RESTRICTION SUMMARY: NO ACCESS UK, REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. NO ACCESS BBC, SKY, CHANNEL 4 GROUP, CHANNEL 5 GROUP, RTE, TG4. NO ONLINE ACCESS ANY UK OR REPUBLIC OF IRELAND NEWSPAPER PLATFORM. NO ONLINE ACCESS FOR .CO.UK SITES, OR ANY SITE (OR SECTION) AIMED AT AUDIENCES IN THE UK OR REPUBLIC OF IRELAND.

SHOTLIST:

ITN - NO ACCESS UK, REPUBLIC OF IRELAND. NO ACCESS BBC, SKY, CHANNEL 4 GROUP, CHANNEL 5 GROUP, RTE, TG4. NO ONLINE ACCESS ANY UK OR REPUBLIC OF IRELAND NEWSPAPER PLATFORM. NO ONLINE ACCESS FOR .CO.UK SITES, OR ANY SITE (OR SECTION) AIMED AT AUDIENCES IN THE UK OR REPUBLIC OF IRELAND.

London - 24 January 2017

1. Nigel Farage, former leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Member of European Parliament and pro-Brexit campaigner, during interview

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Nigel Farage, former UKIP leader, Member of European Parliament and pro-Brexit campaigner:

(Question: What did you make of today's Supreme Court ruling?)

"Expected.The establishment stick with each other, so Parliament will have a say. But it's funny, isn't it? Because it's one of those rare times when Parliament said to us, the people, 'you decide', and the government made it perfectly clear they would accept the result, trigger Article 50, and get on with it. But here we have a judgement saying that it goes back to Parliament."

3. Farage during interview

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Nigel Farage, former UKIP leader, Member of European Parliament and pro-Brexit campaigner:

(Question: What do you make of those that brought this case and ultimately won it?)

"Well, I think every attempt is being made by the establishment to delay and dilute Brexit. So this will come to the House of Commons fairly quickly, there'll be amendments to try and give us a second referendum, there'll be amendments to try and keep us in the single market. I don't know whether any of them are actually going to succeed, but I do think this: I do think that a fair-minded British public say 'look, we had a referendum, we had a result, what is it with so many of our MPs that they can't accept democracy?"

5. Farage during interview

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Nigel Farage, former UKIP leader, Member of European Parliament and pro-Brexit campaigner:

(Question: The court case wasn't really about accepting democracy though, was it? It was about the letter of the law and it being Parliament's job to trigger this process rather than the Prime Minister, wasn't it?)

"Well, I have to say that it seems to me that we have a House of Commons that represents the common people, but in this case the House of Commons said 'You the common people make this decision'. There's no point arguing after a legal case. It's done. It's done. But it's just the response to it that we've heard from Liberal Democrats, from SNP (Scottish National Party), and indeed from some sections of the Labour Party, saying they will use this vote and debate in Parliament as an attempt to try and delay and dilute Brexit."

7. Farage during interview

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Nigel Farage, former UKIP leader, Member of European Parliament and pro-Brexit campaigner:

(Question: What is your biggest fear following this ruling?)

"My biggest fear is that the whole Brexit process is taking much longer than we were promised. David Cameron (former UK Prime Minister) made it clear: 'You're having a referendum, if you vote to leave, we will trigger Article 50 and you will leave'."

++BLACK FRAMES++

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Nigel Farage, former UKIP leader, Member of European Parliament and pro-Brexit campaigner:

(Question: Are you pleased that devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland won't get a say?)

"Had devolved administrations been given a say over this we would no longer be a United Kingdom, we'd be a federal state. So that was an expected judgement. Anything else would've been outrageous."

++BLACK FRAMES++

10. SOUNDBITE (English) Nigel Farage, former UKIP leader, Member of European Parliament and pro-Brexit campaigner:

(Question: Who do you blame for these legal wranglings?)

"Oh, I blame big money and the establishment. I mean, look. We all know that the European Union has been good for some people. It's been good for the wealthy, it's been good for big business, it's actually been quite good for many people in career politics. They're trying their very best to frustrate the will of the people."

++BLACK FRAMES++

11. SOUNDBITE (English) Nigel Farage, former UKIP leader, Member of European Parliament and pro-Brexit campaigner:

(Question: Isn't it only fair to follow the proper process though?)

"What is the proper process? If Article 50 had been triggered immediately after the referendum, we wouldn't have had any of this mess. So the lesson, the moral of the story, to the government is 'get on with it'."

++BLACK FRAMES++

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

STORYLINE:

Former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage said he "expected" the Supreme Court ruling that Parliament must vote on triggering the UK's departure from the European Union.

Speaking on Tuesday outside the Houses of Parliament, Farage said he thought "every attempt is being made by the establishment to delay and dilute Brexit."

He said opposition parties may try to use the parliamentary vote to add amendments calling for a second referendum or to ensure Britain retains its status in the European single market.

===========================================================

Clients are reminded:

(i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: info@aparchive.com

(ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service

(iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory.

Pro- and anti-Brexit protesters circled outside the Supreme Court in London as they entered their second day of the hearing for the Brexit case.

The Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether Prime Minister Theresa May's government has the power to start the process of leaving the European Union (EU) without Parliament's approval.

"In terms of whether I think the government will win again, it's hard to say. Because they argue very difficultly in legal argument, but it is true that they have been asked a lot of difficult questions, so it does seem to suggest that there are some gaps in their legal argument, so it maybe that they are not able to succeed this time around, and that the divisional court's decision will be upheld, and so you have to need legislation. If you are asking me what I think would be the right outcome, I think it will be good to have legislation, because I think it will be really important to get MPs involved to discuss the ins and outs of what version of Brexit we would be like to have," said Alison Young, professor of public law, University of Oxford.

The British public voted to leave the EU during the referendum in June by a 52-48 margin, with talks of how the exit process should begin, becoming a battleground between May and her team and the politicians in the Houses of Parliament.

The decision has been left to the 11 Supreme Court judges after the High Court ruled against the government and said Parliament had to be involved in the process.

"I voted to remain in the European Union, I think it was a mistake to go for Brexit. But the referendum has been held, the answer has been given, so now it's the responsibility of the government to carry that out. My concern is that they should do that in a way which least damages the economy, least damages the rights of people in this country to work abroad, and vice versa, immigrants to come here," said Jonathan Smith, employee of a management consulting company in London.

"It would only be a delay, because all the court is saying is you need to have legislation to authorize the [prime] minister to enact this power. So was suggested in court today that it could be a very short piece of legislation that is very quick, so it might not even delay Brexit," Young said.

"I believe that if it ends up having to be put to parliament, I think the vast majority of MPs, even though they voted to remain, or expressed to wish to remain in the European Union, they accept the will of the people, they won't try to obstruct it going forward, but they will wish to express opinions and they will wish to hear more about the government's plans for how they intend to make it happen," said Smith.

********************

Access to CCTV+ content is free for all but usage permission is required by CCTV+. Please contact Angela Fu at sales@newscontent.cctv.com or call +86 10 6398 2884 for details of the free usage licenses. Thank you!

********************

Copyright 2013 CCTV. All rights reserved.

London, UK - Dec 6, 2016

1. Various of rally outside of Supreme Court

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Alison Young, professor of public law, University of Oxford:

"In terms of whether I think the government will win again, it's hard to say. Because they argue very difficultly in legal argument, but it is true that they have been asked a lot of difficult questions, so it does seem to suggest that there are some gaps in their legal argument, so it maybe that they are not able to succeed this time around, and that the divisional court's decision will be upheld, and so you have to need legislation. If you are asking me what I think would be the right outcome, I think it will be good to have legislation, because I think it will be really important to get MPs involved to discuss the ins and outs of what version of Brexit we would be like to have."

3. Policeman at Supreme Court

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Jonathan Smith, employee of management consulting company:

"I voted to remain in the European Union, I think it was a mistake to go for Brexit. But the referendum has been held, the answer has been given, so now it's the responsibility of the government to carry that out. My concern is that they should do that in a way which least damages the economy, least damages the rights of people in this country to work abroad, and vice versa, immigrants to come here."

5. Rally

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Alison Young, professor of public law, University of Oxford:

"It would only be a delay, because all the court is saying is you need to have legislation to authorize the [prime] minister to enact this power. So was suggested in court today that it could be a very short piece of legislation that is very quick, so it might not even delay Brexit."

7. Westminster, traffic

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Jonathan Smith, employee of management consulting company:

"I believe that if it ends up having to be put to parliament, I think the vast majority of MPs, even though they voted to remain, or expressed to wish to remain in the European Union, they accept the will of the people, they won't try to obstruct it going forward, but they will wish to express opinions and they will wish to hear more about the government's plans for how they intend to make it happen."

9. Big Ben

Pro- and anti-Brexit demonstrators held rival protests outside the United Kingdom's Supreme Court on Monday in London as judges began to hear the government's appeal on whether parliament would need to vote on triggering Article 50, which would split the country from the European Union (EU).

The case comes after the High Court issued a ruling in November that said the government must get the support of members of parliament to invoke the clause written in the Lisbon Treaty, which was signed by EU members in December 2007.

Signs reading "Brexit is Racist" and "British democracy fights vested interests" were spotted at the protests as demonstrators from both sides shouted at each to get their points across.

Some claimants involved in the Brexit case have been on the receiving end of harassment and attacks. According to reports, Gina Miller, who took the case to the High Court to challenge the process of the UK's exit from the EU, has been subjected to network attacks and physical threats. Eleven judges involved in the case have also been targeted by the media, which disclosed their income and political views.

"To be calling our judges enemies of the people, it's just so sad, and so distressing, and just takes you back to thoughts about Nazi Germany in the 30s and similar kinds of headlines and the newspapers. The judges must do this in the impartial way and follow the law of the country and to say that they're biased and they're influenced, it's just tearing down our civilization and I just think it's awful," said an anti-Brexit supporter.

However, pro-Brexit supporters believe the anti-Brexit camp is just dragging the case along as a favorable decision by the judges could see the House of Lords get involved and only delay the vote.

"We are being run by unelected judges, lords, old has-been politicians and celebrity lovies who don't live in this country. A lot of them have vested interest in Europe, and they will not listen to the will of the British people. They are trying to delay this process and divert it and water it down so that it then goes to the House of Lords, again unelected, and they will delay it and water it down," said a pro-Brexit supporter.

London, UK - Dec 5, 2016

1. Various of demonstrators protesting outside Supreme Court

2. Newspaper showing Supreme Court judges, Supreme Court building

3. Police officer standing outside Supreme Court building

4. Emblem on Supreme Court building

5. Pedestrians, traffic, Big Ben

6. Various of newspaper showing story about Gina Miller and Supreme Court judges

7. SOUNDBITE (English) Anti-Brexit supporter (no name given) (starting with shot 6):

"To be calling our judges enemies of the people, it's just so sad, and so distressing, and just takes you back to thoughts about Nazi Germany in the 30s and similar kinds of headlines and the newspapers. The judges must do this in the impartial way and follow the law of the country and to say that they're biased and they're influenced, it's just tearing down our civilization and I just think it's awful."

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Pro-Brexit supporter (no name given) (overlaid with shot 9):

"We are being run by unelected judges, lords, old has-been politicians and celebrity lovies who don't live in this country. A lot of them have vested interest in Europe, and they will not listen to the will of the British people. They are trying to delay this process and divert it and water it down so that it then goes to the House of Lords, again unelected, and they will delay it and water it down."

++SHOT OVERLAYING SOUNDBITE++

9. British and Supreme Court flags

++SHOT OVERLAYING SOUNDBITE++

10. Demonstrators on bus

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

RESTRICTION SUMMARY: NEWS USE ONLY. STRICTLY NOT TO BE USED IN ANY COMEDY/SATIRICAL PROGRAMMING OR FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES. ONLINE USE PERMITTED BUT MUST CARRY CLIENT'S OWN LOGO OR WATERMARK ON VIDEO FOR ENTIRE TIME OF USE.

SHOTLIST:

++SOUNDBITES SEPARATED BY BLACK FRAMES++

PARLIAMENTARY RECORDING UNIT - NEWS USE ONLY. STRICTLY NOT TO BE USED IN ANY COMEDY/SATIRICAL PROGRAMMING OR FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES. ONLINE USE PERMITTED BUT MUST CARRY CLIENT'S OWN LOGO OR WATERMARK ON VIDEO FOR ENTIRE TIME OF USE.

London - 24 January 2017

1. SOUNDBITE: (English) Sir Keir Starmer, Shadow Brexit secretary:

"Thank you Mr. Speaker and can I thank the Secretary of State (for Brexit David Davis) for early sight of his statement. This is a good day for parliamentary sovereignty. The Supreme Court has ruled that we shall have a say in this house on the Article 50 issue. Given the issues involved that is quite right and the Prime Minister was wrong to attempt to sideline parliament in this process. This bill is only to be introduced because the Prime Minister has been ordered to do so. Now I hope that in the aftermath there won't be the attacks on our judges that there were when the High Court gave its ruling. And it's the duty of all of us to defend them if they do and to do so quickly and I hope the Secretary of State will join me in that endeavour. The question now moves on to the proper role of parliament and the Supreme Court said nothing about the particular form of legislation, but on issues as important as this it would be wrong for the government to try to minimise the role of parliament or to seek to avoid amendments, and I ask the Secretary of State to confirm that he won't take that approach."

++BLACK++

2. SOUNDBITE: (English) Sir Keir Starmer, Shadow Brexit secretary:

"This is a question of substance not process. Last week the Prime Minister committed herself to swapping the known benefits of single market membership and the customs union for the hoped for benefits of a free trade agreement with a fallback position of breaking our economic model. That is high risk and there are big gaps, inconsistencies and unanswered questions in the Prime Minister's approach. Mr Speaker if the Prime Minister fails in her endeavour the cost will be born by families, working people and communities throughout the UK. The stakes are high and the role of this house in holding the Prime Minister and the government to account throughout the process is crucial."

++BLACK++

3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Sir Keir Starmer, Shadow Brexit secretary:

"Labour accepts and respects the referendum result and will not frustrate the process. But we will be seeking to lay amendments to a proper scrutiny and accountability throughout the process. That starts, Mr Speaker, with a White Paper or plan. A speech is not a White Paper or plan and we need something to hold the government to account throughout the process. You can't have a speech, you can't have a speech as the only basis for accountability for two years or more. That's the first step. Then there needs to be a reporting back procedure and there needs to be a meaningful vote at the end of the exercise. The government should welcome such scrutiny not try to resist it because the end result will be better if scrutinised than it would otherwise be. I hope the Secretary of State will confirm that we will not seek to minimize scrutiny and accountability. I'll leave others to say about the devolved administrations. I think whatever the court ruled it's important that those interests are taken properly into account. I end with this, Mr Speaker: What a waste of time and money."

STORYLINE:

Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer told parliament that the government needs to produce a formal White Paper to set out a roadmap for exiting the European Union.

Starmer said the government couldn't rely on Prime Minister Theresa May's speech last week as the "only basis for accountability for two years or more".

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Britain's government must get parliamentary approval before starting the process of leaving the European Union, potentially delaying Prime Minister Theresa May's plans to trigger exit negotiations by the end of March.

The 8-3 ruling from the judges forces the government to put a bill before Parliament, giving pro-EU politicians a chance to soften the terms of Brexit - Britain's exit from the EU. "Leave" campaigners had objected, saying Parliament shouldn't have the power to overrule the electorate, which voted to leave the bloc in a June 23 referendum.

The Supreme Court's decision doesn't mean that Britain will remain in the EU - but it could delay the process.

===========================================================

Clients are reminded:

(i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: info@aparchive.com

(ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service

(iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory.

Small groups of protesters held rival demonstrations on Monday as judges inside the Supreme Court in London were hearing arguments as to whether the government had the right to leave Europe without parliamentary approval.

Britain's Supreme Court began hearing a landmark case on Monday that will decide who has the power to trigger the UK's exit from the European Union - the government or Parliament.

The legal battle has major constitutional implications for the balance of power between the legislature and the executive, and has inflamed Britain's already raw wound over how and whether to leave the EU.

Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger Article 50 of the EU's key treaty by the end of March, 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.

London - 5 December 2016

1. Pro-Europe demonstration in front of Supreme Court

2. Tilt down of sign reading (English): "Stop Brexit fight racism and the scapegoating of immigrants. Defend freedom of movement."

3. Various of pro-Europe protesters chanting, holding banners

4. Pan from police to protesters in front of Supreme Court

5. Rival protest groups in front of Supreme Court, police officers at scene

6. Pro-Europe protesters shouting (English): "Brexit is racist, stop Brexit now!"

7. Smart phone screen showing protesters

8. Rival protesters discussing

9. Pro-Brexit protesters, woman waving Union flag

10. Man being led away by police

11. Policewoman

12. Supreme Court and protesters

Britain's government must get parliamentary approval before starting the process of leaving the European Union, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, potentially delaying Prime Minister Theresa May's plans to trigger exit negotiations by the end of March.

The 8-3 ruling from the judges forces the government to put a bill before Parliament, giving pro-EU politicians a chance to soften the terms of Brexit - Britain's exit from the EU.

"Leave" campaigners had objected, saying Parliament shouldn't have the power to overrule the electorate, which voted to leave the bloc in a June 23 referendum.

The Supreme Court's decision doesn't mean that Britain will remain in the EU - but it could delay the process.

Still, May's Brexit secretary, David Davis, told the House of Commons on Tuesday that the government timetable remained on track, and that officials would introduce a bill within days.

"They (parliament) need to be involved before we leave," said Charlie Mullins, founder of Pimlico Plumbers, who helped fund Article 50 legal challenge.

May had argued the referendum gave her a mandate to take Britain out of the EU and that discussing the details of her strategy with Parliament would weaken the government's negotiating position.

UKIP leader Paul Nuttall said the result was what he expected, saying "I think we've lost the battle today and I'm disappointed but not surprised, but we will win the war."

London - 24 January 2017

1. Pan down UK Supreme Court entrance

2. Police outside

3. Top shot media and entrance

4. Set up of Charlie Mullins, founder of Pimlico Plumbers

5. Close up Mullins' tie

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Charlie Mullins, founder of Pimlico Plumbers, helped fund Article 50 legal challenge:

"Well I think it was all unnecessary. If she would have got parliament involved, rather than you know, saying that she's gonna get on with it, then she was saying, 'oh, they can vote on this once she's negotiated a deal' - well that's all too late then. Once she's negotiated a deal, once we've left the EU and we're offered the deal we've got, there is no point in parliament getting involved. They need to be involved before we leave. And now I think they can put enough pressure on to her to make sure we get a soft Brexit."

7. Pan down Supreme Court

8. Various pro-EU demonstrators

9. Various exteriors of UK parliament

10. Various cutaways of Paul Nuttall, UK Independence Party leader

11. SOUNDBITE (English) Paul Nuttall, UKIP leader:

"I think it's what we expected, I think we've lost the battle today and I'm disappointed but not surprised, but we will win the war. And now these guys behind me in the House of Commons and the House of Lords have a duty to enact the will of the people and I want to make it clear what that will is. People voted on mass on June 23rd to leave the European Union. They also voted the leave the single market. The Prime Minister of the day, David Cameron, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary of the day, Philip Hammond, they all made it clear, leaving the EU means leaving the single market. The British people went out and did that by a score of 52 percent. So leaving must mean leaving."

12. Mid of Parliament

13. Various set ups Andrew Blick, Director History and Policy organisation and Lecturer King's College London

14. SOUNDBITE (English) Andrew Blick, Director History and Policy and Lecturer King's College London:

"The courts upholding that principal is a very important constitutional moment that no doubt will appear in all the textbooks for years to come. No question about the constitutional significance. The political significance is a bit more complicated. What political difference will it really make? It seems unlikely that the Commons, the House of Commons, the elected chamber of parliament, would want to be seen to be blocking Brexit, to be seen to be resisting the will of the people as expressed in a referendum. That seems very unlikely. There is perhaps an outside chance that the House of Lords, the unelected chamber, might offer some kind of resistance to the bill."

15. Cutaway

16. SOUNDBITE (English) Andrew Blick, Director History and Policy and Lecturer King's College London:

"I think that timetable (set out by British Prime Minister Theresa May) still looks very plausible, but the consequence of this judgment today is that the matter is slightly out of her (May) hands in that now she has to get statutory authorisation, she has to take a bill through parliament, she has to follow through those parliamentary procedures. It can be done quickly but it does require both Houses of Parliament to agree to it if she wants it happen quickly, so there is a slight variable in there, that wasn't in there before."

17. Various exteriors of Parliament

RESTRICTION SUMMARY: NEWS USE ONLY. STRICTLY NOT TO BE USED IN ANY COMEDY/SATIRICAL PROGRAMMING OR FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES. ONLINE USE PERMITTED BUT MUST CARRY CLIENT'S OWN LOGO OR WATERMARK ON VIDEO FOR ENTIRE TIME OF USE.

SHOTLIST:

++SOUNDBITES SEPARATED BY BLACK FRAMES++

PARLIAMENTARY RECORDING UNIT - NEWS USE ONLY. STRICTLY NOT TO BE USED IN ANY COMEDY/SATIRICAL PROGRAMMING OR FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES. ONLINE USE PERMITTED BUT MUST CARRY CLIENT'S OWN LOGO OR WATERMARK ON VIDEO FOR ENTIRE TIME OF USE.

London - 24 January 2017

1. SOUNDBITE: (English) David Davis, UK Brexit Secretary:

"First of all let me be clear, that we believe in and value the independence of our judiciary, the foundation upon which the rule of law is built. So of course, it goes without saying, we will respect this judgement. Second, as I have already made clear, this judgement does not change the fact that the UK will be leaving the European Union and it's our job to deliver on the instruction the people of the UK have given us. Third we will within days introduce legislation to give the government the legal power to trigger Article 50 and begin the formal process of withdrawal. It will be separate to the Great Repeal Bill that will be introduced later this year to repeal the European Communities Act 1972. This will be the most straightforward bill possible to give effect to the decision of the people and respect the Supreme Court's judgement. 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."

++BLACK++

2. SOUNDBITE: (English) David Davis, UK Brexit Secretary:

"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. Fourth, our timetable for invoking Article 50 by the end of March still stands. That timetable has given valuable certainty to citizens and businesses in the UK and across Europe. It's understood by our European partners and provides a framework for planning the negotiation ahead. This house itself backed that timetable by a majority of 373 in December so we look forward to working closely with colleagues in parliament to ensure that legislation on Article 50 is passed in good time to allow us to invoke it by the end of March as planned."

++BLACK++

3. SOUNDBITE: (English) David Davis, UK Brexit Secretary:

"The government's fifth and final principle for responding to this judgement is to continue to ensure that we deliver an exit that is in the best interest of the whole of the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court has ruled clearly in the government's favour on roles of devolved legislatures in invoking Article 50. But whilst this provides welcome clarity it in no way diminishes our commitment to work closely with the people and administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as we move forward with our withdrawal from the European Union."

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

STORYLINE:

Britain's Brexit secretary said on Tuesday that Prime Minister Theresa May's government will introduce a bill to Parliament within days, after losing a Supreme Court case on whether lawmakers need to have a say on Britain's exit from the European Union.

David Davis was responding to the Supreme Court ruling in a statement before the House of Commons.

He said the government will introduce a straightforward bill to invoke Article 50, triggering the two-year process of negotiations for Britain's withdrawal from the 28-nation bloc.

He said the government will ensure the bill can be passed in time for Article 50 to be triggered before the end of March.

Lawmakers in opposition parties are demanding clarity on what the objectives of the government will be in negotiating an EU exit, but the government has said it does not want to reveal its hand.

===========================================================

Clients are reminded:

(i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: info@aparchive.com

(ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service

(iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory.

The British Supreme Court on Monday morning started hearing the historic Brexit legal case to decide whether the British government can begin the process to pull Britain out of the European Union (EU) without parliament's approval.

Protesters from both the leave and remain camps gathered at Parliament Square to express their feelings ahead of the case at the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to last four days.

The government has insisted it has the power and authority to start the exit process by triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the formal gateway for a member country to leave the EU.

British Prime Minister Theresa May wants to trigger Article 50 by the end of March. However, the High Court heard a challenge to May's plans and ruled that she must get the parliament's support to invoke the clause.

May's government appealed against that ruling and the 11 Supreme Court judges are expected to make a definitive decision in the coming days. If the judges uphold the High Court decision, it will mean May must involve parliament in her Brexit plans. May's supporters fear that politicians could use that process to delay or even sabotage Britain's exit from the EU, even though the majority of people voted to leave in the June 23 referendum.

On the other hand if the judges, when they announce their decision in January, agree with the government, it will pave the way for May to start the process without seeking the approval of parliament.

Commentators say that what is really on trial in the hearing is democracy and the authority of the government.

The judges were not in their traditional ceremonial robes for the hearing, though it is the first time in history all law judges have sat together.

That is an indication of the constitutional and legal importance of the case.

The somber atmosphere of the wood paneled courtroom is in sharp contrast to the noisy demonstrations outside the historic building close to the Houses of Parliament.

The first full day of the hearing will be taken up with the government's Attorney General Jeremy Wright contending that the government, using centuries old powers, has the right to start the process. He also insists that parliament legally approved the referendum handing the decision to the people of Britain.

Later in the week, the judges will hear from the lawyers representing Gina Miller, a wealthy businesswoman who originally took the case to the High Court to force May to hand the decision of triggering Article 50 to parliament.

London, United Kingdom - Dec 5, 2016

1. Media outside Supreme Court

2. Pro- and anti-Brexit supporters outside Supreme Court

3. Campaign bus passing by, painted with slogans reading "In Democracy Leave Hypocrisy -- We Love British Sovereignty"

4. Truck passing by, painted with slogans reading "The Law Breaking Point"

5. Various of police officers, reporters, pro- and anti-Brexit supporters

6. Various of people walking in Supreme Court

7. Various of Westminster Palace

UK Brexit Secretary David Davis said that the result of the referendum to leave the UK must be respected, "no ifs or buts".

The opposition Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, weighed in on the issue by focusing on the country's financial and business relations with the European Union.

Britain's High Court ruled on Thursday that the prime minister cannot trigger the UK's exit from the European Union without Parliament's approval - a decision that complicates an already confusing situation riddled with uncertainties.

A barrister for law firm Field Fisher, David Northfield, said it was unlikely that the Supreme Court would "refer the question whether an Article 50 notification can be withdrawn to the European Court of Justice".

The case, which is the first successful legal challenge since Britons voted in June to leave the 28-nation bloc, throws British Prime Minister Theresa May's plans for Brexit into turmoil because she may now have to contend with drawn-out debates in Parliament that could reveal her government's negotiating positions to EU officials.

SKY NEWS - NO ACCESS UK MAINSTREAM BROADCASTERS/AL JAZEERA/BLOOMBERG. IF YOU ARE A FOREIGN NEWS CHANNEL DISTRIBUTED IN THE UK AND IRELAND ON SKY'S DIGITAL SATELLITE PLATFORM AND WANT TO USE THIS CONTENT, PLEASE CONTACT THE CUSTOMER LIAISON DESK AT: customervideosupport@ap.org

London - 3 November 2016

1. SOUNDBITE (English) David Davis, UK Brexit Secretary:

"The result of the referendum must be respected. Parliament voted by six to one to give the decision to the people. No ifs, or buts. And that's why we are appealing this to get on with delivering the best deal for Britain. That's the best deal for growth, the best deal for investment, the best deal for jobs. The people want us to get on with it, that's what we intend to do."

+++ BLACK FRAMES +++

UK POOL

Manchester - 3 November 2016

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the opposition Labour Party:

"Parliament has to have a say in crucial decisions for the future of this country. We're looking at the assured market access to Europe, we're going to be looking at the future of the manufacturing industry, we're looking at the access of finance services to Europe and of course, crucially, workplace regulations, environmental regulations and consumer rights."

+++ BLACK FRAMES +++

SKY NEWS - NO ACCESS UK MAINSTREAM BROADCASTERS/AL JAZEERA/BLOOMBERG. IF YOU ARE A FOREIGN NEWS CHANNEL DISTRIBUTED IN THE UK AND IRELAND ON SKY'S DIGITAL SATELLITE PLATFORM AND WANT TO USE THIS CONTENT, PLEASE CONTACT THE CUSTOMER LIAISON DESK AT: customervideosupport@ap.org

London - 3 November 2016

3. SOUNDBITE (English) David Northfield, Barrister for Field Fisher law firm:

"There is a slim possibility that the Supreme Court may refer the question whether an Article 50 notification can be withdrawn to the European Court of Justice. That seems unlikely. Once the Supreme Court has given its ruling it seems likely that the government will just have to get on with it. So if they win, it will be back to business as usual and the government can take steps to start the withdrawal process as and when it leaves. But if they lose then they will have to steer a bill through Parliament and that will throw up a number of nuances and complications."

+++ BLACK FRAMES +++

SKY NEWS - NO ACCESS UK MAINSTREAM BROADCASTERS/AL JAZEERA/BLOOMBERG. IF YOU ARE A FOREIGN NEWS CHANNEL DISTRIBUTED IN THE UK AND IRELAND ON SKY'S DIGITAL SATELLITE PLATFORM AND WANT TO USE THIS CONTENT, PLEASE CONTACT THE CUSTOMER LIAISON DESK AT: customervideosupport@ap.org

London - 3 November 2016

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Ian Duncan Smith, Conservative and Leave supporter:

"If parliament passes an act that gives to the British people the right to make a decision, which happened by an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons, does Parliament then have the right to kind of overturn that decision if they wish? And that's what's really at the bottom of this. All the other stuff is just smoke and mirrors. I mean, the truth is there is a bunch of people who are desperately hoping that what they can persuade Parliament to do is to have this vote and then to actually overturn the decision that the British people made and they're going to go on and on and on about this. This is just another device."

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told the Scottish Parliament on Thursday that her party would "certainly not vote for anything that undermines the will or the interest of the Scottish people".

Sturgeon was speaking after the British High Court ruled that the British prime minister can't trigger the UK's exit from the European Parliament without a vote in Parliament.

The First Minister said that the Scottish National Party (SNP) would defend Scotland's place in Europe and in the single market.

The case is considered the most important constitutional matter in a generation.

The Conservative government said it would go to the country's Supreme Court to challenge the ruling, which, if upheld, could prevent it from starting exit talks with the EU by March 31 as planned.

The Supreme Court has set aside time in early December to hear the appeal.

It's unlikely the ruling will stop Britain from leaving the EU eventually. Most lawmakers accept that voters' choice must be respected - but they differ widely on what form Brexit should take.

Pro-EU legislators hope the ruling will force the government to set out its plans for exit negotiations before triggering Article 50, something Prime Minister Theresa May has previously ruled out.

A majority of members of Parliament backed the "remain" side in the referendum, but could be willing to support the start of exit talks if it's clear that the government won't seek a "hard Brexit," in which Britain leaves the EU's single market of 500 million people.

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT TV

Edinburgh - 3 November 2016

1. Parliament

2. SOUNDBITE: (English) Nicola Sturgeon, Scottish First Minister: ++STARTS ON PREVIOUS SHOT++/INCLUDES CUTAWAY OF RUTH DAVIDSON++

"I start to wonder if Ruth Davidson (leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party) is my secret FMQ's agent, if she could get up today of all days and talk about constitutional uncertainty, frankly beggars belief. There is not a lot of competence in Ruth Davidson's preparation's for First Minister's Questions based on that. This is the day when her party has just been overturned in the courts when the courts have said their intention to trigger Article 50 without a vote in Parliament is illegal. For her to talk about constitutional uncertainty is frankly beyond words. Well let me make it quite clear, presiding officer, the job of this government. The job of this government is to make sure we look after our public services, is to make sure we bring forward proposals for tax that are reasonable, balanced and progressive, allow us to protect those public services and allow us to make sure that we are supporting our economy to grow particularly through our support for the smallest businesses in our country. And our job also is to make sure that we are standing up for the interest of this country and doing everything we can to prevent the party that Ruth Davidson is a member of, from dragging Scotland out of the European Union against our will because that is the biggest risk to our economy, that is what Ruth Davidson really needs to wake up to."

3. Members of Scottish Parliament

4. SOUNDBITE: (English) Nicola Sturgeon, Scottish First Minister:

"We'll be looking at the judgement very carefully, and yes will actively consider whether or not there is a case for the Scottish government to become participants in that case. The judgement this morning I don't think is a huge surprise for anybody who fought the case but it is hugely significant and it underlines the total chaos and confusion at the heart of the UK government. I mean we should remember that their refusal to allow a vote in the House of Commons is not some matter of high constitutional principle, it's because they don't have a coherent position and they know that if they take their case to the House of Commons that will be exposed. The job of this government is to protect Scotland's interests. Scotland voted to remain in the EU and my job is therefore to protect her place in Europe and in the single market as far as I possibly can. SNP in the House of Commons will certainly not vote for anything that undermines the will or the interest of the Scottish people."

5. Various of Parliament

A judge in Northern Ireland on Friday dismissed one of the legal challenges to Britain's decision to leave the European Union, or Brexit.

A group of politicians in Northern Ireland had sued before the Belfast High Court, arguing that lawmakers in the Stormont Assembly should have a say on whether to trigger negotiations with Europe.

Lawyers for the Britain's government had argued there was no legal barrier to Brexit.

The case is separate from a landmark legal challenge being heard before Britain's High Court, which argues that Parliament needs to act before Prime Minister Theresa May can trigger negotiations to leave the 28-nation bloc.

SKY NEWS - NO ACCESS UK MAINSTREAM BROADCASTERS/AL JAZEERA/BLOOMBERG. IF YOU ARE A FOREIGN NEWS CHANNEL DISTRIBUTED IN THE UK AND IRELAND ON SKY'S DIGITAL SATELLITE PLATFORM AND WANT TO USE THIS CONTENT, PLEASE CONTACT THE CUSTOMER LIAISON DESK AT: customervideosupport@ap.org

Belfast - 28 October 2016

1. SOUNDBITE (English) Colum Eastwood, leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party:

"We're clearly disappointed at the result today but we're also determined to stand by the people who gave us our mandate - 56 percent of people who voted to remain within the European Union. We're going to look at the detail of this judgement and see where we go next in terms of the legal route but we'll also continue to use every political and diplomatic route open to us to defend the will and the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland."

++BLACK FRAMES++

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Raymond McCord, father of loyalist paramilitary murder victim:

"We'll be going to the Supreme Court in London, without a doubt."

Reporter, off camera: "Why will you be going to the Supreme Court?"

McCord: "Well, the judge has left the door open. Some of the decisions are that he actually stated that he believed it should be going to a higher court and this judgement, it will be going to the higher court, that's London."

++BLACK FRAMES++

3. SOUNDBITE (English) Raymond McCord, father of loyalist paramilitary murder victim:

"Well, we've seen all the way through the Troubles here since the Good Friday Agreement, the British government - whether it's the Labour party, the Conservative party - have no interest in victims, I believe. Like all the many other victims that have come out of Europe, the Tories (Conservatives) will do away with the European Court of Human Rights, we'll have very little chance then to hold the government accountable."

++BLACK FRAMES++

4. SOUNDBITE (English) David Ford, Alliance Party member of Northern Ireland Assembly:

"It does seem to me that effectively more or less all the points were dealt with on the same principle, that Article 50 being triggered was not the end of the process; that's an issue which does need to be examined as we look at the detail of the judgement."

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

UK Prime Minister Theresa May was seeking to reassure European Union leaders that her Brexit timetable remains intact despite an adverse court ruling.

She plans to telephone European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on Friday to spread the word that her plan is still to start the process to remove Britain from the EU by the end of March.

May's ability to invoke Article 50 to formally begin the process may be slowed, however, by a High Court ruling that the government needs parliament's approval first.

British newspaper headlines on Friday were dominated by reaction to Thursday's ruling.

Paddy Ashdown, the former leader of the Liberal Democrat party, told UK broadcaster Sky News that he was shocked that May "didn't seem to realise that" parliament has a role to play in the process.

The government plans to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court with a hearing expected next month.

If the country's highest court rules against the government, Parliament will become directly involved in the Brexit situation.

AP TELEVISION

London - 4 November 2016

1. Pan to newsagents on Camden High Street

2. Close of newsagent's sign

3. Pan to newspapers for sale inside newsagents

SKY NEWS - NO ACCESS UK MAINSTREAM BROADCASTERS/AL JAZEERA/BLOOMBERG. IF YOU ARE A FOREIGN NEWS CHANNEL DISTRIBUTED IN THE UK AND IRELAND ON SKY'S DIGITAL SATELLITE PLATFORM AND WANT TO USE THIS CONTENT, PLEASE CONTACT THE CUSTOMER LIAISON DESK AT: customervideosupport@ap.org

London - 4 November 2016

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Paddy Ashdown, Member of the House of Lords and former leader of the Liberal Democrat Party:

"Parliament has a role to play in the process, that's what the courts have said. I'm shocked that the prime minister of our country didn't seem to realise that. Our democracy is built on the executive under the control of parliament and parliament will exercise that duty, and let me just say that in that process properly handled I believe you can come to a constructive outcome without too much delay. It depends on whether the government will treat parliament with contempt, in which case it's going to get a pretty dusty ride."

AP TELEVISION

London - 4 November 2016

5. Various of newspaper front pages about High Court ruling that the UK government needs parliament's approval first before it can trigger Article 50 and formally begin the process of leaving the European Union

SKY NEWS - NO ACCESS UK MAINSTREAM BROADCASTERS/AL JAZEERA/BLOOMBERG. IF YOU ARE A FOREIGN NEWS CHANNEL DISTRIBUTED IN THE UK AND IRELAND ON SKY'S DIGITAL SATELLITE PLATFORM AND WANT TO USE THIS CONTENT, PLEASE CONTACT THE CUSTOMER LIAISON DESK AT: customervideosupport@ap.org

London - 4 November 2016

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Paddy Ashdown, Member of the House of Lords and former leader of the Liberal Democrat Party:

"They (the UK public) have not voted for a destination and in arguing what destination we get to, huge amounts of jobs, the reputation of the country, the nature of our country, will depend on that. It is right that parliament should have a process in determining what the destination is in the interests of the British people - that's all that's being asked for. It's a normal parliamentary practice and I'm frankly amazed that a Conservative government under this prime minister hasn't recognised what the court's told her had to be done and I think the government will simply look ridiculous if it now goes to the Supreme Court saying that parliament in our democracy should have no say. It's a ludicrous position to be in."

AP TELEVISION

London - 4 November 2016

7. UK Prime Minister Theresa May on front page of paper

8. Various of newspaper front pages

SKY NEWS - NO ACCESS UK MAINSTREAM BROADCASTERS/AL JAZEERA/BLOOMBERG. IF YOU ARE A FOREIGN NEWS CHANNEL DISTRIBUTED IN THE UK AND IRELAND ON SKY'S DIGITAL SATELLITE PLATFORM AND WANT TO USE THIS CONTENT, PLEASE CONTACT THE CUSTOMER LIAISON DESK AT: customervideosupport@ap.org

London - 4 November 2016

9. SOUNDBITE (English) Theresa Villiers, Member of Parliament for Chipping Barnet and former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland:

"If the Supreme Court do uphold this decision the important thing is for parliament swiftly to table Article 50 according to the timetable set out by the government. If that happens there isn't a problem."

AP TELEVISION

London - 4 November 2016

10. Low angle shot of newsagents

11. Various of newspaper front pages

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 EU Commission said on Thursday it would not speculate on whether a British High Court ruling saying the prime minister can't trigger the UK's exit from the European Union without approval from Parliament, would impact the leaving process.

Spokesperson Margaritis Schinas said the Commission would not be drawn on the "internal legal and constitutional order of our member states."

Schinas said the British Prime Minister Theresa May would be speaking on the phone on Friday with EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker at Mays' request.

The British government said it would go to the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling, which has major constitutional as well as practical implications.

Britons voted by a margin of 52 to 48 percent to leave the EU, a process known as "Brexit." Several claimants challenged the plans for Brexit in a case hinging on the balance of power between Parliament and the government.

May has said she will launch exit negotiations with the EU by 31 March. She is relying on a power called the royal prerogative that lets the government withdraw from international treaties.

Claimants argue that leaving the EU will remove rights, including free movement within the bloc, and say that can't be done without Parliament's approval.

Three senior judges ruled that "the government does not have the power under the Crown's prerogative" to trigger the official exit process.

The British government immediately said it would appeal the judgment.

The Supreme Court has set aside time to hear the appeal before the end of the year.

The case is considered the most important constitutional matter in a generation.

EBS

Brussels - 3 November 2016

1. Wide of EU Commission Chief spokesperson Margaritis Schinas at podium

2. Reporter asking question

3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Margaritis Schinas, EU Commission Chief spokesperson:

"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, as regards our own EU legal order I wish to remind you that the Article 50 procedure as set out in the treaty requires the consent of the European Parliament for any Article 50 agreement. On the first leg of your question, I think I believe that the telephone call tomorrow (between British Prime Minister Theresa May and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker) has been agreed and if I'm not mistaken it was at the request of the British Prime Minister."

4. Schinas on podium

5. SOUNDBITE: (English) Margaritis Schinas, EU Commission Chief spokesperson:

"I shall not, of course, reinvent the wheel here. I simply want to reiterate that it was not the Commission that asked for a swift notification under Article 50. If memory doesn't fail me I think it were all 27 member states that asked for it at the highest level so I don't see that the Commission has any particular role to play there. As to your question asking me to speculate whether this will accelerate or delay the process, I think this is not for the Commission now to speculate because there are certain things that may still happen in the UK, I don't know if the government is going to appeal or not, so there are things that it's not for us to comment on or speculate. And yes, on the other question, Article 50 as set out in the treaty, requires the European Parliament's involvement on the final Article 50 agreement, as I just said."

6. Journalist asking question

UK Supreme Court judges were presented with starkly contrasting views of Britain's largely unwritten constitution Tuesday, as they considered whether government or Parliament has the power to lead the country out of the European Union.

The lawyer for Brexit claimant Gina Miller told Supreme Court judges that the prerogative power to enter into and terminate treaties does not allow ministers to nullify statutory rights and duties.

Lord David Pannick said it would be "quite extraordinary" if that Act (1972 Act, the European Communities Act) "could be set at nought by the actions of a minister acting without Parliamentary authority".

He said it was for the government to demonstrate that Parliament had clearly conferred "a power to nullify a statutory scheme".

He added that he could demonstrate from the content of the legislations, and its purpose that Parliament itself had imposed a clear system of parliamentary control on changes to the treaties.

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

Three lower court judges ruled last month that the British government cannot trigger Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, launching two years of exit negotiations, without lawmakers' approval.

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

SUPREME COURT - NEWS PURPOSES ONLY. NO RESALE. ONLINE USE ON WEBSITES PERMITTED. FOR CLIENTS WISHING TO USE THE MATERIAL ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, PLEASE CONTACT THE SUPREME COURT COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE (CHERYL.WALMSLEY@SUPREMECOURT.UK; 020 7960 1886)’

London - 6 December 2016

1. Wide of courtroom

2. SOUNDBITE: (English) Lord David Pannick, QC, representing claimant Gina Miller: ++SOUNDBITE STARTS ON PREVIOUS SHOT++

"The case for Ms Gina Miller is that the prerogative power to enter into and terminate treaties does not allow ministers to nullify statutory rights and duties. In any event, we say, Parliament did not intend that the rights and duties which it had created by the 1972 Act could be nullified by ministers acting on the international plane. The court has heard that the case for the appellant is that the 1972 Act is a conduit. It is said it creates only contingent rights and obligations, that's paragraph 63D of the appellant's written case, MS page 12,356, and these rights are said to be contingent on the decision of the appellant to exercise prerogative powers to terminate the EU treaties. Lords, Milady, I say at the outset that the courts have rightly recognised that the 1972 Act has a constitutional status. It creates a new source of domestic law and indeed it gives priority to it. My friend Mr Eadie accepted this constitutional status in answer to my Lord, Lord Wilson yesterday. The appellant's argument, however, if correct, would mean that the 1972 Act, far from having a constitutional status, would have a lesser status than any other act, lesser status than the Dangerous Dogs Act because on the appellant's argument, Parliament has made this fundamental constitutional change to domestic law only for as long as the executive does not take action on the international plane to terminate the treaty commitments. And we say that in the context of an act of Parliament which expressly states, expressly states in section 2/4 that its provisions take priority even over other legislation, the words passed or to be passed, that it would, with respect, be quite extraordinary if nevertheless the 1972 Act could be set at nought by the actions of a minister acting without parliamentary authority."

3. Cutaway of court

4. SOUNDBITE: (English) Lord David Pannick, QC, representing claimant Gina Miller:

"Our case is that there is no relevant prerogative power in this context. The appellant's proposed conduct exceeds the permitted limits of this prerogative power. The third head of argument that I have is I say the court should pay regard, I say respectfully, the court should pay regard to important principles of statutory interpretation which are relevant in this context, and these principles show that it is for the appellant to demonstrate that Parliament has clearly conferred a power to nullify a statutory scheme, and I'm thinking of the case law on Henry VII powers, on the principle of legality and on the principle of no implied repeal, and I'll develop that submission."

5. Wide of court

6. Justice of the Supreme Court Lord Brian Kerr speaking

7. SOUNDBITE: (English) Lord David Pannick, QC, representing claimant Gina Miller:

"If I need to I say I can demonstrate from the contents of the legislations, as well as from its purpose that Parliament itself had imposed a clear system of parliamentary control on changes to the treaties and it is therefore, I say, most unlikely that Parliament could have intended that if the whole scheme is set aside, it can be done without parliamentary control."

8. Wide of room

Britain's Supreme Court began hearing a landmark case on Monday that will decide who has the power to trigger the UK's exit from the European Union - the government or Parliament.

The legal battle has major constitutional implications for the balance of power between the legislature and the executive, and has inflamed Britain's already raw wound over how and whether to leave the EU.

Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger Article 50 by the end of March, 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 another claimant, hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, went to court to argue that leaving the EU would 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.

Opening the government's arguments on Monday, Attorney General Jeremy Wright said the use of prerogative powers didn't undermine Parliament, because the legislature had been in the driver's seat throughout the referendum process.

He said lawmakers had passed the European Referendum Act of 2015, laying out the rules for a referendum on EU membership, and a majority of voters clearly voted to leave.

Wright said the use of prerogative powers "in these circumstances would not only be lawful, but fully supported by our constitutional settlement, in line with parliamentary sovereignty, and in accordance with legitimate public expectations."

The Attorney General described the prerogative powers as essential to the government's ability to effectively conduct public business and something that "operates wholly in accordance with parliamentary sovereignty."

Though the courtroom drama is unfolding in cool legal language, it has set public passions simmering.

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

The anti-EU Daily Mail newspaper labelled the justices "enemies of the people.

SUPREME COURT - NEWS PURPOSES ONLY/NO RESALE. ONLINE USE ON WEBSITES PERMITTED/FOR CLIENTS WISHING TO USE THE MATERIAL ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, PLEASE CONTACT THE SUPREME COURT COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE (CHERYL.WALMSLEY@SUPREMECOURT.UK; 020 7960 1886)

1. Wide of court room as Supreme Court as judges enter, people sitting down again

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

"A majority of those who voted in the referendum (on 23 June) wanted the UK to leave the European Union, and Article 50 (of the Treaty on European Union) provides the specific legal mechanism to begin doing so. Now my Lords, the Divisional Court treated all of that as legally irrelevant, and concluded that the process could not lawfully be begun by the government using prerogative powers, but only by further legislation in Parliament. We say, respectfully, that the Divisional Court was wrong about that. We say that use of the (royal) prerogative in these circumstances would not only be lawful, but fully supported by our constitutional settlement, in line with parliamentary sovereignty, and in accordance with legitimate public expectations."

SUPREME COURT VIA AP - AP PROVIDES ACCESS TO THIS THIRD PARTY PHOTO SOLELY TO ILLUSTRATE NEWS REPORTING OR COMMENTARY ON FACTS DEPICTED IN IMAGE; MUST BE USED WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM TRANSMISSION; NO ARCHIVING; NO LICENSING; MANDATORY CREDIT

London - Date unknown

3. STILL of the Justices of the Supreme Court, showing (back row, left to right) Lord Toulson, not sitting in the Article 50 case, Lord Carnwath, Lord Sumption, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge, and (front row, left to right) Lord Kerr, Lady Hale, Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance and Lord Clarke

SUPREME COURT - NEWS PURPOSES ONLY/NO RESALE. ONLINE USE ON WEBSITES PERMITTED/FOR CLIENTS WISHING TO USE THE MATERIAL ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, PLEASE CONTACT THE SUPREME COURT COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE (CHERYL.WALMSLEY@SUPREMECOURT.UK; 020 7960 1886)

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

"My three submissions are these. First, that the foreign affairs prerogative is not an ancient relic, but a contemporary necessity. Including the powers to make and withdraw from treaties, it is a fundamental pillar of our constitution as a sovereign state, and it is essential to the effective conduct of public business. Second, that the prerogative operates as part of a dualist system, including in the EU context. And third, that the prerogative operates wholly in accordance with parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has a clear understanding of the constitutional function and usefulness of these powers, and where it chooses to limit them, it does so carefully and specifically."

5. Wide of courtroom interior

Britain's government must get parliamentary approval before starting the process of leaving the European Union, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

The decision potentially delays Prime Minister Theresa May's plans to trigger exit negotiations by the end of March.

London - 24 January 2017

1. Various of Parliament

2. Evening Standard newspaper vendor talking to security officer

3. Close of Evening Standard newspaper, reading (English) "Judges' blow to May over Brexit."

4. Vendor and security officer talking

5. Close of newspaper lead, reading (English) "PM can't trigger Article 50 without Parliament backing, says supreme court in historic ruling."

RESTRICTION SUMMARY: NEWS USE ONLY. STRICTLY NOT TO BE USED IN ANY COMEDY/SATIRICAL PROGRAMMING OR FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES. ONLINE USE PERMITTED BUT MUST CARRY CLIENT'S OWN LOGO OR WATERMARK ON VIDEO FOR ENTIRE TIME OF USE. NO ARCHIVE.

SHOTLIST

PARLIAMENTARY RECORDING UNIT (PRU) - NEWS USE ONLY. STRICTLY NOT TO BE USED IN ANY COMEDY/SATIRICAL PROGRAMMING OR FOR ADVERTISING PURPOSES. ONLINE USE PERMITTED BUT MUST CARRY CLIENT'S OWN LOGO OR WATERMARK ON VIDEO FOR ENTIRE TIME OF USE. NO ARCHIVE.

London, 19 December 2016

1. UK Prime Minister Theresa may standing up to address House of Commons

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Theresa May, UK Prime Minister:

++FRAMING CHANGES DURING SOUNDBITE++

"I updated the Council on the UK's plans for leaving the European Union. I explained that two weeks ago this house voted by a considerable majority, almost six to one, to support the government by delivering the referendum result and invoking Article 50 before the end of March. The UK's Supreme Court is expected to rule next month on whether the government requires parliamentary legislation in order to do this. I am clear that the government will respect the verdict of our independent judiciary but I am equally clear that whichever way the judgement goes we will meet the timetable I have set out. At the Council I also reaffirmed my commitment to a smooth and orderly exit and in this spirit I made it clear to the other EU leaders that it remains my objective that we give reassurance early on in the negotiations to EU citizens living in the UK, and UK citizens living in EU countries that their right to stay where they have made their homes will be protected by our withdrawal. This is an issue which I would like to agree quickly but clearly that requires the agreement of the rest of the EU. Finally, Mr Speaker, I welcomed the subsequent short discussion between the 27 other leaders on their own plans for the UK's withdrawal. It is right that the other leaders prepare for the negotiations just as we are making our own preparations. That is in everyone's best interests. My aim is to cement the UK as a close partner of the EU once we have left. As I have said before, I want the deal we negotiate to reflect the kind of mature cooperative relationship that close friends and allies enjoy - a deal that will give our companies the maximum freedom to trade with and and operate in the European market and allow European businesses to do the same here. A deal that will deliver the deepest possible cooperation to ensure our national security and the security of our allies, but a deal that will mean when it comes to decisions about our national interest, such as how we control immigration, we can make these decisions for ourselves, and a deal that will mean our laws are once again made in Britain, not in Brussels. With a calm and measured approach this government will honour the will of the British people and secure the right deal that will make a success of Brexit for the UK, for the EU and for the world and I commend this statement to the House."

4. Opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn standing up to speak in House of Commons

STORYLINE:

UK Prime Minister Theresa May told the House of Commons on Monday the government would stick to its timetable of triggering Brexit by the end of March next year.

The UK's highest court will rule early in the new year on whether parliamentary approval is needed to invoke Article 50.

May said the government would "respect" the judgement of the country's independent judiciary but that "whichever way the judgement goes we will meet the timetable I have set out".

===========================================================

Clients are reminded:

(i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: info@aparchive.com

(ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service

(iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory.