arguments of the claimants. The government does not have the power under the crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 ."

Will this stop us leaving the EU?

The ruling was only about the right of Parliament to have a say on the timing.

Downing Street says Theresa May still plans to trigger Article 50 before the end of March next year.

Is this the end of the legal fight?

The Government is appealing the decision in the Supreme Court, which could reverse the judgement.

It got special permission to skip out the normal step of going to the Court of Appeal first.

That means we're likely to have a final say in the next few weeks, rather than waiting for months on end.

When will Parliament get a vote, and how?

If today's decision stands, Parliament should get a vote before Theresa May invokes Article 50 .

She wanted to invoke it by the end of March 2017, so it should be before then.

But of course a Parliamentary process could throw the whole timetable off.

It was thought a vote would be held on a substantive motion by the government, asking MPs to back the core principles of its negotiating strategy.

However, Brexit Secretary David Davis believes it would involve a full Act of Parliament.

That is a far bigger deal. It would involve several stages, committees, amendments, and far more chances for MPs to tweak the detail before Article 50 is invoked.

It could end up 'ping ponging' between the House of Commons and the House of Lords - where Remain-backing Labour and Lib Dems together outnumber the Tories.

Could MPs and the House of Lords block Article 50?

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour leader in the Lords, Baroness Smith, have both said they will not vote against Article 50.

However, pro-Remain MPs and peers could try to amend any legislation.

Defeated Labour leadership contender Owen Smith has said Labour should amend the Article 50 Bill to give the British people the final say on real terms of Brexit in a second referendum.

What if they do block it?

Even if it's done for principled reasons, a full 'blocking' would pit MPs against a direct vote by the British public.

As Brexit -backing Tory Iain Duncan Smith said today: "That is a constitutional crisis."

We can't say exactly what would happen, partly because Britain doesn't have a proper, ordered, written constitution like the US does.

But something would have to give to break the deadlock.

Why is this such a problem for Theresa May?

The Prime Minister does not want the Brexit process to become bogged down in Parliament.

It could delay the triggering of Article 50 and open up fresh divisions in the Tories.

Many MPs will now demand she explains in more detail her plans for leaving the EU before agreeing to vote on Article 50.

They are looking for more clarity on complex questions on workers’ rights, the status of EU nationals in the UK and what happens to the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

Could we have a snap general election?

The Prime Minister has previously ruled out an early poll.

But she may have to reconsider this decision if the Supreme Court upholds the High Court judgement and MPs derail Article 50.

A snap general election could be the only way to break the deadlock and assert her authority. </s> MPs must get a vote on whether Britain leaves Europe, the high court has ruled today.

In a shock move, three senior judges have ruled the Prime Minister does not have power to trigger Brexit despite the referendum decision.

They say that Parliament must vote on the issue before Theresa May can trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to start the UK's exit from the European Union.

It is a surprise victory for campaigners who were seeking to challenge the Brexit decision - who say that Parliament must also be consulted.

The ruling against the Government was made by Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, sitting with two other senior judges in London.

Ministers will appeal against a High Court ruling that Theresa May does not have the power to use the royal prerogative to trigger Brexit, a Government spokesman said.

Unless overturned on appeal at the Supreme Court, the ruling threatens to plunge the Government's plans for Brexit into disarray as the process will have to be subject to full parliamentary control.

Government lawyers had argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect "to the will of the people" who voted by a clear majority to leave the European Union in the June referendum.

But the Lord Chief Justice declared: "The Government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union."

The Government has been given the go-ahead to appeal against the ruling at the Supreme Court but made no immediate announcement about whether it will.

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said the Government is "disappointed" at the High Court decision on Article 50 adding "the Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum".

"The Government is disappointed by the court's judgement," he said.

"The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Acts of Parliament. The Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum.

"This judgment raises important and complex matters of law and it's right that we consider it carefully before deciding how to proceed."

He added: "I have nothing to add other than to reiterate that it's right that the Government will consider carefully before deciding how to proceed following the judgment."

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron welcomed the news, adding: "It is disappointing that this Government was so intent on undermining parliamentary sovereignty and democratic process that they forced this decision to be made in the court, but I welcome the news today that MPs will get to vote on the triggering of Article 50.

"Given the strict two-year timetable of exiting the EU once Article 50 is triggered, it is critical that the Government now lay out their negotiating strategy to Parliament, before such a vote is held.

"So far May's team have been all over the place when it comes to prioritising what is best for Britain, and it's time they pull their socks up and start taking this seriously.

"Ultimately, the British people voted for a departure but not for a destination, which is why what really matters is allowing them to vote again on the final deal, giving them the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs."

But interim Ukip leader Nigel Farage said he was worried that politicians were attempting to block or delay Brexit and warned that such a move would provoke huge public anger.

"I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand," he said. "Last night at the Spectator Parliamentary Awards I had a distinct feeling that our political class, who were out in force, do not accept the 23rd of June referendum result."

"I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke."

The pound rose sharply immediately after the ruling as the international markets reacted to the news.

Neil Wilson, markets analyst at ETX Capital, said: "Most MPs are natural Remainers, although they would face intense pressure from constituents to deliver the referendum mandate." </s> The EU’s top court has ruled the UK can revoke Article 50 and halt Brexit without the permission of other member states.

A judgement by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on Monday gives the UK the right to unilaterally withdraw its notification to leave the EU.

Judges ruled revoking Article 50 is possible until the UK's withdrawal agreement enters into force or - if no deal is reached between London and Brussels - until the end of the two-year Article 50 negotiating period.

The UK could even decide to reverse Brexit within "any possible extension" to the Article 50 period, the court said.

In addition, if Article 50 is revoked, the UK could remain in the EU under the current terms of its membership, judges ruled.

This would allow the UK to keep its rebate on EU budget contributions, continue to opt-out of justice and home affairs legislation, and remain outside of the passport-free Schengen area and the euro single currency.

Withdrawing the Article 50 notification, made by Prime Minister Theresa May in March 2017, must be done in accordance with the UK's "national constitutional requirements" and should be "unequivocal and unconditional".

The court's ruling noted this would represent "a sovereign decision to retain its status as a member state of the EU", while judges highlighted a principle that a member state cannot be forced to leave the EU against its will.

The judgement by the Luxembourg court comes on the eve of a House of Commons vote on Mrs May's Brexit deal, which is expected to be roundly rejected by MPs.

There are suggestions the government could yet pull the vote if she remains on course for a heavy defeat.

Monday's ruling follows an opinion delivered last week by the ECJ's advocate general Campos Sanchez-Bordona, who told the court it should allow the UK to withdraw its notice of intent to leave the bloc.

The case, which the UK government tried to prevent, was brought by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians and was heard by judges last month.

The group included SNP MP Joanna Cherry, SNP MEP Alyn Smith, Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler, Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, and barrister Jolyon Maugham.

Liberal Democrat Brexit spokesperson Tom Brake and Labour MP Chris Leslie were listed as additional parties in court documents.

Mr Leslie, who is campaigning for a second EU referendum, described Monday's ruling as a "massive, game-changing moment".

He told Sky News: "If the British people, potentially through a people's vote, want to reverse out of this process, they now have that right.

"And that, I think, will electrify the debate, certainly in parliament.

"This notion that the prime minister has put up which somehow is an ultimatum, you have to take her deal or there's no deal, that is no longer the case.

"It is now legally certain that, if the British people want, they can change their minds."

However, Environment Secretary Michael Gove - a leading figure in the Brexit campaign - stressed the ruling would not prevent the UK leaving the EU next year.

"We don't want to stay in the EU. We voted very clearly - 17.4million people sent a clear message that we want to leave the EU and that means also leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"So, this case is all very well but it doesn't alter either the referendum vote or the clear intention of the government to make sure that we leave on 29 March.

"And the most effective way of leaving is to support the deal the prime minister has proposed." </s> Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Brexit challenger Gina Miller: "This result is about all our futures"

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.

This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own.

Theresa May says the referendum - and existing ministerial powers - mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners called this unconstitutional.

The government is appealing, with a further hearing expected next month.

The prime minister's spokeswoman said she would be calling President of the EU Commission Jean-Claude Juncker to say she intended to stick to her March 2017 deadline for triggering Article 50.

Amid suggestions that she might try to call an early general election, she added that Mrs May believed "there shouldn't be an election until 2020 and that remains her view".

A statement is to be made to MPs on Monday but the government says it has no intention of letting the judgement "derail Article 50 or the timetable we have set out".

Brexit Secretary David Davis said he presumed the court ruling meant an act of Parliament would be required to trigger Article 50 - so would be subject to approval by both MPs and peers.

But the government was going to contest that view in an appeal, and said the referendum was held only following "a six-to-one vote in the Commons to give the decision to the British people".

"The people are the ones Parliament represents - 17.4m of them, the biggest mandate in history, voted for us to leave the European Union. We are going to deliver on that mandate in the best way possible for the British national interest," he told the BBC.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption David Davis: The British people are sovereign

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn urged the government "to bring its negotiating terms to Parliament without delay", adding that "there must be transparency and accountability to Parliament on the terms of Brexit".

But UKIP leader Nigel Farage said he feared a "betrayal" of the 51.9% of voters who backed leaving the EU in June's referendum and voiced concern at the prospect of a "half Brexit".

BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said the court ruling could mean potentially "months and months" of parliamentary hurdles but said a majority of MPs would be likely to vote for Article 50 - despite having backed the Remain campaign - as Brexit had been supported in the referendum.

Analysis - BBC political correspondent Eleanor Garnier

It is one of the most important constitutional court cases in generations. And the result creates a nightmare scenario for the government.

Theresa May had said she wanted to start Brexit talks before the end of March next year but this ruling has thrown the prime minister's timetable up in the air.

Campaigners who brought the case insist it was about "process not politics", but behind the doors of No 10 there will now be serious head-scratching about what the government's next steps should be.

This decision has huge implications, not just on the timing of Brexit but on the terms of Brexit. That's because it's given the initiative to those on the Remain side in the House of Commons who, it's now likely, will argue Article 50 can only be triggered when Parliament is ready and that could mean when they're happy with the terms of any future deal.

Of course, it will be immensely difficult to satisfy and get agreement from all those MPs who voted to remain. Could an early general election be on the cards after all?

Investment manager Gina Miller, who brought the case, said outside the High Court that the government should make the "wise decision of not appealing".

She said: "The result today is about all of us. It's not about me or my team. It's about our United Kingdom and all our futures."

Government lawyers had argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect "to the will of the people".

But the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, declared: "The government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union."

The three judges looking at the case found there was no constitutional convention of the royal prerogative - powers used by ministers - being used in legislation relating to the EU.

They added that triggering Article 50 would fundamentally change UK people's rights - and that the government cannot change or do away with rights under UK law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so.

Calling the case "a pure question of law", Lord Thomas said: "The court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the European Union: that is a political issue."

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Nigel Farage says he is worried Brexit will be watered down after the High Court ruling

Former attorney general Dominic Grieve told the BBC he believed there was time for the government to get legislation through Parliament before the end of March, should they lose the appeal.

He added: "It will certainly allow the opportunity to debate the issues surrounding Brexit but it is worth bearing in mind that it's a bit difficult to fetter the government as to what it should do after Article 50 is triggered because actually, what the government can deliver ... is entirely dependent on the negotiating position of the 27 other member states... So you can't really order the government to stay in the single market because that may not be something that the government can deliver."

Reacting to the ruling, International Trade Secretary Liam Fox told the House of Commons the government was "disappointed" but remained "determined to respect the result of the referendum".

What the ruling says

It is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution that Kings' or Queens' powers cannot be used by the government via the Royal Prerogative to change or do away with rights under British law unless Parliament gives it authority to do so. The court looked at examples ranging from the 1600s to the 1970s Laker Airways legal battle

Parliament had a vote on the UK joining the European Union back in the 1970s, so there is no convention of the Royal Prerogative being used in legislation relating to the European Union

Allowing MPs a vote on the final Brexit deal at the end of the negotiations would not amount to parliamentary approval because once Article 50 is triggered there is no way that the UK will not leave the EU, and in doing so existing laws will be changed

David Davis points out that MPs voted by six to one for the referendum to be held, but the judgement says that the referendum bill, and background briefings, made clear that the referendum was advisory rather than mandatory. So even though MPs voted for the referendum, the way it was worded did not hand over the authority to trigger Article 50, in its view

But UKIP's Mr Farage said: "We are heading for a half Brexit."

He added: "I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand... I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke."

Labour leader Mr Corbyn said: "This ruling underlines the need for the government to bring its negotiating terms to Parliament without delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to Parliament on the terms of Brexit."

But Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: "Ultimately, the British people voted for a departure but not for a destination, which is why what really matters is allowing them to vote again on the final deal, giving them the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs."

Addressing suggestions that Mrs May could call a general election before 2020 - when the next election is scheduled to take place under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act - Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: "If you're asking me do I think today's judgement makes a general election more likely than it was yesterday, I think the answer to that is probably yes."

The UK voted by 52% to 48% to leave the European Union in a referendum on 23 June.

The EU's other 27 member states have said negotiations about the terms of the UK's exit - due to last two years - cannot begin until Article 50 has been invoked. </s> The UK can stop Brexit by unilaterally revoking its withdrawal from the EU, the European Court of Justice has ruled.

The EU's top court in Luxembourg has been considering the question whether the United Kingdom can decide not to proceed with leaving.

Lawyers in the EU argued that the UK should require a vote of other member states, while the government in Britain said the court should not rule on the question.

The advocate general of the court Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona gave his opinion last week which is not often overturned by the judges.

A spokeswoman for the court said: "In today's judgment, the Full Court has ruled that, when a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, as the UK has done, that Member State is free to revoke unilaterally that notification.

"That possibility exists for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between the EU and that Member State has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period from the date of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, and any possible extension, has not expired."

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon responded to the ruling on Twitter by saying: "So an extension of Article 50 to allow time for another vote, followed by revocation of Article 50 if the outcome is Remain seems to be an option that is now open to the House of Commons. " </s> Britain's plans to leave the European Union were thrown into confusion Thursday after a court ruled that members of parliament must be given a say in the process.

The U.K. High Court ruled that lawmakers should vote on whether the government can begin the formal Brexit process by triggering Article 50 of the EU treaty.

Experts say parliament is unlikely to block Brexit outright. But the ruling could mean Brexit is delayed, particularly by opposition in the upper chamber -- the House of Lords. Lawmakers may get a chance to influence what kind of deal the government negotiates with the EU.

The main opposition Labour Party has already said it won't try to block Brexit and instead will use the ruling to push for a Brexit "that works for Britain, putting jobs, living standards and the economy first."

The ruling is a defeat for the government. Prime Minister Theresa May wanted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March 2017, meaning the U.K. would most likely leave the EU two years later.

The government said it was disappointed by the judgment and would appeal.

"The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament. And the Government is determined to respect the result of the referendum," a government spokesperson said.

Government lawyers had argued that May could give the EU formal notice of Britain's decision to leave without consulting parliament. They said the people who brought the case -- investment manager Gina Miller and hairdresser Deir dos Santos -- were trying to overturn the result of the Brexit referendum in June, in which 52% voted in favor of leaving the EU.

Three of Britain's most senior judges disagreed.

"We decide that the government does not have power ... to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the U.K. to withdraw from the European Union," they said, according to a summary of the judgment.

Britain's Supreme Court is likely to hear the appeal in early December.

Fears that the government may pursue a "hard" break with the U.K.'s biggest trading partner have trashed the pound since the June 23 referendum.

Related: What happens after shock Brexit ruling

The currency rallied more than 1% after the ruling was announced, but has still lost nearly 17% against the U.S. dollar since the vote.

Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, said he feared voters would be betrayed.

"I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50," he said. "If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke."

But Miller said she brought the case to uphold the "highest standards of transparency and democratic accountability."

Get the latest Europe news on the CNN MoneyStream app

"It's not about how anyone voted," she said. "Everyone of us voted for the best country and the best future. This case was about process, not politics." </s> Appeal judges have ruled that a Scottish court has to properly examine claims that the UK should be able to unilaterally abandon Brexit without permission from other EU member states.

A panel of three judges led by Scotland’s most senior judge, Lord Carloway, the lord president, said the cross-party group of politicians behind the case had raised a point “of great importance” that had to be fully heard.

The group, which includes Labour, Scottish Green party, Scottish National party and Liberal Democrat politicians, wants the European court of justice to issue a definitive ruling on whether the UK can unilaterally withdraw its article 50 letter which triggered the Brexit process.

They say UK government ministers and the European commission are wrong to insist that the article 50 process can only be abandoned if all the other 27 EU member states agree. They argue that EU treaties make no mention of that condition.

The group, whose members include MSPs from Holyrood, Westminster MPs and two MEPs, need the permission of a Scottish court to send the case to the European court.

The appeal hearing at the court of session, Scotland’s civil court, was arranged after another judge, Lord Doherty, had thrown out the group’s initial application for an interim hearing of the case for a referral to the European court.

The appeal hearing ruled Doherty was wrong to claim the issue was hypothetical and academic since the UK government had insisted it had no intention of abandoning Brexit and so far there was no evidence parties at Westminster would block it.

Carloway said that raised significant problems for the petitioners because the statements so far by UK ministers on whether article 50 could be unilaterally withdrawn were ambiguous.

Even so, in a legal victory for the petitioners, Carloway said they were right to argue that the Westminster parliament was sovereign.

“The issue of whether it is legally possible to revoke the notice of withdrawal is one of great importance,” he said. “After all, if parliament is to be regarded as sovereign, the government’s position on the legality of revoking the notice may not be decisive.”
The High Court rules that Parliament must vote on whether the United Kingdom can start the process of leaving the European Union by triggering Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.