Opposing groups of campaigners gathered outside the UK Supreme Court in London on Monday as judges started hearing the government's appeal against a ruling that Parliament must hold a vote before Britain's European Union exit negotiations can begin.

Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger two years of divorce talks before the end of March by invoking Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, using centuries-old government powers known as royal prerogative.

Those powers - traditionally held by the monarch but now used by politicians - allow the government to join or leave international treaties without consulting lawmakers.

Financial entrepreneur Gina Miller and hairdresser Deir Dos Santos went to court to argue that leaving the EU will remove some of their rights, including free movement within the 28-nation bloc, and that shouldn't be done without Parliament's approval.

Last month, three High Court judges agreed - but the government says they have misinterpreted the law.

The case has raised a constitutional quandary and inflamed the country's heated debate about Brexit.

November's ruling infuriated pro-Brexit campaigners, who saw the lawsuit as an attempt to block or delay Britain's EU exit.

Miller says she has received abuse and death threats.

She arrived at court Monday with her lawyers, greeted by cheers from pro-EU campaigners dressed as judges atop an open-topped double-decker bus.

A banner on the side read "In democracy, Leave hypocrisy."

"Nigel, where are you?" they sang mockingly, in reference to former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, a prominent voice in the leave campaign.

He had promised to lead a march on the Supreme Court to demand judges respect the will of the majority.

It was cancelled last week after organisers said there was a risk it could be hijacked by far-right extremists.

Two anti-EU protesters held placards, one calling the case an "establishment stitch-up."

Many legal experts say the government will likely lose its appeal and be forced to give Parliament a vote.

London - 5 December 2016

1. Exterior of UK Supreme Court

2. Close up of European Union flag

3. Police entering Supreme Court

4. Wide of pro-Remain protesters from Britain for Europe singing as they arrive in open-topped London bus UPSOUND (English) "Nigel, where are you?"

5. Various of protesters outside court building, holding EU and UK flags

6. SOUNDBITE (English) David Gullant, Protester from Surrey branch of Britain for Europe:

"I am a British citizen, but I want to make sure that the UK due process is followed. So this is not about Brexit pros and cons, it's about making sure that if you have an Act of Parliament, only Parliament can change that Act of Parliament. It is not up to the prime minister to overturn it, it has got to go through due process."

7. Pro-Brexit protester Julia Waller

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Julia Waller, pro Brexit protester

"Well, I hope that the government, I hope Theresa May's hand, is strengthened. We've got to give her some credit - she can't expose her hand to Europe. Europe doesn't have our best interests at heart anyway, and I think we want to be free, and when people voted they didn't just vote for a soft Brexit or a grey Brexit, those words didn't exist then. We just voted for Brexit. We want to get out - end of (discussion)."

9. Pan from pro-Europe protesters to Supreme Court

As UK's Prime Minister Theresa May wants to start Britain's divorce from the European Union (EU), eleven judges may stand in her way.

On Monday, May's government will ask the justices of the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that Parliament must hold a vote before Britain's exit negotiations can begin, a case that has raised a constitutional quandary and inflamed the country's heated debate about Brexit.

May plans to trigger two years of divorce talks before the end of March 2017 by invoking Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, using centuries-old government powers known as royal prerogative.

The powers - traditionally held by the monarch but now used by politicians - enable decisions about joining or leaving international treaties to be made without a vote of Parliament.

A hairdresser and a financial entrepreneur, Deir Dos Santos and Gina Miller, went to court to argue that leaving the EU will remove some of their rights, including free movement within the bloc, and that shouldn't be done without Parliament's approval.

Last month, three High Court judges agreed, but the government says they have misinterpreted the law.

Government lawyers led by Attorney General Jeremy Wright will argue this week that the British people have spoken by voting in a June 23 referendum to leave the EU.

In written arguments published before Monday's hearing, government lawyers say the use of royal prerogative to start the talks is "constitutionally appropriate and lawful."

Many legal experts say the government will likely lose its appeal and be forced to give Parliament a vote, but the government was left with little choice than to proceed with the case anyway.

"It's politically problematic, I think, to be seen to not pursue all legal avenues to obstruct this attempt to, in the eyes of some critics, derail the Brexit process," says Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London.

In a reflection of the constitutional importance of the case - which hinges on the balance of power between Parliament and the executive - all 11 Supreme Court judges will hear the appeal, the first time the full court has sat since it was founded in 2009.

The case is scheduled to last four days, with a ruling likely in January.

Complicating the picture are new participants including the Scottish government, which argues the Edinburgh-based Scottish Parliament should get a vote, too.

Britons voted by 52 to 48 percent on June 23 to leave the EU, but voters in Scotland strongly backed staying in, and the Scottish government says they should not be dragged out of the EU against their will.

London - 1 December 2016

1. Exterior of UK Supreme Court building, traffic on street

2. Close of symbol reading (English): "The Supreme Court"

3. Various exteriors of Supreme Court building

4. Various of Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London, looking at book

5. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:

"Well, I think that there are two reasons probably (why the government appealed the High Court ruling that Parliament must hold a vote before negotiations of Britain's exit from the European Union can begin). The first is that it was very confident that it would win at the beginning, and I think it's reluctant to move from that position of confidence. And secondly, it's politically problematic, I think, to be seen to not pursue all legal avenues to obstruct this attempt to, in the eyes of some critics, derail the Brexit process."

6. Cutaway of King

7. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:

"The reaction in some of the media (to the government's loss in the High Court), in particular in the Daily Mail and the Daily Express was, I would say, outrageous. It has been common to criticise judges in the past and I think criticism of judges is perfectly acceptable - they are public officials after all, but this type of language, 'Enemies of the people' (Daily Mail headline the day after the ruling) reminded me of the kinds of things we saw in Nazi Germany."

8. Cutaway of King

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:

"This is quintessentially a role for judges to play. It's an unclear legal position. The devolved governments don't agree, many members of parliament don't agree. There needs to be an authoritative ruling on what the role of these statutes is in the Brexit process, and that can only be given by a court."

10. Cutaway of King

11. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:

"I think that a government loss at the Supreme Court would not derail the Brexit process, but I also think it would be more than a mere speed bump because having to bring forward legislation to give notice would mean that there would be a participation of a much broader range of voices, both in Parliament and in the devolved legislatures and among the devolved governments. And when these voices are heard there is a political obligation of sorts to respond to these voices, to take them into account, to not proceed in a way that ignores them altogether, and I think that will make a difference to the outcome of the Brexit process, but I don't think it will stop it."

12. Cutaway of King

13. Pan of books

14. Various exteriors of Houses of Parliament

A law professor said an appeal of the High Court ruling stating that the British prime minister can't trigger the UK's exit from the European Union without parliamentary approval was unlikely to succeed.

Jeff King, of University College London, said Thursday's comprehensive ruling on an expansive set of grounds could cause the government's argument to fail.

But King cautioned that those hoping for a reversal of the referendum result would likely be disappointed.

London - 3 November 2016

1. Various set up shots of Professor of Law Jeff King, University College London

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:

"It was very clear, there are many points that rather than just the courts saying that we don't need to rule on this point, the court rather said that we think that point is completely untenable, in some cases suggesting that an argument was divorced from reality. So a court that was very divided on this question might well have given a much slimmer narrower ruling based on very few grounds instead of an expansive set of grounds, dealing with only a few crucial points instead of dealing with many more subtle points, but it chose the latter route. In so it gave a comprehensive ruling on many points, many of which could cause the government's argument to fail. And that gives me confidence that an appeal would be unlikely to succeed under the circumstances."

3. Cutaway of King

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:

"It may feel that legally there are arguments that it wishes either to make again or to bring new arguments to the attention of the Supreme Court. It may feel that the political consequences of not pursuing the appeal could be problematic, it might be accused of not having followed up every available avenue. These type of accusations are already being made about the pleadings of the government in this very case. So for those reasons, it may have good political and legal reasons to appeal. My sense is that the appeal would be unlikely to be successful. I think that Supreme Court would have even more confidence to be as unequivocal as this court has been."

5. Various of King

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeff King, Professor of Law, University College London:

"If that 48 percent (those supporting remain) is hoping this legal challenge will stop Brexit, I think they will be disappointed. I think whether Brexit goes ahead will be a function of where Parliament takes this issue from here. And that's exactly what all the judges in the case were taking pains to point out.''

7. Cutaway of King

The four day hearing about who has the power to trigger the EU exit - lawmakers or the government- wrapped up in London on Thursday.

The Supreme Court has been asked to rule on a major constitutional issue: Does the power to take Britain out of the EU rest with the executive - May's government - or with Parliament?

The government argued it can use powers known as royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, the formal trigger for exit talks from the 28-nation bloc.

Speaking after the conclusion of the proceedings Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC, said there has been a "clear expectation that the outcome of the referendum would be honoured - inside and outside Parliament, before, during and after the referendum campaign".

Lawyers challenging the government say leaving the EU will change Britain's laws and remove citizens' rights, including free movement within the bloc - and that can't be done without legislation in Parliament.

Gina Miller, the lead claimant, said the process has been "emotionally and physically, mentally quite draining" but as the days have gone on she has realised the enormity of the case.

The immediate future of the Brexit process now rests in the hands of the 11 Supreme Court justices, with a decision expected in January.

UK POOL

London - 8 December 2016

++NIGHT SHOTS++

1. Lawyers bowing as judges exit at the end of the hearing

2. Various of people leaving court

3. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Wright QC, UK Attorney General:

"There has been a clear expectation that the outcome of the referendum would be honoured - that's inside and outside Parliament, it's before, during and after the referendum campaign. Members of Parliament voted overwhelmingly to have this referendum and as you know, as recently as yesterday evening, Parliament's been continuing to have a say about this."

++BLACK FRAMES++

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Wright QC, UK Attorney General:

"Look, we don't decide which cases are brought. The claimants bring their case, as they did. When we believe, as we did, that judges weren't right in the judgement they reached in the divisional court then the right thing is to appeal that judgement. That's what we've done and we now wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter."

5. Various of Gina Miller, the lead claimant, leaving court

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Gina Miller, lead claimant:

"It's been, the bank of cameras and coming in, the whole thing has been quite emotionally and physically, mentally quite draining. I almost feel as though I'm back into first year law college listening to lectures but one after the other after the other. And then there is the enormity of the fact that I'm sitting in the Supreme Court hearing my name being mentioned and referred to as the Miller case, it's all quite unusual to take it, you know it's just not normal sort of every day. But what's also important as the days have gone on, is to realise the enormity of the case."

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

UK Supreme Court judges were heading in for a third day of a four-day hearing as they considered whether government or Parliament has the power to lead the country out of the European Union.

Prime Minister Theresa May plans to launch EU exit talks by the end of March using ancient powers known as royal prerogative, which enable decisions about joining or leaving international treaties to be made without a parliamentary vote.

Several claimants went to court to argue that leaving the EU would remove some of their rights, including free movement within the bloc, and that such an action could not be taken without legislation in Parliament.

Last month the High Court agreed that the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, launching two years of exit negotiations, without lawmakers' support.

The government is challenging that decision at the country's top court - leaving the 11 justices to rule on the balance of power between the legislature and the executive.

CORRECTION - CLIENTS PLEASE NOTE THE MAN IN SHOT 1 IS ACTUALLY CLAIMANT CHARLIE MULLINS OF PIMLICO PLUMBERS, NOT HAIRDRESSER DEIR DOS SANTOS AS ORIGINALLY STATED

POOL - AP CLIENTS ONLY

London - 7 December 2016

1. Various of entrepreneur Charlie Mullins of Pimlico Plumbers arriving at Supreme Court. Mullins, the boss of London-based Pimlico Plumbers is one of a group of business people helping to fund the court challenge

UK Supreme Court judges were heading in for a third day of a four-day hearing as they considered whether government or Parliament has the power to lead the country out of the European Union.

Prime Minister Theresa May plans to launch EU exit talks by the end of March using ancient powers known as royal prerogative, which enable decisions about joining or leaving international treaties to be made without a parliamentary vote.

Several claimants went to court to argue that leaving the EU would remove some of their rights, including free movement within the bloc, and that such an action could not be taken without legislation in Parliament.

Last month the High Court agreed that the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, launching two years of exit negotiations, without lawmakers' support.

The government is challenging that decision at the country's top court - leaving the 11 justices to rule on the balance of power between the legislature and the executive.

POOL

London - 7 December 2016

1. Lead claimant Gina Miller and team arriving at Supreme Court

2. Lord Richard Keen QC, Advocate General for Scotland, and Jeremy Wright UK Attorney General arriving

Proceedings began on Monday at the UK's highest court as the British government attempts to overturn a ruling that Parliament must hold a vote before Britain's European Union exit negotiations can begin.

Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger two years of divorce talks before the end of March by invoking Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, using centuries-old government powers known as royal prerogative.

The powers - traditionally held by the monarch but now used by politicians - enable decisions about joining or leaving international treaties to be made without a parliamentary vote.

Financial entrepreneur Gina Miller and hairdresser Deir Dos Santos went to court to argue that leaving the EU will remove some of their rights, including free movement within the bloc, and that shouldn't be done without Parliament's approval.

Last month, three High Court judges agreed.

But the government says they have misinterpreted the law.

Government lawyers led by Attorney General Jeremy Wright will argue this week that the British people have spoken by voting in a June 23 referendum to leave the EU.

They say a parliamentary vote would mean getting lawmakers "to answer precisely the same question which was put by Parliament to the electorate and has been answered in the referendum."

Many legal experts say the government will likely lose its appeal and be forced to give Parliament a vote.

In a reflection of the constitutional importance of the case - which hinges on the balance of power between Parliament and the executive - all 11 Supreme Court judges will hear the appeal, the first time the full court has sat since it was founded in 2009.

The case is scheduled to last four days, with a ruling likely in January.

UK POOL

London - 5 December 2016

1. Zoom in from man waving European Union flag outside court building to flag

2. Attorney General for England and Wales Jeremy Wright arriving with his associates

3. Protest bus passing outside court, people on it chanting UPSOUND (English) "Nigel, where are you!"

4. Gina Miller, investment fund manager and philanthropist who was one of the team that won the High Court ruling, arriving with her associates, posing for photographers in front of court entrance