
David Davis has delivered a stark warning to Remoaner MPs against exploiting the Supreme Court ruling to 'thwart' our departure from the EU.

The Brexit Secretary issued the tough message as he defiantly vowed to push ahead with the timetable for leaving the bloc despite the government being dealt an humiliating legal blow.

The top judges ruled by a margin of 8-3 that Theresa May cannot use executive powers to begin the formal process of cutting ties with Brussels.

Minutes after the painful defeat for the government, a triumphant Gina Miller - the businesswoman who spearheaded the challenge - stood on the steps of the court to declare that she had scored a victory for 'parliamentary sovereignty'.

But former Cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith said the intervention of the court raised 'constitutional' issues - although the judges made clear they were not taking a view on Brexit.

Ministers will take some comfort from the fact that three of the judges sided with them, and the court flatly dismissed demands from Nicola Sturgeon for the Scottish government to get a veto over the deal.

In a statement to the Commons later, Mr Davis said he would bring forward a short Bill on the coming days, designed to provide minimal opportunities for pro-EU MPs and peers to table amendments. He said Britain was 'past the point of no return' on Brexit.

Scroll down for video

The legal challenge to the government has been spearheaded by businesswoman and former model Gina Miller (pictured at court today)

David Davis said there was no question of delaying the timetable for triggering Article 50

Lord Neuberger delivered the ruling against the government at the Supreme Court today

Mr Davis said: 'The purpose of this Bill is simply to give the Government the power to invoke Article 50 and begin the process of leaving the European Union.

'That's what the British people voted for and it's what they would expect.

'Parliament will rightly scrutinise and debate this legislation.

'But I trust no-one will seek to make it a vehicle for attempts to thwart the will of the people or frustrate or delay the process of exiting the European Union.'

He added: 'There can be no turning back.

'The point of no return was passed on June 23 last year.'

The warning was echoed in the Upper House by Brexit minister Lord Bridges, who pointed out that the chamber was 'unelected' and needed to 'tread with considerable care'.

Labour's former Cabinet minister Lord Blunkett also appealed for peers to stay out of the row, saying the situation was 'extremely delicate' and it was 'unthinkable' to block the triggering of Article 50.

However, Remain supporting MPs have already indicated they will fight a rearguard action against the government plans.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is demanding a 'meaningful' vote on the final deal that would in effect mean MPs could tear up whatever Mrs May negotiates and order her to start again.

The SNP has also threatened to table 50 amendments in an effort to bog the Bill down.

Delivering the ruling today, senior judge Lord Neuberger said: 'Today, by a majority of 8-3, the Supreme Court rules that the Government cannot trigger Article 50 without an Act of Parliament.'

Mrs Miller's High Court victory in November caused explosive political rows about the role of judges intervening in the wake of the EU referendum

delivered a tough warning to Remainer MPs this afternoon that they must not exploit the Supreme Court ruling to 'thwart' Brexit

Ukip MP Douglas Carswell said 'all the lawyers in London' could not 'subvert' the referendum. Green MP Caroline Lucas said it was a 'win for democracy'. Ukip donor Arron Banks said the court had given power to a 'Remain House of parliament'

He said when the UK withdraws from the EU treaties 'a source of UK law will be cut off'.

'Further, certain rights enjoyed by UK citizens will be changed,' he added.

'Therefore, the Government cannot trigger Article 50 without Parliament authorising that course.'

Attorney General Jeremy Wright thanked the Supreme Court for its work.

Speaking outside court, the Government's top lawyer said: 'Of course the Government is disappointed.

'The Government will comply with the law and will do all that is necessary to implement it.'

Ahead of a statement to MPs by Brexit Secretary David Davis later, a No10 spokeswoman said: 'The British people voted to leave the EU, and the Government will deliver on their verdict – triggering Article 50, as planned, by the end of March. Today's ruling does nothing to change that.

Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger today handed down the ruling that the Prime Minister must pass legislation before triggering Brexit

Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC (pictured arriving at the Supreme Court today) was personally involved in making the government's case

Mrs Miller was mobbed by media as she gave her response to the court's decision today

'It's important to remember that Parliament backed the referendum by a margin of six to one and has already indicated its support for getting on with the process of exit to the timetable we have set out.

'We respect the Supreme Court's decision, and will set out our next steps to Parliament shortly.'

JUDGES RAP DAVID CAMERON OVER POOR LEGISLATION The legislation passed by David Cameron in 2015 failed to make clear 'what should happen in response to the referendum result,' today's judgement said The Supreme Court judgement rapped David Cameron for producing unclear legislation on the effect of the EU referendum. The judges said the Government would not have faced legal challenges had the legislation made clear 'what should happen in response to the referendum result'. It said previous referendums - such as the 2011 vote on changing the electoral system and the 1998 devolution votes - had stipulated that an Act of Parliament would be passed if they were approved. But the failure of the European Union Referendum Act only made provision that the referendum should be held. The judgement suggested this was because ministers did not predict Leave would win the referendum. The lack of clarity led to ministers confusing the public during the referendum campaign as some described the outcome of the referendum as advisory while others said it was decisive, today's ruling said. Advertisement

Speaking outside the court, a jubilant Mrs Miller said: 'Today eight of the 11 Supreme judges upheld the judgement handed down by the High Court in November in a case that went to the very heart of our constitution and how we are governed.

'Only parliament can grant rights to the British people and only Parliament can take them away.

'No Prime Minister, no government can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged. Parliament alone is sovereign.

'This ruling today means that MPs we have elected will rightfully have the opportunity to bring their invaluable experience and expertise to bear in helping the Government select the best course in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations – negotiations that will frame our place in the world and all our destinies to come.'

But leading Brexiteer Mr Duncan Smith said the ruling underlined the problem of judges intruding on the role of parliament.

He told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire show: 'You've got to understand that, of course, there's the European issue but there's also the issue about who is Supreme – Parliament or a self-appointed court.

'This is the issue here right now, so I was intrigued that it was a split judgment.

'I'm disappointed they've tried to tell Parliament how to run its business...

'They've stepped into new territory where they've actually told Parliament not just that they should do something but actually what they should do and I think that leads further down the road to real constitutional issues about who is supreme in this role.'

In his ruling, one of the three judges who backed the government, Lord Reed, voiced similar concerns about intruding on the political sphere.

'Courts should not overlook the constitutional importance of ministerial accountability to Parliament,' Lord Reed wrote.

'Ministerial decisions in the exercise of prerogative powers, of greater importance than leaving the EU, have been taken without any possibility of judicial control: examples include the declarations of war in 1914 and 1939.

'It is important for courts to understand that the legalisation of political issues is not always constitutionally appropriate, and may be fraught with risk, not least for the judiciary.'

Ex-Ukip leader Nigel Farage said the 'establishment' was trying to 'frustrate' the Brexit process.

He warned that people are 'getting angry about it'.

The scope of the PM's powers under the royal prerogative were called into question by Mrs Miller's challenge - which caused explosive political rows about the role of judges intervening on the will of the people.

The executive powers are also deployed for things like taking the country to war.

The Government appealed and a landmark four day case was heard by all 11 of Britain's most senior judges for four days in December.

Gina Miller was jubilant after the decision today, saying she had scored a victory for parliamentary sovereignty

Pro-EU demonstrators had gathered outisde the Supreme Court building in central London for the decision to be announced

Boris Johnson said the government would go 'forward' and trigger Article 50 by March. Ex-Ukip leader Nigel Farage said the 'establishment' was trying to 'frustrate' the Brexit process, and warned that people are 'getting angry about it'

The overwhelming majority of MPs have indicated they will not try to block the Article 50 legislation outright - after the Commons passed a symbolic vote for Brexit by a landslide last month.

But up to 80 Labour MPs could join the Lib Dems in rebelling against Article 50.

THE SUPREME COURT RULING: WHAT HAPPENS NOW? The Supreme Court has ruled against the Government and ordered the Prime Minister to consult MPs before she can start the process of leaving the EU. Judges agreed with the High Court decision that because invoking Article 50 was irreversible it meant citizens would lose rights currently provided by virtue of EU membership - even if the Government promised to match them. This meant ministers need to pass a law in Parliament to carry it out. The law is expected to very short and very simple - as little as one clause that is just three or four lines long. The Government could introduce a Bill as soon as tomorrow and push it through the Commons and Lords as quickly as possible. This is likely to take a couple of days but could be done over a couple of weeks. But attempts by opponents to amend the bill risks delaying the bill and if successful, could attach conditions that tie Theresa May's hands during negotiations. Advertisement

There will also be attempts to water down Mrs May's negotiating position.

Labour sources have said they will try to amend legislation in four areas - but said even if they were defeated the party would not try to block an Article 50 bill.

The amendments will demand the Government produce a full plan for Brexit - going beyond Mrs May's speech last week.

The party also wants priorities - including single market access - spelt out in the legislation, as well as regular, binding, checks on progress by MPs through the two-year negotiation.

The final deal should also be presented to MPs in time for it to be rejected and sent back to the European Council for improvement before the expiry of the two years given by Article 50.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said his party will not seek to block Article 50 - which he said meant he would ask MPs to support it.

'Labour respects the result of the referendum and the will of the British people and will not frustrate the process for invoking Article 50,' he said.

'However, Labour will seek to amend the Article 50 Bill to prevent the Conservatives using Brexit to turn Britain into a bargain basement tax haven off the coast of Europe.

'Labour will seek to build in the principles of full, tariff-free access to the single market and maintenance of workers' rights and social and environmental protections.

'Labour is demanding a plan from the Government to ensure it is accountable to Parliament throughout the negotiations and a meaningful vote to ensure the final deal is given Parliamentary approval.'

The case at the Supreme Court came weeks after Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, and two other leading judges at the High Court, ruled on November 3 that Mrs May lacked power to use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50.

The subsequent Supreme Court hearing attracted media attention from around the globe. It was the most televised UK case ever.

Nigel Farage, pictured appearing on ITV's GMB programme this morning, said the public were 'angry' about efforts to water down Brexit

Mrs Miller, pictured leaving the Supreme Court, has been fighting to force the government to get parliamentary approval for Brexit

One of the protesters at the Supreme Court today was carrying a picture of the PM seemingly adrift in a sea of Brexit

POUND DIPS AFTER COURT RULES AGAINST THE PM The pound fell after a decision by the Supreme Court on Brexit. Judges voted eight to three that Parliament must vote on triggering Article 50. But crucially Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish assemblies will not get to veto the process. Sterling was trading 0.8 per cent down against the dollar at 1.24 and fell 0.46 per cent versus the euro at 1.16 euro. David Cheetham, XT market analyst, said: 'The pound has come under some selling pressure in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, largely due to the fact that the Government doesn't have to consult the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish assemblies before triggering Article 50. 'The appeal itself was rejected, but it still remains likely that Mrs May will meet her self-imposed deadline of beginning the formal Brexit process by the end of March. 'Sterling has been volatile over the announcement.' Although MPs are expected to vote it through, the ruling adds a further complication to the Brexit process, adding to uncertainty. Jeremy Corbyn said Labour would not 'frustrate the process for invoking Article 50' but will seek to amend the Government's bill. Advertisement

He said: 'When it comes to leaving the European Union, Parliament has had full capacity and multiple opportunities to restrict the executive's ordinary ability to begin the Article 50 process and it has not chosen to do so.'

Government lawyers told the court that there was no 'affront to Parliamentary sovereignty' in giving Article 50 notice.

At the heart of the legal battle were rights given to UK citizens by Parliament under the 1972 European Communities Act following the decision to join what is now the EU.

James Eadie QC, for the Government, argued that the 1972 Act was the 'conduit' which allowed executive powers to be used by successive governments to give effect to EU treaty obligations under domestic law.

But Lord Pannick, who represented Mrs Miller and won the ruling at the High Court, told the justices that her case 'is that the prerogative power to enter into and terminate treaties does not allow ministers to nullify statutory rights and duties'.

He declared: 'Parliament is sovereign. What Parliament created only Parliament can take away.'

When the case concluded Lord Neuberger announced: 'It bears repeating we are not being asked to overturn the result of the EU referendum.

'The ultimate question in this case concerns the process by which that result can lawfully be brought into effect.

'As we have heard, that question raises important constitutional issues and we will now take time to ensure the many arguments presented to us orally and in writing are given full and proper consideration.'

The Government's top law officer, Attorney General Jeremy Wright, had argued that the High Court got it 'wrong'.

He told the justices that the use of the prerogative in the circumstances would be lawful.

It was for the Government to exercise prerogative powers in the conduct of the UK's affairs on the international plane.

Former Cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith (pictured today) said the intervention of the court raised 'constitutional' issues - although the judges made clear they were not taking a view on Brexit

The landmark Supreme Court hearing in December was the most televised case in British legal history (pictured)

Judges unanimously REJECT demands for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to get a veto on triggering Article 50

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon led arguments that the devolved administrations should be consulted before Theresa May triggers Article 50, which threatened to derail the PM's timetable for Brexit

Supreme Court judges unanimously rejected claims that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be given a veto on Brexit.

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon led arguments that the devolved administrations should be consulted before Theresa May triggers Article 50 - the formal mechanism for leaving the EU - which threatened to derail the PM's timetable for Brexit.

The case came alongside the main Supreme Court ruling that MPs must be consulted before the Government starts the process of leaving the EU.

But unlike the ruling on devolved powers, it was not a unanimous decision, with three judges dissenting against the majority of eight judges who ruled that an Act of Parliament was necessary.

Scottish nationalists said it will put forward 50 'serious and substantive' amendments to the legislation.

Former first minister Alex Salmond, the SNP's international affairs spokesman, said: 'We welcome the Supreme Court's decision and hope that their ruling brings this Tory government back to the reality that they cannot simply bypass elected parliamentarians to fulfil their role in carrying out due and proper scrutiny of one of the biggest decisions facing the UK.

'The Prime Minister and her hard Brexit brigade must treat devolved administrations as equal partners - as indeed she promised to do.

'For over six months the concerns surrounding a hard Tory Brexit have been echoing throughout the land and yet the Prime Minister has not listened.

'If Theresa May is intent on being true to her word that Scotland and the other devolved administrations are equal partners in this process, then now is the time to show it.

'Now is the time to sit with the Joint Ministerial Committee and not just casually acknowledge, but constructively engage. Consultation must mean consultation.

Mrs Sturgeon has demanded that the PM (pictured leaving No10 today) soften her approach to leaving the EU and allow Scotland special status

'Our amendments will address the very serious concerns facing the UK and the very real issues that the UK government has, thus far, avoided.'

Explaining why they decided the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies do not have to be consulted before triggering Article 50, the Supreme Court judges said: 'The devolution Acts were passed by Parliament on the assumption that the UK would be a member of the EU, but they do not require the UK to remain a member.

'Relations with the EU and other foreign affairs matters are reserved to UK Government and parliament, not to the devolved institutions. Withdrawal from the EU will alter the competence of the devolved institutions, and remove the responsibilities to comply with EU law.

'In view of the decision of the majority of the Justices that primary legislation is required for the UK to withdraw from the EU, it is not necessary for the court to decide if the NIA imposes a discrete requirement for such legislation

'The decision to withdraw from the EU is not a function carried out by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in relation to Northern Ireland within the meaning of section 75 NIA.'

They added: 'Moreover, section 1 NIA, which gave the people of Northern Ireland the right to determine whether to remain part of the UK or to become part of a united Ireland, does not regulate any other change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.

'As to the application of the Sewel Convention to the decision to withdraw from the EU given the effect on the devolved competences, the Convention operates as a political constraint on the activity of the UK Parliament. It therefore plays an important role in the operation of the UK constitution.

'But the policing of its scope and operation is not within the constitutional remit of the courts. The devolved legislatures do not have a veto on the UK's decision to withdraw from the EU.'

The Supremes: The 11 Justices who ruled on Article 50 today