After Brexit and the Italian referendum, what lies ahead for the "European project"?

Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage is shortlisted for the title of Time magazine's person of the year.

The leader of the Scottish Conservatives calls on the UK to avoid a "divisive Brexit" and to heal the divisions left by the referendum.

Ben Brown presents the highlights from day one of the Supreme Court landmark legal challenge over Brexit.

In case you feel you haven't been following today's proceedings at the Supreme Court closely enough, a verbatim report has now been published. It consists of 180 pages, plus a comprehensive index.

An intriguing opening day at the Supreme Court as their lordships ponder whether Parliament must have a role in the UK's exit from the EU.

The BBC's Mark Easton explains the landmark legal case that will decide whether MPs need to be consulted before the Brexit process can begin.

• The government has been making its case on the first day of the landmark Supreme Court hearing into its Brexit powers
• Attorney General Jeremy Wright says the use of prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 and set in motion EU exit talks would be lawful and "in accordance with public expectations" following the referendum vote. 
• The prerogative was a longstanding constitutional principle in international relations and had not come "from a clear blue sky", he told the court
• Government lawyer James Eadie says the public would not understand if the referendum result was deemed irrelevant
• Lord Neuberger, the president of the Court, says the 11 justices will make their decisions impartially on the basis of the legal questions at stake and will not be swayed by wider political feelings about Brexit
• The court publishes, external a 78-page transcript of the morning's session, with a recording of the afternoon's proceedings due later on Monday.  
• The second day of proceedings in the four-day hearing is scheduled to begin at 10.15 GMT on Tuesday. 

Have you got a question about today’s events at the Supreme Court? Or the case in general? 

Our home affairs correspondent Dominic Casciani has been in court and is taking your questions live on our Facebook page, with our legal correspondent Clive Coleman. Click here to join them, external.

Conservative politician and Brexit-backer Iain Duncan Smith criticises how courts had been "sucked into this area" when constitutionally he believes it should be down to parliament how they govern themselves.

Speaking to BBC News, he adds: "We all very knowingly made it explicit that the British public would have their say and [the referendum] wouldn't just be advisory. 

"We made it clear the government would then act - the word is very clear, act. 

"This court case runs counter to that and leads to a possible constitutional crisis."

A real split on the tweets about whether you agree with the government or with Gina Miller and her team.  Here is a small selection...

The Independent

Dr Kieran Laird, from solicitors Gowling WLG, says there is still a chance that the Supreme Court might refer the case to the European Court of Justice for clarification on whether Brexit becomes irreversible once Article 50 is invoked.

BBC News Channel

Some reaction from the BBC's panel of experts outside the High Court. 

Jeremy Brier, a barrister from Essex Court Chambers, says the justices may have private political views but they will not let them "infect their judgements". 

Much of the case law raised in court was arcane and unfamiliar even to members of the legal profession, he says, but it will be important in determining in the justices' minds what the royal prerogative is and how it has come to be used. 

However, he stresses that the case is not about whether Brexit will happen but deciding the mechanism by which it will take place.

Gavin Williamson, from Durham University, says government counsel James Eadie was questioned robustly in several areas and the justices expressed a certain scepticism about some of his arguments but he expected the questioning of the other side to be equally forthright.

He says it won't be until day three or four that it becomes clear where the justices' "sympathies lie" or where the balance of arguments comes down. 

BBC News Channel

Jeremy Brier, a barrister watching proceedings, told BBC News that James Eadie had come under a lot of pressure from the unprecedented number of justices he faced in the Supreme Court. 

"The judges had gone away at lunchtime, probably had a chat with each other, probably warmed up and they came out for the second half of proceedings," he said. 

"Then there was a constant barrage of questions from the judges and he was really being forced to put his case. That of course is what distinguishes the best counsel. He is doing well, but he has had a tough afternoon."