Supreme Court Brexit case: 'No need' for MPs to get final say

The government has urged the Supreme Court to make a decision the "ordinary man and woman" would understand in the landmark legal challenge over Brexit.

Government lawyer James Eadie QC said ministers could trigger Brexit and that there was no basis for Parliament to get the final say.

He faced a grilling from the 11 Supreme Court justices as he set out his case.

The government is appealing after last month's High Court ruling that MPs must be consulted before triggering Brexit.

There were queues going into the courtroom and protesters outside on day one of the hearing, which is expected to last four days, with a verdict due in January.

The outcome will have implications for Theresa May's strategy for EU exit, but it is not a court case on whether or not Brexit actually takes place.

In the first day at the Supreme Court:

• Court president Lord Neuberger said the judges would consider issues impartially and decide the case according to the law
• The government set out why it thinks it should be able to use "prerogative powers" to trigger Brexit
• Ministers have the power to make or unmake treaties, it said
• It said the powers were not a "relic" but a key part of the constitution
• Parliament could have chosen to restrict ministers' power to act but had chosen not to, it said
• Mr Eadie said Parliament had "carefully selected" which areas it wanted to control, and that where it had not, executive power should apply

At the start of the hearing, Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger said the justices were aware of the public interest in the case and the "strong feelings associated with the many wider political questions surrounding the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union".

But he added: "This appeal is concerned with legal issues, and, as judges, our duty is to consider those issues impartially, and to decide the case according to the law."

He also said some of the people involved in the case had received "threats of serious violence and unpleasant abuse in emails and other electronic communications", warning anyone that such behaviour "undermines the rule of law".