House of Commons
Parliament

The former Attorney General Dominic Grieve says that the debate in the country and in Parliament so far has contained "vitriolic abuse, polemic argument without any substance,and ignorance of the ABCs of our constitution" and has led to a situation where some speeches "border on the utterly paranoid".

He says that the height of this was when a minister, who he does not name, asserted that Gina Miller - who brought the case against the government over whether Parliament should vote on triggering Article 50 - was doing something unacceptable.

"If we continue like this we are on a road to a very bad place," he says.

He says he was frustrated at the government's initial refusal to come up with a plan of what it plans to do before triggering Article 50; saying that once this is triggered "the government itself will have great difficulty controlling" the process.  

House of Commons
Parliament

One of the leading Tory Europhile MPs, Anna Soubry, chides David Davis for criticising her on co-operating with Labour and other MPs on this matter. 

She says that the UK leaving the EU "transcends party politics and transcends tribalism" and calls on MPs to help the country to come together. "Make no mistake," she says, "family and friends are still divided" on this issue and that hate crime rates remains high.

Ms Soubry says that she, and other Remain supporters, have felt sidelined, ignored, and abused - "and we are sick and tired of it".

"We are entitled to our opinion, we are entitled to be heard, and entitled to express our opinion," she says.

She also warns of the anger of the younger generation on the referendum result, saying that many of them feel an older generation stole their future.

She answers the jeers that this comment draws by telling MPs "remember those 16 and 17-years-old will be your voters in 2020".

Dominic Casciani
BBC correspondent at Supreme Court

Northern Ireland is just one part of the UK’s complex constitutional jigsaw - but QCs David Scoffield and Ronan Lavery made some big points about how triggering Brexit could have a profound effect on the legally unique 1998 agreement at the heart of the peace process.

Mr Scoffield warned that potentially “cavelier” ministers could materially alter “a carefully-constructed devolution settlement”.

Mr Lavery argued that since 1998 it’s been absolutely clear that it is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide their constitutional future - there can be no change without their consent.

That, at the time, referred to the question of whether Northern Ireland was part of the UK. But does this also apply to membership of the EU?

Time to take stock, and appreciate the sartorial lengths that Lord Sumption is going to, to brighten up proceedings.

Image source, Supreme Court

Image source, Supreme Court

He's set the bar high for tomorrow - the final day - and it's causing some of our colleagues concern.

House of Commons
Parliament

Labour MP Ivan Lewis uses his speech to talk about the loss of faith in Parliament and mainstream political parties; and its ability to address their concerns and offer hope for a better future. 

Mr Lewis speaks of "stagnant wages; loss of traditional jobs and consequential destruction of communities caused by globalisation; the impact of migration; and horrendous continuing inequality".

Despite this, he says, in the wake of the referendum mainstream parties "appear to have learnt nothing".

He says that the government thought it acceptable to keep Brexit plans secret, the Liberal Democrats wanted to overturn the referendum result in a second referendum, and senior Labour frontbenchers "demonstrate contempt" for those who have legitimate concerns about the pace and impact of immigration. 

He says that he despairs about Labour frontbench comments on immigration and calls for a "credible" policy agenda on this issue from his party. 

Ivan Lewis says such an agenda does not need to compromise on international and anti-racist values but recognises that if you do not believe in open borders you have to show how you would control and manage immigration.  

Summing up the first three days in court, Robert Craig from the London School of Economics says there have been moments of lightheartedness over matters of pronunciation and the occasional "teasing" of some of the counsels.

But, in the main, he says it has been sober stuff with the justices probing away and deploying "some heavy artillery" in their questioning, 

It is impossible to say which way they are leaning because the justices have been "equally hostile" to both sides, he believes.

Meanwhile, Professor Steven Tierney, from Edinburgh University's School of Law, says it could be quite "explosive", in terms of relations between the Holyrood and Westminster parliaments, if the case goes against the government and in favour of its opponents.

House of Commons
Parliament

The UK Independence Party's only MP Douglas Carswell joins the debate by simply telling the government "get on with it". 

He says that as someone who enjoys "endlessly banging on about Europe", there are "endless" opportunities to scrutinse the government.  

"I suspect the sudden surge in interest on the question of parliamentary scrutiny is about seeking to frustrate the referendum result," he says. 

The MP for Clacton says that parliamentary oversight is being used as a brake against "taking back control and bringing our democracy home" - calling this "perverse". 

"Perhaps if these efforts to subvert the outcome of the referendum persist - we might find it easier to assemble a new parliament," he says. 

Image source, Supreme Court

The justices have risen at the end of the third day.Proceedings will resume at 10.15 GMT tomorrow.

It's been a pretty polished performance from Lord Wolffe so far and he will get another 30 minutes tomorrow.

He rounds off his representation for now by saying he is not asking the court to "invalidate" any law but to recognise the spirit and letter of existing conventions that underpin the Scottish devolution framework and its relationship in the UK. 

House of Lords
Parliament

House of Commons
Parliament

The Labour MP for Penistone and Stockbridge, Angela Smith, rises to say that this debate is not about whether we Brexit but about "how we Brexit".

She says that this will have a huge potential impact on the economy and prosperity of people in the country, and that this is therefore of "high significance" to MPs. 

"So we have a right to discuss it, debate it, and vote on it," she says.

Ms Smith goes on to tell MPs that the EU currently spends £3.2bn a year on support for farmers - 25% of what we pay into the EU to be a member.

She says this raises a key question; do we continue with direct farm payments to farmers, do we reduce it, do we look at the effect this will have on farm trade and individual farmers. 

"We have to look at these questions before we sign up to any government position," she says.

Image source, Supreme Court

Fleshing out his argument, Lord Wolffe says the triggering of Article 50 leading to the UK's exit from the EU will have a "significant change" to the competences of the Scottish Parliament and Government.

He uses the 2016 Scotland Act, passed after the 2004 independence referendum, as evidence that when Westminster wants to change Holyrood's competence, it needs its consent. 

He refers to the 1998 Sewel convention, maintaining this and other accords "constrain" the UK government's powers within the constitution. 

Image source, Supreme Court

Lord Wolffe, who is the Lord Advocate, starts his argument with the rather surprising but droll admission that he concurs with James Eadie, the government lawyer who is on the opposite side of the case, on one thing at least. 

House of Commons
Parliament

The government amendment would add the following text on the end of the Labour motion:

House of Commons
Parliament

Image source, Supreme Court

Next up is Lord Wolffe, Scotland's chief legal officer who is representing the SNP government and arguing the Scottish Parliament must be at least consulted before Article 50 is triggered.

The time given to the respondents is getting shorter and shorter as the hearing enters its third afternoon and Ronan Lavery is soon having to wind up.

He concludes by arguing that the invoking of Article 50 would "impede the expression of self-determination and the principle of consent" with regard to Northern Ireland's place within the UK.