Image source, Getty Images

The Supreme Court has ruled and plotted a course towards Brexit.

Amid all the division and rancour over leaving the EU, they have set out how power in the UK is separated between ministers who govern, Parliament that legislates, the devolved bodies that administer parts of the UK and lastly the role of judges in arbitrating between everyone.

So what does it all mean?

In essence, the judgement is quite simple because it says that it's for Parliament, not ministers, to change the constitution of the UK.

At the heart of this case was the question of what the 1972 European Communities Act, that took the UK into what's now the EU, amounted to.

The government argued it was a pipeline down which EU law flowed.

Ministers have the power to make and break treaties - that's always been the case.

And they argued the 1972 Act is the UK's method of turning the EU treaty into practical law - such as regulations on consumer rights or freedom of movement.

But eight of the 11 justices disagreed. In their judgement, external, the majority said the EU law that has poured into the UK through the 1972 Act has become part of the law of our lands.

Read more

The BBC's Political editor Laura Kuenssberg reports on the implications of the Supreme Court ruling about the Brexit process.

The lead claimant in the Brexit legal case has accused politicians of behaving “despicably” over the vote to leave the EU.

Gina Miller told BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg politicians had “exacerbated” people’s anxieties and were “not doing what’s best for Britain”.

She also said Prime Minister Theresa May and her ministers had failed to stand up for the judges when they were "vilified" by the press.  

House of Commons
Parliament

Stephen Doughty asks if the bill to trigger Article 50 will be drafted in such a way that will allow "substantive amendments" to be made to it. 

Mr Davis tells the Labour MP that if he knows how to draft a bill which withstands any amendments, he'd like to hear about it....

House of Commons
Parliament

Labour's Diana Johnson said she really did not understand why the Brexit Secretary was so opposed to the publication of a White Paper on Article 50.

Mr Davis said one of the virtues of delivering the plans through a prime ministerial speech "of some length" was that it was very clear, people understood it and it made the news around the world,

He said he had tried to provide as much information as possible.

House of Commons
Parliament

To questions about the cost of the Supreme Court case, Brexit secretary David Davis countered: "We were not the people that brought the case."

He said he did not criticise those who brought the case, because it raised "a very important" constitutional matter and "it was worth doing".

* For new readers... the government did not bring the original court case, but it did decide to appeal to the Supreme Court after losing that initial case.  

House of Commons
Parliament

Conservative Mims Davies argued that the Lib Dem call for a second referendum "shows that they don't care about the public view unless they get their way".

He noted that only one Lib Dem had attended the statement and had since left the chamber.

He said the public would judge the Lib Dems for using the situation for their own political purpose "and not the national interest".

Airbus warns MPs that the company is entering a "dangerous phase" if it cannot operate freely in Europe.

House of Commons
Parliament

The SDLP's Mark Durkan asked about the Good Friday agreement.

The Brexit secretary said the British government was determined to preserve the peace settlement, along with the Irish government and the European Commission.

"All of the parties to this have a vested interest in delivering what you want," he said.

House of Commons
Parliament

Labour's Paul Flynn asked the Brexit secretary about the special needs of Wales if the UK leaves the single market.

David Davis said the interests of the people of Wales had been put together in a paper submitted to the Joint Ministerial Committee - and these will be debated at the next meeting of the European negotiating arm of that committee.

Labour's Brexit spokesman Sir Keir Starmer says Labour will not frustrate the EU referendum process, following a Brexit Supreme Court ruling.

House of Commons
Parliament

One-time Labour leadership contender Liz Kendall said ending up on World Trade Organization rules "could be the worst possible deal hitting businesses and families hard".

She asked if there would be a vote at the end of the trade negotiations.

Brexit Secretary David Davis said there would not be a simple trade negotiation.

"The EU pretty much always insists on nothing is agreed until everything is agreed ... so yes there will be a vote at the end of it," he said.

Nicola Sturgeon says the Scottish government will propose legislation allowing Holyrood to have a say in the triggering of Article 50.

House of Commons
Parliament

DUP's Sammy Wilson asked what arrangements had been made for issues that concern Northern Ireland to be raised during the Article 50 negotiations following the collapse of Stormont.

Mr Davis said he had written to the Northern Ireland executive, asking for ministers to be sent to the Joint Ministerial Committee, which includes representatives from the devolved administrations.

He said ministers attended last week. "If that doesn't work, we'll find some other bilateral way," he said.

Dominic Casciani
Home Affairs Correspondent

Buried in the judgement is what some informed people here at court this morning took as a criticism – albeit in legal language – of former prime minister David Cameron. 

The justices explicitly say that when previous big issues were put to the people – such as the proposal to change our voting system in 2011 – ministers made sure that the referendum legislation included a clause that set out what the government would do following the result. 

The 2015 European Union Referendum Act contained no such proposal – and, the justices say, ministers couldn’t agree in public statements about whether the result was advisory or decisive.

The subtext is clear: the justices are saying that the former PM could have signed off a referendum that was a lot clearer. During the hearings  one of the barristers, Manjit Gill QC, put it another way. 

We’re only here, he said, because nobody in government and Parliament thought there would be a vote to leave.

A look at the reasons why the Supreme Court decided against the government in the Brexit case - and what the constitutional and legal implications are.

House of Commons
Parliament

Former Conservative education secretary Nicky Morgan says that "the passage of the bill would be swifter if a white paper is published".

Mr Davis said the government would provide as much information as it can.

Labour's Angela Eagle said the government had been "humiliated" in the Supreme Court, adding that the Commons "needs votes along the way and not simply debates without votes and proper parliamentary scrutiny".

Mr Davis said he had pledged that there will be votes along the way.

House of Commons
Parliament

Former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve says the problem with triggering Article 50 is it is irrevocable.

He says debate on Article 50 "would be greatly facilitated" if the prime minister's ideas were contained in a White Paper.

"If the government can build that trust it will greatly facilitate its task, and those such as myself, who wish to help the government in what it is trying to achieve," he said.

Brexit Secretary David Davis said the government views "the irrevocable moment" as being 23 June last year - "and it's not in the gift of the government to change its mind".

He added: "We have passed the point of no return."