On Tuesday morning, supporters of the Remain campaign thought their prayers were answered, as the Supreme Court dismissed the government’s appeal in the landmark case on Brexit, meaning Parliament would be required to give its approval before official talks on leaving the EU could begin.
Yet within minutes of the court judgment, the Parliament indicated it was not at all sure it was ready to assume such power – especially if it means facing down the result of the June referendum or a media consensus that only the directly expressed will of the people should be sovereign.
The question remains: will the MPs reflect their own view when the bill gets passed in the Parliamemt or will they have to stand for their constituents, who may have supported Brexit in the first place in June 2016?
Jeremy Corbyn in a statement that swiftly closed off any meaningful likelihood of enough MPs opposing the government’s imminent Brexit bill said, “Labour respects the result of the referendum and the will of the British people and will not frustrate the process for invoking Article 50.”
A No10 spokesperson told Asian Voice, “The British people voted to leave the EU, and the Government will deliver on their verdict – triggering Article 50, as planned, by the end of March. Today’s ruling does nothing to change that.
“It’s important to remember that Parliament backed the referendum by a margin of six to one and has already indicated its support for getting on with the process of exit to the timetable we have set out.
“We respect the Supreme Court’s decision, and will set out our next steps to Parliament shortly.”
What exactly has the Supreme Court decided?
By a majority of eight to three, Supreme Court justices ruled that Prime Minister Theresa May cannot lawfully bypass MPs and peers by using the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and start the two-year process of negotiating the UK’s divorce from its EU partners in March 2017.
The ruling will stop Mrs May from triggering Article 50 by the end of March and now will entirely depend on the decision of the Parliament.
What happens next?
Attorney General Jeremy Wright said the government would “comply with the judgment of the court and do all that is necessary to implement it”.
The new bill is however expected to be short, as the government’s lawyer during the hearing suggested that ‘one-line’ legislation could be put forward. Both the House of Commons and House of Lords will have to vote in favour of it.
While Tory MPs would like to see it fast-tracked through Parliament, it is natural that many Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPs will want as much time as possible to discuss a variety of issues and to make amendments. The Daily Telegraph supported this speculation by reporting that SNP responded to the ruling by saying it would table 50 “serious and substantive” amendments.
Labour said it too would seek to amend the bill but would not “frustrate” the Brexit process.
BBC Parliamentary correspondent Mark D’Arcy said the bill could pass through the Commons before the half-term recess in the middle of February, giving ample time for the Lords to then consider it and for it to become law before the end of March. While there are some MPs who want the process to be delayed, they are vastly outnumbered by those who want the government to get on with it so that the UK will have left the EU by the time of the next election in May 2020.
Can Brexit be blocked?
In theory, yes it can be. But in reality it is extremely unlikely to happen.
The BBC and major daily newspapers reported that few, if any, Conservative MPs are likely to vote against Article 50. Only Europhile former chancellor Ken Clarke has said he will do so.
Given that the Tories have a working majority of 15 in the Commons, this means that the bill is guaranteed to pass – especially since a majority of Labour MPs have now said they will not stand in the way of the process and many will actually vote for Article 50.
Although the Lib Dems, the SNP and some Labour MPs are likely to vote against, this will make little difference.
What perhaps will be more interesting is if a coalition of pro-European Conservatives and opposition MPs join forces to win concessions over the extent of Parliamentary scrutiny of the two-year process.
What happens in the House of Lords?
The government does not have a working majority and there are 178 non-affiliated cross-bench peers – could be more unpredictable. BBC’s Mark D’Arcy said there are murmurings of an organised attempt to resist Article 50 by diehard Remainers.
But amid warnings that any attempt to block Brexit could trigger a general election, in which the future of the Lords would be a major issue – it is likely that the fights will amount to just that and the government will eventually get its way.
What do the Asian MPs and Peers have to say?
Lord Dholakia told Asian Voice, “Our priority is making sure that the people are given the final say on the Brexit deal in a referendum. We will seek to amend the bill to that effect. Without a referendum on the deal we will vote against Article 50.
· “Of course Parliament should have a role in this process. This has never been about what the courts should do, it is about how the government should properly involve Parliament in Brexit. It’s been a costly, time consuming, waste of time, and the government should stop trying to prevent scrutiny.
· “We are clear that we will only support triggering Article 50 if the people are guaranteed a referendum on the deal at the end of the negotiating process. The people voted for departure, but they did not vote for a destination.
· “We do not believe that people voted for the Hard Brexit that Theresa May set out last week, but it should be up to them to decide at the end of the process between the deal the government gets and staying in the EU. Liberal Democrats still believe no deal is better than the one we have now inside the EU, but it is up to the people to decide at the end of the process.
“We are also looking at how we can protect EU citizens’ rights, ensure continued membership of the Single Market and Customs Union, and make sure Parliament is allowed full scrutiny throughout the Brexit process.”
Rt Hon Keith Vaz told Asian Voice, “I welcome the decision by the Supreme Court today. It is important that Parliament is given the ability to formally approve the triggering of Article 50 by the Government.
“The EU Referendum reflected the will of the people, and the people the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union on 23rd June 2016.
“Because of this I will be voting to trigger Article 50 when this judgment comes before Parliament.”
Seema Malhotra MP said, “Today’s Supreme Court judgment confirms the long standing constitutional principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. It has clarified the legal position for the triggering of Article 50 and will allow Parliamentarians to undertake their responsibilities in contributing and scrutinising the process going forward.
“MPs have a duty to scrutinise legislation as part of the democratic process, including putting forward amendments we consider would be right for Britain’s future. The Government was wrong to call that democratic process into question and in my view should not have appealed the decision of the courts.
“This path is not going to be without huge challenges. Leaving the European Union will require major changes to the statute book. In addition to Article 50 and the negotiations that will follow, we expect the “Great Repeal Bill” in the next Queen’s Speech. I believe the terms of Brexit must safeguard crucial British interests such our economic competitiveness, workers’ rights, environmental protection and security issues. The EU-UK settlement must balance the economic imperative of access to the single market and access to skills with the political imperative to respond to the concerns of the British people expressed with regards to immigration. Remaining in a reformed single market to the greatest possible extent is essential for our future prosperity as a country.”
Lord Dolar Popat told Asian Voice, “Today’s judgment is an affirmation of the sovereignty of Parliament. The Prime Minister has already stated that Parliament will have a big role to play in the Brexit process – including, as she said last week, voting on the final package – and I welcome that role.
“What is important now is to reflect the result of last year’s referendum and to make Britain a success. I believe last week’s speech by Prime Minister Theresa May set out an excellent vision for how we can go forward, as a free-trading, open and tolerant nation. We are leaving the European Union, but not leaving Europe; we should remain close partners with our neighbours, but we should also embrace the wider-world and the opportunities it holds.”
Former Justice Minister Shailesh Vara MP said: “We must respect the decision of the Supreme Court and the government will proceed accordingly. One thing is absolutely clear – 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union and there will be no turning back on that decision.”
Virendra Sharma MP in a statement said, “I welcome today’s ruling from the Supreme Court.
“It is only right and proper that Parliament should be given proper scrutiny of the Government’s Brexit strategy. Last year when the public voted to leave the EU they did not necessarily vote to leave the Single Market, the European Medicines Agency or the European Aviation Safety Agency, which certifies aircraft before they are allowed to fly.
“It is important that Parliament is given the opportunity to protect Britain’s interests. Our safety is assured by continued partnership in Europol, Eurojust and the European Arrest Warrant, all of which are vital in fight against serious crime and terrorism.
“I don’t support risking the UK’s prosperity by an ideological leap out of the Single Market. Parliament needs to be part of the discussion about securing a stronger future for Britain and that is why I welcome today’s judgment.”
