THE UK Government has lost a last-ditch bid to prevent a group of Scottish politicians from finding out if Westminster can stop Brexit, adding to the pressure on Theresa May.

It means the European Court of Justice [ECJ] will now deliver a definitive ruling on whether MPs can unilaterally revoke the Article 50 withdrawal process behind Brexit.

An oral hearing has been scheduled at the Luxembourg court on November 27.

If the ECJ agrees that Westminster could halt Brexit, it would give MPs another option to consider when they come to vote on the Prime Minister’s withdrawal plan.

Read more: 'Delaying tactics' claim as UK Government launch further appeal in Brexit legal battle

At the moment, Mrs May says the only choice is between her deal and No Deal.

The UK Supreme Court cleared the way for the ECJ hearing by today refusing the UK Government permission for an appeal hearing.

It followed a series of decisions at the Court of Session in Scotland on a case brought by a cross-party group of Scottish politicians led by Green MSP Andy Wightman.

He said: "This a welcome ruling by the Supreme Court. We now look forward to our hearing at the Court of Justice of the European Union on 27 November.

"The question as to whether the UK Parliament can unilaterally revoke Article 50 is becoming more relevant as the chaos around Brexit shows no sign of being resolved.

"It is vital that Parliament is fully informed of all of its options.”

Also involved were Labour MEPs Catherine Stihler and David Martin, SNP MEP Alyn Smith, SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC, Green MSP Ross Greer, and Jolyon Maugham QC of the Good law Project.

The group asked Scotland’s highest court for a referral to the ECJ to discover whether MPs could order Article 50 to be revoked - and so halt Brexit - without the EU’s consent.

The UK government said the issue was “hypothetical” and “academic” and won an initial decision at the Court, when Lord Boyd agreed with ministers.

However this was overturned on appeal by Scotland’s most senior judge, the Lord President Lord Carloway, who said the matter was very much a live one, and referred it to the ECJ.

He said it was "clear" that MPs at Westminster would be required to vote on any Brexit deal agreed by the EU and the UK Government

After being refused leave by Lord Carloway and two other judges to appeal the matter to the UK Supreme Court, on the grounds it would scupper the ECJ referral, the government tried to appeal directly to the Supreme Court to secure a hearing.

However the UK Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, effectively saying that the UK Government was being premature, as the Court of Session’s ruling was “preliminary” rather than final, and it would still have to reach a view on the decision from the ECJ.

A statement issued by the Supreme Court said: "It is clear that this interlocutor [Court of Session order] did not constitute a final judgment."

It continued: "As both this court and the [ECJ] have made clear, the preliminary ruling is merely a step in the proceedings pending before the national court - it is that court which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision.

"It will therefore remain for the Court of Session to give judgment in the light of the preliminary ruling, any relevant facts which it may find and any relevant rules of domestic law. It is only then that there will be a final judgment in the proceedings."

Mr Maugham tweeted: “I wonder if [The Brexit department] care to say how much they spent on hiring five QCs to make a hopeless application to the Supreme Court to try and stop Parliament from understanding what options it has?

“No Government acting in the public interest could spend money blinding the eyes of MPs to the options before them. This is, or with an Opposition worthy of the name would be, a scandal.”