Battle lines drawn as legal case on Brexit draws closer

World media will converge on London's Supreme Court Monday for the start of one of the most important cases in British legal history.

At stake is who has the power to trigger the process of Britain leaving the European Union, British parliament or Theresa May's government.

As the start date for a four-day hearing before the 11 highest law judges in Britain moved closer, various sides have weighed in the case.

Prime Minister May has already indicated she plans to stick to her timetable to trigger Article 50 to start the leave process by the end of next March, even if the judges rule against her. Her supporters say this could be achieved by fast-tracking a Brexit law through parliament.

The veteran Daily Telegraph commentator Charles Moore gave his view Saturday on the implications of the case.

He wrote: "It will be a great shame if this battle is not properly fought. We shall have reached a dangerous moment in our constitutional history. Our decisions about our collective future, made at the ballot box, will have been unpicked by judges."

Even so Moore is predicting the government will lose its appeal in the Supreme Court.

Supporters of Brexit say that a margin of six to one, MPs in the House of Commons, handed the decision about continued membership of the EU to the British people by way of a referendum. In that historic June 23 vote more than 17 million people voted leave, a margin of 52 percent.

The legal challenge was launched when pro-remain supporters maintained that parliament was the body that must debate and trigger article 50 and also have a say in the departure terms.

One argument is that the referendum was only advisory. The Telegraph's Moore points to the public referendums that created devolved parliaments for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The results were accepted by parliament and devolution happened.

Moore says of the EU referendum: "It was not an opinion poll, but a ballot conducted according to law, paid for by the taxpayer. All those framing the legislation, from David Cameron downwards, said its result would be final, and that a Leave vote would be effected immediately."

The Daily Mail reports Saturday that government ministers have accused judges of ignoring the will of voters by relegating the outcome of the Brexit referendum to a "footnote".

The newspaper says that in a submission to the Supreme Court, the government has attacked the High Court for "dismissing" the historic June 23 poll as merely a "political event", of little significance in law.

In the documents the highest government legal officer, the Attorney General Jeremy Wright, said the High Court had been "wrong to relegate, almost to a footnote, the outcome of the referendum".

The case was originally brought at the High Court by businesswoman Gina Miller after the referendum result was announced. Her argument was that Prime Minister May should not be able to invoke Article 50 without parliament's agreement. Her claim was that by leaving the EU, Britons would lose out on rights that had been passed by parliament, so it should be them and not May who decide what happens. The High Court agreed, leading to May's government lodging an appeal.

Over 80 journalists from around the world have asked for accreditation to cover the landmark hearing. The court's system has been boosted to allow up to 300,000 people at any one time to follow the hearing on line.

Once both sides in the battle of Brexit have been heard, the 11 judges will decide their verdict, but result is not expected to be announced before early January. Endit