For all the anticipation and fuss attached to Tuesday’s supreme court ruling, it is likely to change little in the government’s plans for enacting Brexit. Here are the main processes likely in the coming months:

Article 50 legislation

Responding in parliament to the ruling, the Brexit secretary, David Davis, said a bill to trigger article 50 would be published “within days”. Government sources later said this was expected on Thursday. Once this happens, the first reading of the bill – a formality, which does not involve a debate – could follow immediately.

It would, Davis said, be “the most straightforward bill possible to give effect to the decision of the people and respect the supreme court’s judgment”.



However, answering questions in the Commons, Davis conceded that drafting a bill that could not be amended would most likely be impossible.

Either way, it seems very likely the article 50 bill will pass, even if meeting the government’s self-imposed deadline of the end of March will be tight. This might involve seeking to get the bill through the Commons by the parliamentary recess in late February.

The Scottish National party and Lib Dems will be likely to vote against the bill if their amendments are not passed, and some Labour rebels will join them. But overall Labour has no desire to appear to be trying to prevent the referendum result being honoured.

Sources in the House of Lords say peers will try to “improve the legislation” through the process but not necessarily by way of parliamentary defeats.

A white paper on Brexit

Speaking in parliament, Davis was adamant there was no need for a formal document on the government’s plans, saying Theresa May’s speech on the subject last week was all the formal detail needed.

However, the debate saw MP after MP, including a number of Conservatives, press the case for a white paper. The government’s working majority of 16 might be too small to avoid giving way on the issue, especially after the Commons Brexit committee – which has 10 Tory members – called unanimously for a white paper.



Parliamentary scrutiny

Davis told MPs there would be plenty of opportunities for MPs to scrutinise the Brexit process and “many, many, many votes” on it.

However, it is unclear what changes might come from this. Davis insisted that the basic premise of Brexit involving departure from the EU’s single market and customs union was not up for debate.

“I’m afraid it’s very difficult to see how you can leave the European Union and still stay inside the single market, with all the commitments that go with that,” he said.

The devolved nations

A secondary, and equally anticipated, element of the supreme court ruling was to confirm that the government does not need formal approval from the devolved administrations for Brexit.

However, the views from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will remain important for the government, both in terms of SNP threats over a second independence referendum, and to avoid the perception of a plan being pushed through by an England-dominated cabinet.

Unveiling a joint Labour/Plaid Cymru plan for Wales to retain access to the single market, the Welsh first minister, Carwyn Jones, said on Monday he did not think May’s government would want to enter EU negotiations “with a public battle taking place with the devolved governments”.

The final vote

Davis was asked on Tuesday if there would be an interim Commons vote at the end of trade negotiations. There would not, he said.

MPs will thus be left with a final vote on the eventual deal, when it is completed, as outlined by May in her speech. However, it will not, as it stands, be much of a choice.

May said in her speech that if MPs reject the deal, it would not see the government obliged to resume the negotiations. Instead, the UK would leave the EU but without any trade deal, reverting immediately to default World Trade Organisation terms.

However, Labour hopes one possible amendment to the article 50 bill could be to force the government to return to the EU if the deal is voted down, rather than leaving without an agreement. If that amendment were to attract wide political support, the two-year exit that ministers hope for could prove difficult to achieve.