Gloating Europhiles hailed Theresa May's humiliation tonight after judges ruled she cannot trigger Brexit without approval from parliament.

The dramatic decision at the High Court raises the prospect of months of delay while MPs and peers fight a rearguard action against cutting ties with Brussels.

It sparked furious accusations that 'activist' judges are mounting a 'power grab' by siding with pro-EU campaigners against the will of the public.

But the businesswoman and former model who spearheaded the legal challenge, Gina Miller, goaded Brexiteers by saying they should 'celebrate' the ruling.

Scottish First minister Nicola Sturgeon welcomed the outcome as 'significant', while former Cabinet minister Ken Clarke said giving parliament the power would help stop ministers 'squabbling'.

The case was brought by British citizens Gina Miller, a business woman, pictured outside the High Court after the landmark ruling today

Judges delivered a 'slap in the face' to Theresa May (pictured at last night's Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year awards in central London) today as they ruled that MPs must be given a vote before the Government fires the starting gun on Brexit

The premier had wanted to invoked Article 50 - which begins the formal two-year Brexit process - alone.

But the judges insisted that would be unconstitutional and she must pass legislation through parliament.

Downing Street insisted Mrs May still believed she should be able to launch the mechanism under so-called 'royal prerogative' powers granted to ministers.

The stage is now set for an extraordinary showdown in the Supreme Court next month - with the fate of the country potentially at stake.

Another setback there could force Mrs May to put legislation through Parliament, opening the door for Europhile MPs and peers to delay or even wreck Brexit.

Two-thirds of the Commons backed staying in the EU, and the Lords is also believed to have a Remain majority.

Mrs Sturgeon suggested her 54 SNP MPs could oppose invoking Article 50 if there is a Commons vote.

'Scotland voted to remain in the EU and my job is therefore to protect our place in Europe and in the single market as far as I possibly can,' she said.

BATTLE BETWEEN MINISTERS' AGE-OLD PREROGATIVE POWERS AND PARLIAMENT The High Court battle turned on whether the age-old royal prerogative rules trumped the sovereignty of parliament. Theresa May's lawyers argued that she is able to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - the formal two-year process for leaving the EU - using the powers, which have been at the heart of UK foreign affairs for centuries. Historically, the list of prerogative powers that can be exercised by ministers include declaring war, pardoning criminals, and regulating the Civil Service. But the judges backed the legal challenge brought by Remain supporters, who said the prerogative powers were not sufficient and parliamentary approval was needed for an act that would in effect repeal legislation. Advertisement

'SNP MPs in the House of Commons will certainly not vote for anything that undermines the will or the interest of the Scottish people.'

Amid a wave of condemnation on social media of the controversial decision, Ukip leader Nigel Farage warned there would be public outrage if parliament used its power to block the referendum result.

'I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand,' he said.

'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.'

But Mrs Miller responded: 'I think Mr Farage should be more responsible in his messages because he himself, presumably, believes in the sovereignty of Parliament because he spouted about it throughout the referendum.

'So I would say to him: You should celebrate the win today because the ruling is one that protects the sovereignty of Parliament'.

Tory grandee and arch-Europhile Mr Clarke said the Government will have to give MPs a vote on its Brexit strategy in a return to 'proper parliamentary democracy' rather than decisions being taken in Cabinet committees of 'squabbling colleagues'.

He told BBC Radio 4's PM: 'I think the argument that somehow everything has been decided by this one vote is wrong, it's a childish attempt to avoid debate, the vote was we leave the EU, but it was silent on the terms.

'Even the leading campaigners, the leading Brexiteers do not agree with each other (on the terms).'

Former Remain campaign chief Will Straw said: 'Brexit still means Brexit. But sovereignty means sovereignty too.'

Labour MP Stephen Kinnock accused Brexiteers of being 'scared' of parliament.

Mrs Miller (right) was clearly jubilant at the High Court after the ruling was announced. Scottish First minister Nicola Sturgeon said the outcome was 'significant'

Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker ridiculed Brexiteers' anger with a post on Twitter

'There was a pre-referendum majority for Remain in the House of Commons, there is now a post-referendum clear majority for Leave,' he said.

'I don't know what Dominic and the Prime Minister and all these people are scared of.

'Why don't we just have a mature, sober debate in Parliament, as we do on any issue that comes before us, and this happens to be the most important since the Second World War.

'Let's have the debate, let's put it forward.

'In terms of an election, bring it on.'

Former Lib Dem leader Lord Campbell said today's ruling was a 'clear illustration of the well-known legal principle that no matter how high you are, the law is above you'.

Gordon Brown called for parts of the UK to be given powers to negotiate their own Brexit deals

Nicky Morgan, a former Cabinet minister and Remain campaigner, said the High Court had 'asserted democracy'. Labour MP Stephen Kinnock accused Brexiteers of being 'scared'

'It is a slap in the face for the Government. It shows the dangers of playing ducks and drakes with the constitution and particularly the sovereignty of Parliament.'

Nicky Morgan, a former Cabinet minister and Remain campaigner, said the High Court had 'asserted democracy' with its ruling and said the chances of the Government hitting Mrs May's Article 50 deadline of the end of March were 'quite strong'.

Former PM Gordon Brown called for nations and regions to be given powers allowing them to negotiate directly with the European Union.

'We need wholesale reform because today the United Kingdom appears united in name only,' he said.

'Politically, the strains of Brexit are already showing, as different nations, regions, sectors and companies desperately seek their own opt-outs from a hard Brexit and call for their own a la carte version of Brexit.'

POUND SOARS AFTER HIGH COURT RULING The pound soared after news of the High Court decision today Sterling leapt to a three-and-a-half week high against the US dollar after the High Court ruled that Brexit must face a parliamentary vote before Article 50 is triggered. The pound surged to 1.249 versus the dollar, before paring gains to trade up 1 per cent at 1.243. Three senior judges ruled that Prime Minister Theresa May does not have the power to use the royal prerogative to push the button on Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty without the prior authority of Parliament. Sterling also climbed 1 per cent against the euro to 1.120, despite the Government's immediate announcement that it would appeal against the decision at the Supreme Court. Advertisement

Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker ridiculed Brexiteers' anger with a post on Twitter.

'Absolutely outrageous that parliament might have to make a political decision on the country's future,' he said sarcastically.

Ukip leadership frontrunner Suzanne Evans said: 'How dare these activist judges attempt to overturn our will?

'It's a power grab & undermines democracy.

'Time we had the right to sack them.'

Brexit Secretary David Davis said the option of having a one-off Commons vote on invoking Article 50 was 'not available' to the government due to the fine print of the court ruling.

Instead it will need to table primary legislation and get it through both Houses unless the court ruling is overturned.

The development immediately fueled speculation that Mrs May will call a general election before 2020.

Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the next election is not due to take place until 2020 unless the Government loses a vote of no confidence or there is a vote by MPs with a two-thirds majority in favour of an early election.

It is very unlikely that the government could pass primary legislation in time to achieve Mrs May's goal of beginning Brexit by the end of March.

Many MPs believe the PM will not want to hold a general election too close to the moment when the UK actually leaves the bloc, as it could be a turbulent period.

They suggest any delay to Article 50 would make her more likely to opt for a national poll in 2018.

The Prime Minister's spokeswoman appeared to water down her stance on an early election slightly this evening - merely saying there 'should not' be a vote before 2020.

'There shouldn't be a General Election before 2020 – that remains the Prime Minister's view,' the spokeswoman said.

Downing Street insists the decision of the Supreme Court will be final, and believes there will be no recourse to European courts because the matter is a question of UK constitutional law.

Deustche Bank has now installed an election before 2020 as its 'base' prediction.

Tory former minister Dominic Raab said an election could happen if Remain-backing MPs tried to block the triggering of Article 50 in a Commons vote.

Appearing on BBC Two's Daily Politics, Mr Raab said: 'I think that's the Pandora's Box.

'I think the elephant in the room here is if we get to the stage where effectively Stephen and his colleagues are not willing to allow this negotiation to even begin, I think there must be an increased chance that we will need to go to the country again.

'I think that would be a mistake and I don't think those trying to frustrate the verdict in the referendum will be rewarded.'

Labour MP Mike Gapes, a Remain supporter, said a general election before Article 50 is triggered was now likely.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon suggested her 54 SNP MPs could oppose invoking Article 50 if there is a Commons vote

He tweeted: 'I predicted an early election. I think this court judgment makes it now very likely before Article 50 is triggered.'

The pound soared against the dollar in reaction to today's decision.

Bank of England governor Mark Carney said it underlined the 'uncertainty' around Brexit and warned that would hit the economy.

'It is an example of the uncertainty that will characterise this process... That uncertainty does bear down on business investment, that effect builds with time, lower business investment has consequences for employment ultimately, it has consequences for productivity.'

In an humiliation for the Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC, who personally made the case in court, the judges flatly dismissed the government's arguments.

They concluded that the PM does not have the power to withdraw rights from the public by executive decision - something the High Court said would happen by invoking Article 50 and starting the 'irreversible' process of Brexit.

'In the judgement of the Court, the argument is contrary both to the language used by Parliament in the 1972 Act and to the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the Crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers,' the ruling said.

'The court expressly accepts the principal argument of the claimants.'

D-Day for the Supreme Court appeal is December 7 and Theresa May will be desperately hoping her arguments are better received so the issue is ended before Christmas.

If the appeal fails - something which could even cost Attorney General Jeremy Wright his job - Mrs May will be forced into the parliamentary trenches to make the necessary changes to the law to invoke article 50.

A government spokesman said: 'The Government is disappointed by the Court's judgment.'

Ukip leadership hopeful Suzanne Evans was among those voicing fury at the ruling

Remain campaigners, led by businesswoman Gina Miller (pictured outside court today, left) have won their battle over Theresa May's decision not to give MPs a vote before triggering Article 50. It is a personal humiliation for Attorney General Jeremy Wright (pictured right)

'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.

'We will appeal this judgment.'

Mrs May had argued the public has delivered its verdict on the June 23 referendum and there should be no second vote by MPs which could frustrate the process.

She will hold talks with European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker tomorrow.

Tory MP and prominent Brexit campaigner Jacob Rees-Mogg said the judgement 'turns on its head' convention over the Prime Minister's powers - insisting Parliament had already been involved in allowing the referendum.

He told Sky News: 'I'm very surprised. What's surprised me is every court case brought against the European treaties, when powers were flowing to the EU, and the Government's powers were upheld.

In a decision that could spark a major constitutional crisis, Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas (pictured) sided with Remain campaigners who argued Parliament must have a vote before Article 50 is triggered, which starts a two-year process for leaving the EU

'Now, when it is powers being taken away from the EU, they rule against the Royal Prerogative.'

The case was brought by British citizens Gina Miller and Deir dos Santos, a hairdresser.

They claimed the Prime Minister has wrongly side-stepping Parliament in refusing MPs a vote on triggering Article 50.

Gina Miller, the businesswoman who brought the case, said today's High Court ruling was 'about all our futures' as she hailed the historic judgement

Pimlico Plumbers boss Charlie Mullins, who supported the legal case against the government, outside the High Court in London today

Welcoming the decision outside the High Court today, Ms Miller said: 'This result today is about all of us: our United Kingdom and our futures.

'It is not about how any of us voted – each of us voted to do what we believed was the right thing for our country.'

She added: 'This case is about process, not politics. My dedicated legal team – Mishcon de Reya and counsel – are, alongside myself and my supporters, pleased to have played our part in helping form a debate on whether the rights conferred on UK citizens through Parliament legislation 44 years ago could be casually snuffed out by the Executive without Parliament or our elected representatives and without proper prior consultation about the Government's intentions for Brexit.'

'However you voted on 23rd June, we all owe it to our country to uphold the highest standards of transparency and democratic accountability that we are admired and respected for around the world.'

Ukip leader Nigel Farage said he feared attempts to block Article 50 altogether, while the party's sole MP Douglas Carswell said the judges were 'politicians without accountability'

Welcoming the High Court's decision today, Gina Miller, the businesswoman who brought the case, said: 'This result today is about all of us: our United Kingdom and our futures'

Asked about the ruling this morning, European Commission spokesman Margaritis Schinas said: 'On the UK High Court decision on Article 50, we will not comment on any issues that pertain to the internal legal and constitutional order of our member states.'

The historic court case came as the author of Article 50 has said the UK could choose to remain in the EU even after exit negotiations begin.

John Kerr said the UK could still legally choose to reject a Brexit after the legislation that begins formal negotiations is invoked.

The Scottish cross-bench peer, who wrote Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, also renewed calls for parliament or the public have another say on the referendum.

Lord Kerr told the BBC: 'It is not irrevocable - you can change your mind while the process is going on.

'During that period, if a country were to decide actually we don't want to leave after all, everybody would be very cross about it being a waste of time, they might try to extract a political price, but legally they couldn't insist that you leave.'

There was a huge backlash against the court ruling on Twitter, with users complaining that it showed the establishment ignoring democracy

Lord Kerr's remarks came as peers said the UK would have to seek new allies at the United Nations after Brexit.

Former Foreign Office minister Lord Howell of Guildford said the UK would need to 'reinvigorate' old ties and 'build strong new alliances' once it left the EU.

The Lords International Relations Committee said Brexit would require the UK to 'reconsider its methods of operation' at the United Nations, but should seek to continue to work closely with its former EU partners.

The cross-party committee said: 'The UK should negotiate its exit from the EU bearing in mind that one of our strongest allies in international organisations will be the EU. Therefore, as part of its Brexit negotiations, the UK should aim to set up effective ways of continuing to work closely with the EU at the UN.

'Simultaneously, the UK should seek to diversify its alliances, creatively considering new opportunities and methods of leveraging its alliances and influencing other regional blocs at the UN.'

That could include working more closely with Commonwealth allies even though they may not act as a single effective bloc at the UN.

Prime Minister Theresa May has argued the public has delivered its verdict on the June 23 referendum and there should be no second vote by MPs which could frustrate the process

The committee's chairman, Lord Howell, said: 'Given the new status that the UK will have outside of the EU, our committee feels strongly that the UN will be an increasingly important arena in which to promote our foreign policy objectives. We will need to reinvigorate both old ties and build new strong alliances where possible.'

What happens next for Brexit? The Government is appealing but it might have to go into Parliamentary trenches and fight for the right to quit the EU

If the Government fails to overturn the High Court ruling or concedes it must press on to keep to its Brexit timetable, it will have to pass Article 50 through Parliament.

D-Day for the Supreme Court appeal is December 7 and Theresa May will be desperately hoping her arguments are better received so the issue is ended before Christmas.

Today's ruling said the Prime Minister does not have the power to withdraw rights from the public by executive decision - something the High Court said would happen by invoking Article 50 and starting the 'irreversible' process of Brexit.

If the appeal fails - something which could even cost Attorney General Jeremy Wright his job - Mrs May will be forced into the parliamentary trenches to make the necessary changes to the law to invoke article 50.

The nuclear option for Mrs May could be forcing an early general election to answer the question over her powers - but to stay on schedule to invoke Article 50 by the end of March would mean going to the polls as soon as February.

Theresa May, pictured at last night's Spectator Awards, may have little choice but to concede a Parliamentary process rather than pursue months of appeals

The change to the law could be done a very simple one clause Bill to expedite the process and limit the chance of trouble making amendments.

Normal procedure for legislation would take months as a Bill goes through both the Commons and the Lords.

But the Government has in the past declared court judgements as a reason to invoke 'emergency' procedures, rushing through legislation in a matter of hours.

Alternatively, as the court has not specified the form of Parliamentary vote required, the Government may argue a simple motion is sufficient and not full legislation.

This would strongly limit the chance of amendment and speed up the process - but could conceivably be open to further challenge as it would not have the force of a change in the law.

A third possibility is to use a statutory instrument, a piece of secondary law, which is impossible to amend and can be put through Parliament quickly - but it can be rejected by MPs or peers on a single vote.

The judges who blocked Brexit include one who founded a EUROPEAN law group and a second who charged the taxpayer millions for advice

The three judges whose decision has sparked a constitutional crisis over Brexit include the founder of a European law group and a former Olympic fencer.

The country's most senior judge Lord Chief Justice, Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd, aided by Sir Terence Etherton and Lord Justice Sales, ruled that the Prime Minister does not have power to trigger Article 50 to start the two-year Brexit process.

The unelected trio, three of the most experienced members of the British judiciary, were today accused of 'striking down the will of the people to set in train leaving the EU'.

But, in explaining the judges' decision today, Lord Thomas insisted they were concerned with 'a pure question of law' and were not expressing any view about the merits of leaving the European Union, which is, he said 'a political issue'.

Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd was one of three judges behind today's Brexit ruling, which found Theresa May does not have the power to trigger the process of leaving the EU

He was aided by 'Master of the Rolls' Sir Terence Etherton (left) and Lord Justice Sales (right)

Lord Thomas was a founding member of the European Law Institute, which says it works towards the 'enhancement of European legal integration'.

He helped found the organisation, which conducts research and make recommendations to provide practical guidance, alongside Liberal Democrat MEP Diana Wallis, who is now its president.

But the judge has previously been critical of European judges.In 2014, in a judgement on whole-life tariffs, he said Strasbourg had been wrong in law to rule that such sentences were in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In that ruling, Lord Thomas - whose full name is Roger John Laugharne Thomas - said it was for Parliament to decide which crimes were so serious that the offender should never go free.

The judge was handed the job of leading the judiciary in 2013, beating off a strong field including Sir Brian Leveson, who ran the inquiry into press standards.

Lord Thomas's career as a judge was built in the commercial wing of the High Court before he became a Lord Justice of Appeal, overseeing criminals' claims of miscarriages of justice.

Lord Thomas is the founding member of a European Law Institute, which works towards 'European legal integration'. Sir Terence Etherton is a former Olympian

Lord Thomas was also one of the judges who presided over the final hearings last year that sent terror suspect Abu Hamza for trial in the US.

Cambridge-educated Lord Thomas, 69, was part of a team of judges who negotiated Tony Blair's constitution reforms of the mid-2000s.

Mr Blair's decision to scrap the ancient role of Lord Chancellor inside government left the Lord Chief Justice as leader of and spokesman for judges, as well as the senior judge in deciding the interpretation of criminal law.

When he was later appointed to the role, Lord Thomas said the judiciary would 'continue to become more reflective of our diverse society.

'It will also continue to play a constructive role in its relationships with Government, Parliament and the media.' Lord Thomas said.

Lord Thomas was assisted in making today's historic decision by two other senior judges; Sir Terence Etherton and Lord Justice Sales.

Gina Miller, who brought the case against the government, walks from the High Court today

Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton, 65, is the second most senior judge in England and Wales, after Lord Thomas.

He made legal history almost a decade ago when he became the first openly gay judge to be made a Lord Justice of Appeal, and is a former Olympic fencer.

Lord Justice Sales, 54, meanwhile usually sits in the Court of Appeal and is a former First Treasury Counsel, representing the UK government in the civil courts.

He was criticised for charging the taxpayer £3.3million in his first six years in the job from 1997.

Sir Terence Etherton was called to the Bar in 1974 and became a QC in 1990. He was appointed a High Court Judge in 2001 before becoming a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2008.

The South American born former model who took on Theresa May and won

Winner: Gina Miller laughs outside the High Court today after beating the Government over their right to invoke Article 50

Glamourous, feisty and impeccably well-connected, South American-born former model Gina Miller humiliated Theresa May and derailed British democracy because Brexit made her feel 'physically sick'.

Mrs Miller, 51, lives in London with her financier husband Alan, nicknamed 'Mr Hedge Fund' because he made £30 million after starting one of the City's first in 1997.

The couple run an investment firm with a reported £100million in its portfolios.

Nicknamed 'Mrs Wham Glam' by friends, she has now been branded 'woman of the century' by Remainers who cheered her on the steps of the High Court today.

The mother-of-three, who was born in Guyana but grew up in Britain, became a successful City investment manager and also set up the No.1 Ladies' Investment Club for women in business.

And friends say she is sharp-witted and acid-tongued, with a reputation for winning every argument.

Describing herself as a 'natural fighter, she has rattled cages in the City and accused the charity sector of widespread inefficiencies.

But this year Mrs Miller, a Labour supporter, put the Government's Brexit plans in her sights because she was 'absolutely stunned' by the referendum result.

Mrs Miller, who voted Remain, brought the case with the help of a Portuguese hairdresser called Deir Santos because the Brexit vote on June 23 made her feel 'physically sick'.

Friends say businesswoman Gina Miller is known as sharp-witted and acid-tongued, with a reputation for winning every argument

Their high-powered team of lawyers to London's High Court, led by top lawyer Lord Pannick QC and a team up to 11 more barristers, has now embarrassed Theresa May.

Outside the Royal Courts of Justice today Mrs Miller laughed uproariously as she was cheered and clapped by supporters waving EU flags after her win.

Online her fans called her a 'national hero' and 'the woman of the century'.

She said: 'You can't have a Government casually throwing away people's rights, that why we turned to the courts. It is about process not politics'.