Jonathan Freedland: the remain majority in the Commons makes it possible

Surely those who should be cheering today’s high court judgment the loudest are the people who have been the most passionate defenders of parliamentary sovereignty. So rejoice, Daniel Hannan: the judges have heeded your earnest plea to make parliament supreme. Put out the bunting, Michael Gove: your insistence that Westminster be the ultimate arbiter of our national affairs has been given the judicial seal of approval. Let all those who spent the spring trumpeting the glory of England, hailing it as the mother of parliaments, now celebrate their victory.

Except, of course, they won’t. Those who campaigned for leave in the name of wresting power from Brussels to Westminster went strangely quiet when it came to the question decided by the court today: who has the power to trigger article 50? Suddenly they found that parliament was not quite so sacred or central – that some things were best left to ministers to decide. Well, the judges have called out that hypocrisy. They have decided that the Brexiteers should have to comply with their own logic – and bow to parliament.

Does that mean, as Nigel Farage has said he fears, that a “betrayal” is imminent – that parliament might opt for a “half Brexit”, as the former Ukip leader put it, or even that it might halt Brexit altogether? You can see why that’s a possibility: the remain camp still has a majority in the Commons, when you add up not just Labour, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats but also the estimated 185 Tory MPs who wanted to stay in the EU. If they all united and voted as they did on 23 June, they could block Brexit tomorrow.

They won’t do that. Too many would regard it as a constitutional offence to go against the public’s verdict delivered in the referendum. Others have a more practical fear of contradicting the wishes of their own local electorate, anxious they would pay the price with their own seats.

Who are the judges who ruled that MPs should vote on Brexit? Read more

But that fear will only fully kick in if Theresa May presents them with a straight, up-or-down choice: a one-line motion to trigger article 50 or not. If the choice is any less stark than that, if May proposes detailed legislation – then that would give anti-Brexit MPs plenty of wriggle room. They could say that while the public voted to leave, they did not vote for this kind of leave. That would give the remain majority in parliament the chance to slow things down and demand a much softer Brexit.

Two other factors could prove decisive. The coherence of Labour in parliament now matters. If the party can get its act together and unite around, say, the demand that Britain remains a member of the single market then it will have real muscle. The early signs were not encouraging: recall that the first public figure to demand the immediate triggering of article 50 was Jeremy Corbyn, hours after the vote. But Keir Starmer and others have set a good lead: Labour needs to press the case against hard Brexit strongly and coherently.

The other thing to remember is that parliament is not just the Commons. The Lords will have a say too. Unelected peers thwarting the will of the people may look like a democratic outrage. But Gove, Hannan and the rest can hardly complain. The Lords are an ancient part of our parliament. And parliament – as they never stopped reminding us – is sovereign.





Dreda Say Mitchell: If MPs attempt to overturn Brexit, public trust will fall even further

For those of us who voted leave in order to ensure that it’s our MPs who make political decisions in this country, this morning’s ruling in the high court is a nice irony. I personally don’t have a problem with anyone using any democratic or legal means to achieve any political end they want. And there’s no doubt that MPs have the right to cancel Brexit if they choose to do so.

But I would advise them to use their power respectfully and wisely. The reputation of the political classes in this country is already very low, and any attempt to overturn the referendum result is likely to send it down even further with baleful consequences.

Whether it’ll make any difference in the long run is a moot point. There are powerful vested interests in the UK already at work to get the ballot overturned or render it meaningless. There are equally powerful interests in the EU itself who are willing to help them out. Personally, I wouldn’t bet against them succeeding. As the French, Dutch, Irish and Greeks have discovered, referendums in the EU are flexible friends. But that will leave a pertinent question – do votes actually count for anything in Europe these days, or are they merely glorified opinion polls?

Tim Farron: the public must get a say on the final Brexit deal

Given the Conservative party’s long-standing commitment to the principles of parliamentary representative democracy, it is disappointing that today’s decision had to be made in the court. Ironically, a failure to consult elected representatives of the public on the terms of the negotiation package would undermine the very principles that David Davis, Boris Johnson and Liam Fox have championed. Hopefully, this will provide some much-needed clarity on what has been a completely chaotic showing from the government so far.

It will be vital that parliament now works productively together to get the best possible negotiating deal to take to Europe. Given the strict two-year timetable of exiting the EU once article 50 is triggered, it is critical that the government now lays out its negotiations to parliament, before such a vote is held. So far, May’s team have been all over the place when it comes to prioritising what is best for Britain, and it’s time they pull their socks up and start taking this seriously.

Ultimately, the British people voted for a departure but not for a destination, which is why what really matters is allowing them to vote again on the final deal, giving them the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs.

Schona Jolly: The government’s appeal is unlikely to succeed

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Prime minister Theresa May. Photograph: WPA Pool/Getty Images

The government has announced that it will appeal against a judgment by a UK court that restores sovereignty to the UK parliament to legislate for the UK’s legal landscape. Even for the sake of appearances, that just looks bad. The Vote Leave camp campaigned for sovereignty to be restored to the UK parliament. It is symptomatic of their many inconsistencies that they now argue that this crucial decision ought not to be taken by parliament.

Brexit has caused havoc already. Now parliament must save us | Polly Toynbee Read more

During three days of legal argument, the writing was on the wall for the government when it was forced to make the significant concession that article 50 is both unconditional and irrevocable. That might be true politically, but it is at least open to challenge legally. The irony of the government’s appeal is that it now opens up the Pandora’s box of whether the article 50 question on irreversibility can be answered only by the European court of justice. If so, what sort of delay will that entail?

In my view, the government has poor prospects of succeeding in the supreme court. The high court’s key reasoning is that the government “cannot without the intervention of parliament confer rights on individuals or deprive individuals of rights”. There is no answer to this. The removal of the ability to seek authoritative rulings of the European court, for example, is but one material change in our law, and it may have a profound impact on fundamental and social rights. So, too, other major rights merely “glossed over” by the government’s arguments. I don’t see a comeback to the various fatal gaps in the government’s reasoning, which the court found to be flawed.

The most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law is that parliament is sovereign, and that legislation enacted by both Houses of Parliament is supreme. If “Brexit means Brexit”, the court has confirmed that only parliament can trigger it. Both Houses of Parliament now need to stand up for the national interest and demand accountability from the executive, and for their constituents. The courts have done their bit for the rule of law. Parliament, on behalf of all of us, now needs to do the same.

David Lammy: This is what taking back control really means

Today’s ruling is a huge victory for our parliamentary democracy. This is what real sovereignty looks like, and this is what taking back control really means.

This decision is about parliamentary sovereignty and our constitution. It is not about leave or remain – it is actually about whether we have a sovereign parliament in this country, and as such the decision is the right one.

We got a Bill of Rights in 1689 which gave parliament powers and took power away from the executive and the monarch. Those who wanted to leave the EU campaigned on the basis of parliamentary sovereignty, so it would have been completely inconceivable for the executive to overreach its prerogative powers and trigger article 50 without any form of parliamentary scrutiny or approval.

Parliament specifically legislated to hold an advisory, non-binding referendum, so it is now important that the government puts its plans before parliament so that MPs can scrutinise these plans before the decision on triggering article 50 and beginning the Brexit process.

Anand Menon: This ruling won’t halt Brexit, but further legitimise it

Keep calm, everyone. Today’s high court ruling does not mean parliament will prevent Brexit. They won’t and, what is more, they shouldn’t. Why won’t they? Well, first, because they may not get a chance to. The judgment is not the end of the story, there is an appeal to come. But let’s assume the supreme court upholds the verdict. Parliament then would have a right to vote on the triggering of article 50. Will they use this opportunity to block the process? Almost certainly not.

Of the 650 MPs, 479 are reckoned to have backed remain (including over half of Conservative MPs). So there was, prior to the referendum, a parliamentary majority in favour of remaining. But things have changed since 23 June. For one thing, elected representatives were shown to be out of touch with their voters: 421 of 574 English and Welsh parliamentary constituencies voted to leave. Polling suggests, moreover, that significantly more than 50% of 2015 Conservative voters and more than 30% of Labour voters backed leave. Voting against a referendum result generated by many of their own voters is not something many MPs would willingly countenance doing.

High court Brexit ruling: what does it all mean? Read more

The most parliament seems likely to do is to impose procedural conditions on the prime minister. These may include the need to report back regularly on the negotiations – providing the kind of running commentary she has resisted to date. Yet even then, it is hard to see how MPs can materially affect the final outcome. Article 50 lays down a two-year deadline. Once a deal is struck, they will face a choice between whatever Theresa May has achieved and no deal at all. There will be no scope to modulate what is on the table.

And this is as it should be. It’s not as if politics was held in high regard before the referendum. I shudder to think what would happen if, following a unique democratic moment that mobilised the population in a way even elections fail to, a parliament that had approved the legislation providing for the vote decided to overturn it because it had come up with the “wrong” answer.

And so to the final irony. The chances are this ruling will not halt Brexit, but further legitimise it. A judgment hailed by remainers will, ultimately, serve merely to place a parliamentary stamp of approval on an outcome they oppose.