- 32 updates
The House of Commons have given Theresa May a clear order to trigger Brexit, the Government's lawyer has argued to the Supreme Court.
James Eadie argued that yesterday's motion passed by a clear majority of MPs was highly relevant as it included a call to trigger Article 50 by the end of next March.
He is arguing that Mrs May should be allowed to use executive powers to take the UK out of the bloc.
He said the motion on a Brexit timetable "in effect..indicates the view of the House".
Watch live as the Supreme Court hears the final day of arguments in the legal battle over the right to begin Brexit.
Judges at the highest court in the land are deciding whether MPs need to approve the triggering of Article 50 - the process for Britain leaving the EU.
The Supreme Court has continued to hear more arguments over the right to trigger Brexit as the landmark legal battle reaches its fourth and final day.
Scotland's most senior law officer Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC continued his submission that Scotland was entitled to a "voice" before Richard Gordon QC, for the Welsh Government, addressed the 11 justices.
The hearing at the UK's highest court follows a High Court ruling in November that the Prime Minister lacked legal power to use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 to begin Britain's EU withdrawal.
The Supreme Court proceedings will finish later though a ruling will not be given until the new year.
The referendum on the EU was never designed to be binding and its result carries no weight in law, a Supreme Court hearing over Brexit has been told.
Lord Pannick QC, representing Government challenger Gina Miller, is arguing that only a vote by MPs can trigger an exit from the bloc.
He said the June referendum which resulted in a clear majority in favour of leaving the EU was "a very important matter" but had nothing to do with the legal issue before the court.
Lord Pannick submitted that the Government "must obtain parliamentary approval" to formally kick start the process.
“It is open to Parliament to institute a referendum which does have a binding legal effect and there are many, many examples where of parliament has done so," he told justices.
"Parliament has deliberately chosen a model that does not have any binding legal effect.”
A top lawyer representing the Government challenger Gina Miller over Brexit is continuing his case at the Supreme Court today.
Lord Pannick QC is arguing that only a Parliamentary vote can be used to trigger the start of the UK's exit from the EU.
A full panel of 11 judges is sitting on the Government's appeal to an earlier High Court ruling.
The government is also due to face challenges over its plans as MPs vote on a Labour motion pledging to publish a plan before negotiating Britain's exit from the European Union.
The QC representing Government-challenger Gina Miller at the Supreme Court's Brexit hearing has said the 1972 Act, which took the UK into Europe, does not allow for it to be overridden by prerogative power.
Lord Pannick QC told the court that ministers had no power to "nullify" the 1972 Act after it was enacted and take away statutory rights and obligations created under it "without parliamentary approval".
He said: "There is no relevant prerogative power in this context."
Lord Pannick said the question was whether Parliament had intended by later legislation to confer a new power to that effect.
"I say only the clearest of statements by Parliament to that effect could create a new prerogative power.
"I say post-1972 legislation is very far from containing any such clear statement."
ITV News reporter Olivia Kinsley is watching the court proceedings.
The QC representing Government-challenger Gina Miller has begun to outline his arguments for MPs to vote on triggering Article 50 on the second day of the Supreme Court's Brexit hearing.
ITV News reporter Olivia Kinsley is watching the crossbench peer Lord Pannick outline the respondent case.
The afternoon session on day two of the Brexit legal hearing is back under way at the Supreme Court. Follow it live here:
Attorney General for Northern Ireland John F Larkin QC is addressing the 11 justices in support of the Government's appeal to overturn a High Court ruling that Parliament must give the go ahead to triggering Brexit.
Lord Pannick QC, representing businesswoman Gina Miller who challenged the Government, will then begin the respondent's case as the final speaker on day two.
Latest ITV News reports
Gripping TV it may not have been but the televised four-day hearing was a box office event for fans of legal argument.
The UK's highest court has been told that a motion in Parliament does not have any bearing on the legal issue it is having to decide.