With every day that passes right now, it is becoming clearer that scotlands voice cannot and is not able to be heard within the uk on this question. We will have the latest on this Landmark Ruling and the reaction to it. In other news President Trump meets us car makers and tells them to keep manufacturing on american soil. The widow of a man killed in the Tunisia Terror Attack tells an inquest how she played dead as the gunman killed 38 people. City of stars, are you shining just me. And la la land tops the oscars race with a record equalling 14 nominations including best picture. Its five oclock. Our main story is that ministers will present a parliamentary bill within days to start the process of leaving the European Union following a ruling by the Supreme Court. The judges decided that ministers did not have the right to trigger the process of leaving without the approval of parliament. Labour says it will not block the Brexit Process, it wants what it calls a meaningful vote on the final deal. Todays judgment was delivered by 11 justices of the Supreme Court. They ruled against the government by a majority of eight to three. The presiding judge, lord neuberger, said the uks constitutional arrangements require such changes to be clearly authorised by parliament. And he went on to proceed otherwise would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries. But the Supreme Court decided unanimously that the devolved administrations in scotland, wales and Northern Ireland did not need to give their approval for the Brexit Process to start. Well be discussing the implications of this with the Snps Mike Russell a little later. So the defeat for theresa may means there will need to be a vote in both Houses Of Parliament at westminster before the brexit talks can begin. Our Political CorrespondentCarole Walker has the latest. This was a case with profound implications. Who should decide the process for taking the uk out of the eu . The decision, taken by 11 of the most seniorjudges in the land, was delivered to the hushed courtroom. Today, by a majority of eight to three, the Supreme Court rules that the government cannot trigger article 50 without an Act Of Parliament authorising it to do so. Article 50 begins the formal negotiations for leaving the eu, a process which the judges said would fundamentally change uk law. The referendum is of great political significance, but the Act Of Parliament which established it did not say what should happen as a result. So any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the uk constitution, namely by an Act Of Parliament. The verdict was clear the judgment spells out why the court had rejected the governments case. The government will comply with the judgment of the court and do all that is necessary to implement it. The woman who brought the case said the ruling reaffirmed that parliament is sovereign. This ruling today means that mps we have elected will rightfully have the opportunity to bring their invaluable experience and expertise to bear in helping the government select the best course in the forthcoming brexit negotiations. Is this a blow to the governments brexit timetable, sir . But the government will be relieved that the court ruled that there is no legal requirement for it to consult the devolved nations, scotland, wales and Northern Ireland. So the focus now switches to parliament. Mps and peers wont try to block the Brexit Process, but they could delay it. Opposition parties are already setting out the changes they will try to make to the coming legislation, changes which could affect the governments whole approach to the negotiations over britains departure from the eu. Were very clear. Were going to hold them to account to protectjobs. To account to make sure british industry does have market access, and we will not allow ourselves to become some kind of offshore tax haven. That is not what people voted for. Unless the government concedes a new deal for the british people so that the british people have a say over the final arrangements between the uk and the eu, i will vote against article 50. The snp say they will table 50 amendments. The Prime Minister set out last week a path towards the hardest of hard brexits. I dont believe theres a majority for that in the House Of Commons. I certainly dont believe theres a majority for that across the country, so this is an opportunity for the House Of Commons to assert itself and to have a say notjust on the narrow question, but on the broader terms of the negotiation as well. Downing street say todays ruling will not affect the timetable for theresa may to begin negotiating with other eu leaders. The government will introduce a bill in the commons within days. This will be the most straightforward bill possible to give effect to the decision of the people and respect the Supreme Courts judgment. 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. But the scene is set for some tough parliamentary clashes before the bigger battles with the rest of the eu can even begin. Carole walker, bbc news, westminster. Lets go live to westminster. The former conservative cabinet Ministerjohn Whittingdale is in our westminster studio. What is your initial reaction . what is your initial reaction . I was not surprised by the reaction of the Supreme Court, it was predicted. It is not a great obstacle, parliament will have to have a vote on a very short bill, but that can be introduced very quickly. I would expect the overwhelming majority of mps to vote for it, and we can still do stick to the timetable as originally announced by the Prime Minister. Was it really necessary to pushit minister. Was it really necessary to push it this far and get the Supreme Court to point out that parliament is sovereign . It isnt a shocking statement. There were big constitutional issues, and the Supreme Court judgment does constitutional issues, and the Supreme Courtjudgment does have implications going far beyond brexit. It is all to do with the royal prerogative, the position of the crown in parliament. If you are a constitutional lawyer or an academic, this will give you material for years to come, but on the practical question of preceding now to implement the decision of the referendum, i dont see that it causes any problem and i would expect parliament to pass the legislation quickly. What would you say today about a White Paper Setting out more detail and underlining what the Prime Minister herself as outlined in the last few weeks . The Prime Minister has already set out pretty clearly what oui already set out pretty clearly what our objectives are. If that was to be formalised as a government document, that is fine. But i perfectly understand the reluctance of the Prime Minister and the government to go into too much detail, because the last thing you do before you commence negotiation is to announce exactly what it is that you are trying to achieve and what you are prepared to concede an. Today we had the snp say they cannot accept a situation where the Prime Minister is proposing in their words the hardest of hard brexits when Scotla Nd Wa Nted the hardest of hard brexits when scotland wanted to remain. Do you have any subo the devolved any sympathy at all with the devolved parliaments . This is not a matter that was devolved, if it had been an independent scotland, that would be a different matter, but scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, and these kind of issues are reserved to the westminster parliament, so im sure there will be discussion with the scottish government, we will want to hear what they have to say, but at the end of the day, the decision rightly rests with westminster. On the broader timetable, rests with westminster. On the broadertimetable, given rests with westminster. On the broader timetable, given that we are now expecting article 50 to be triggered at the end of march, the two year timetable following that and all its complexity, is that still realistic . I very much hope so. Still realistic . I very much hope so. I think it is in the interests of both sides, Notjust The Uk but europe as well, to resolve these issues. There are two issues, the question of the terms under which the uk leaves the eu, and then the negotiation of a new Trading Arrangement between us. I hope that both of those things can proceed. If one lags behind the other, there might bea one lags behind the other, there might be a short period of transition, but i hope we can move swiftly on both because it is in both sides interests. And in terms of Economic Cost, to what extent are you as someone who of Economic Cost, to what extent are you as someone who will be talking to your own voters are looking ahead to your own voters are looking ahead to the next election in 2020 if there isnt one before then, what would you say to people about the Economic Cost that might have to be paid in this process . You need to look at the Economic Opportunities that this opens up. Britain is a globally trading nation, some of the Fastest Growing markets and greatest opportunities lie outside europe. Europe has been stagnating in recent yea rs, europe has been stagnating in recent years, where as the real opportunities are in china, india, america, and we now have the freedom to negotiate our own deals which we have been unable to do until now, so i dont think there is a significant cost risk but there are substantial opportunities. Mr whittingdale, thank you for talking to us. Joining me now from westminster is the Shadow Attorney General shami chakrabarti. Thank you forjoining us. Broadly today, on the ruling itself, what do you make of it . Thejudges today, on the ruling itself, what do you make of it . The judges have done theirjob, and im really sorry that out theirjob, and im really sorry that our seniorjudges have theirjob, and im really sorry that our senior judges have had theirjob, and im really sorry that our seniorjudges have had such a battering in parts of the media and by parts of our politics, they have just done theirjob, both the High Court First of all, the divisional court, and then the Supreme Court. All they have done is uphold our constitution and the primary principle but it is parliament that is sovereign, and it is a bit of a shame that the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this acceptance that parliament is sovereign. People who say that the courts are an unelected elite that has delayed brexit need to think about where the source of the delay is, because the government could have admitted that they needed to come to parliament straight after the referendum, or they could have accepted the high courts decision, and the vilification of the judges continues, and it is completely inappropriate. If after this process is all over, we are serious but people should come to britain and incorporate their companies and do business here, it is not helpful to trash our legal system and our judiciary. Lets talk about the weeks ahead. This bill is meant to be very simple, maybe a couple of short paragraphs. To what extent is their leeway in their labour to amend it in a meaningful way . Their leeway in their labour to amend it in a meaningfulway . Im not convinced that a couple of lines or paragraphs will honour the spirit of this judgment. The judgment or paragraphs will honour the spirit of thisjudgment. The judgment said it is for parliament to determine the nature of this bill, that is not the nature of this bill, that is not the courts but it is not purely government either, and i dont think that government should be arrogant now. Having done what it has done so far, which was pretty churlish to begin with, i think government needs to reach out to all quarters in the Houses Of Parliament and all parts of this divided United Kingdom, and i dont think a couple of lines is going to do the trick. There has got to be real engagement by everyone in parliament with this bill, because the bill haas to begin to shape not just whether or we are in or out of the eu, but what kind of country this is going to be afterwards, and this is going to be afterwards, and this is going to be afterwards, and this is where the real debate begins. Mrs may is talking about an offshore tax saving off the coast of europe, and that would mean the end of our Public Services and employment protection. Jeremy Corbyns Labour Party will not tolerate that, we want to United Kingdom that benefits everyone, so we need the beginning of an alternative vision of what britain will be, and that is partly what the battle is going to be over this bill to begin with and the next two years going forward. So what will your position be if the bill comes forward in a way that you find unacceptable, if it is too brief and doesnt give us the picture you have been giving us there, what happens then . We will have to seek to amend it, andl then . We will have to seek to amend it, and i dont think that we will be alone in that. You have heard from people around the United Kingdom, a very divided kingdom at the moment, and the government should take seriously its possibility to unite, including consulting people around the uk, evenif consulting people around the uk, even if it is not a legal requirement. I think we have to seek to have real debate about the contents of this bill, and that may well be debates over amendments. If the government thinks a two line bill to give them a blank cheque is going to do the trick, they are mistaken. How will you square that with labours previous assertion that it will not lock brexit. Will people not see what used just said asa people not see what used just said as a possible warning that you might be trying to put a stop to parts of the bill if you dont find acceptable . We are clear, we are democrats, and we accept the outcome of the referendum, that means we are leaving the European Union. But we cannot give the government of the day, not even an elected government, unelected by minister, a blank cheque to change the face of our country, there has to be input from everyone , country, there has to be input from everyone, and that has to continue. Shami chakrabarti, very interesting to talk to you thank you. The Shadow Attorney General there. I am going to pick up some of those points now with vicky young, our chief Political Correspondent. Shami chakrabarti Political Correspondent. Shami chakra barti saying that Political Correspondent. Shami chakrabarti saying that this bill if too brief will not be to labours liking. Yes, the Supreme Court decision would seem to have Given Parliament the chance to block the bill, but talking to people in the Houses Of Parliament, the house of lords, iam not Houses Of Parliament, the house of lords, i am not getting a sense there is an appetite for that. They will seek to make some changes, but it could well be that there are will be some conservatives coming on side with a white paper, labour will be pushing for parliament have more of a say throughout the negotiating period, they want the government to come back to parliament on all of that, and there is a Question Mark about this final vote that mps have been given at the end of the process , been given at the end of the process, they will be asking lots of questions about when that vote might come, is it a veto, would it send theresa may back to brussels to try to get a better deal. I dont think there are many labour mps who want to be seen to be blocking the will of the people. They have in their constituencies lots of people who voted to leave the European Union, and equally in the house of lords, we had people like lord blunkett, Former Labour home secretary, who said it would be foolish in the extreme and unthinkable for the unelected house of lords to block brexit, so i think that is