Brexit in tatters: Article 50 by the end of March 2017 in jeopardy!

Read the article, summarise it and answer the questions below

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.

This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own.

Theresa May says the referendum - and existing ministerial powers - mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners called this unconstitutional.

The government is appealing, with a further hearing expected next month.

The prime minister's official spokesman said the government had "no intention of letting" the judgement "derail Article 50 or the timetable we have set out. We are determined to continue with our plan".

Brexit Secretary David Davis said he presumed the court ruling meant an act of Parliament would be required to trigger Article 50.

"The people are the ones Parliament represents - 17.4m of them, the biggest mandate in history, voted for us to leave the European Union."

But UKIP leader Nigel Farage said he feared a "betrayal" of the 51.9% of voters who backed leaving the EU in June's referendum and voiced concern at the prospect of a "half Brexit".

BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said, if the court's decision was not overturned, there could be delays with potentially "months and months" of parliamentary hurdles.

He predicted that, although a majority of MPs had backed the Remain campaign, most would ultimately be likely to vote for Article 50, as Brexit had been supported in the referendum.

The prime minister has said she will activate Article 50, formally notifying the EU of the UK's intention to leave, by the end of next March.

The other 27 member states have said negotiations about the terms of the UK's exit - due to last two years - cannot begin until Article 50 has been invoked.

Analysis 

It is one of the most important constitutional court cases in generations. And the result creates a nightmare scenario for the government.

Theresa May had said she wanted to start Brexit talks before the end of March next year but this ruling has thrown the prime minister's timetable up in the air.

This decision has huge implications, not just on the timing of Brexit but on the terms of Brexit. That's because it's given the initiative to those on the Remain side in the House of Commons who, it's now likely, will argue Article 50 can only be triggered when Parliament is ready and that could mean when they're happy with the terms of any future deal.

Questions

What do the UK have to do before they leave the EU?
Why do you think campaigners have called The PMs approach unconstitutional?
What does David Davis say about  triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty?
What does article tell us about Parliamentary Sovereignty?

Green group wins air pollution court battle

Read the article and answer the Questions below

Campaigners have won the latest battle in legal action against the UK Government over levels of air pollution.

A judge at the High Court in London ruled in favour of environmental lawyers ClientEarth.

The group called air pollution a "public health crisis" and said the government has failed to tackle it.

The ruling in the judicial review called the government's plan "woefully inadequate".

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) told the BBC that it accepted the court's judgment.

ClientEarth won a separate, Supreme Court ruling against the government in April 2015.

That judgment ordered ministers to come up with a plan to bring down air pollution to within legal limits as soon as possible.

But ClientEarth was dissatisfied with those proposals, and took the government to the High Court in a judicial review.

'Over-optimistic'

In the ruling on Wednesday morning, Mr Justice Garnham said the 2015 Air Quality Plan (AQP), devised when Liz Truss MP was Environment Secretary, failed to comply with the Supreme Court judgment and EU directives.

Mr Justice Garnham. said the Secretary of State "fell into error" by fixing on a projected compliance date of 2020 (and 2025 for London).

In particular, he drew attention to the cost implications of bringing in Clean Air Zones no earlier than 2020.

The evidence demonstrates clearly that Clean Air Zones, the measure identified in the plan as the primary means of reducing nitrogen dioxide emissions, could be introduced more quickly than 2020," Mr Justice Garnham said.

In February, the Royal Colleges of Physicians and of Paediatrics and Child Health said outdoor air pollution was contributing to some 40,000 early deaths a year in the UK.

ClientEarth chief executive James Thornton commented: "This is an urgent public health crisis over which the Prime Minister must take personal control.

"I challenge Theresa May to take immediate action now to deal with illegal levels of pollution and prevent tens of thousands of additional early deaths in the UK. The High Court has ruled that more urgent action must be taken."

Question

Which court ruled against the government?

What was the name of the Pressure group?

What happened in 2015 and what did the government have to do?

What did the Judge say about Clean Air Zones?

How many deaths per year is air pollution related to?

What challenge has ClientEarth given to the PM