There has been a lot of hysteria surrounding this week’s ruling by the High Court that Parliament needs formally to ratify the Government’s intention to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty in order to start the process of the UK leaving the EU. Is this an attempt by partisan judges to undermine the Brexiteers?
Conversely does the attack by Brexiteers on the judges who took that decision represent an attack on the independence of our judiciary? How very dare the Government to try to tell our independent judges what to do?
Does this mean that Brexit will now be severely delayed, the resulting negotiations be compromised or not happen altogether?
For those remainers welcoming the High Court ruling who previously complained about the uncertainty caused to the markets by the long drawn out referendum debate and confusion over what happens next, won’t this new uncertainty and probable delay spin the damage out even longer?
For my part I can’t get too agitated. I still have no doubt that Brexit will happen and there need not be any delay to the March 2017 deadline for triggering the process that Theresa May has set out. Arguments about whether it will be a hard, soft or squidgy Brexit are not part of this ruling. The judges have made clear simply that the process of triggering Article 50 should be taken by Parliament and is not the preserve of the Prime Minister and the Executive. As we entered the European Community as a result of a Parliamentary Act it is not unreasonable that the process of leaving it should be initiated by a further Parliamentary Act, although in 1972 it had not been affirmed by a referendum.
So if that is what the judges say then let’s get on with it. At least it is British judges saying it and not completely unaccountable ones in the European Court. And frankly if we do have greater confidence in the independence and integrity of the British legal system then we should not challenge the credentials of our judges making these decisions. The attacks on individual judges are disgraceful, whatever we think of their judgements, and it is extraordinary that the Justice Secretary has not reinforced this point publicly and robustly.
I acknowledge that some contend that the High Court judgement is defective as it conflicts with judgements made in 2008 over calls for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
There are some more weighty outstanding constitutional matters to be debated, but they can wait. As for now there is also some dispute as to whether a simple Parliamentary vote of both Houses would suffice. So let’s head off any further grounds for vacillation.
Let’s drop the attempt to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court and thereby cause further delay. Instead, next week the Government should introduce a simple one page Bill which empowers the Government to trigger Article 50.
As with other emergency legislation around terrorism for example its scrutiny could be expedited through both Houses and the March timetable could remain intact and some degree of certainty restored. In addition to the fact that the largest number of voters ever to have voted for an issue in the UK on June 23rd voted us to leave the EU, we now know that in 421 of 574 English and Welsh constituencies there was also a clear majority to leave. Scotland and Northern Ireland overall voted to stay but with varying results across constituencies.
Any MP who voted to hold the Referendum in the first place must now be duty bound to support its decision and put it into effect by voting for a Bill to trigger Article 50. When I campaigned to Leave I made it absolutely clear that I would respect a Remain vote and work to make our continued membership of the EU a success. End of.
The Government was elected on a manifesto to hold a referendum and it honoured that commitment. In the back of the controversial £9.3m taxpayer funded booklet sent to every home in the country the Government clearly stated ‘This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.’ Government MPs should be whipped to vote for whatever it now takes to trigger article 50 and if the courts have ruled that it has to be by Parliamentary authority then let’s leave no room for misinterpretation by passing a full blown Act.
Those arguing that the Referendum was ‘advisory’ not ‘mandatory’ are disingenuous. We use the vehicle of a Referendum very rarely, only twice nationally in the last 50 years. It is because Parliament deems that an issue is of such constitutional magnitude that the decision needs to be taken separately and explicitly by the people. In this case there were no strong arguments accepted for turnout thresholds or the like before the result. Indeed the turnout was rather higher than that which elected the Government at the last General Election. Only subsequent to the result have some vociferous remainers questioned the maths, the demographics and most disgracefully the intellectual capability of the majority voting to leave. When the people have spoken as they have, the servants of the people, us the MPs, have a duty to get on with it.
If there are those in the unelected Lords who want to frustrate the will of the electorate who cannot elect or unelect them, then clearly the next referendum needs to be on the future of that end of Parliament. If they are numerous enough to challenge the will of the people and the elected House of Commons and block the Bill then that is the only circumstance in which the Prime Minister will probably have to call a general election. But hopefully it will not come to that and the damage that further delay could bring can be averted.
Many of those hailing this ruling as a great triumph for democracy and a way of influencing hard/soft Brexit or whatever, whilst still claiming the result of the Referendum must be respected, are being the most disingenuous. They see this as a way of putting obstacles in the way of Brexit, sowing doubts that it can ever be achieved, and by making out that it is all too complicated and spinning it out for as long as possible hope that it will run into the sands and never happen. They must be exposed and challenged at all costs.
To those who claim that Parliament must have ample opportunity to debate Brexit we have spoken about little else for the last six months. Wherever you go Brexit crops up on the agenda. When negotiations start, no doubt all sorts of Brexit issues will be tabled for further debate in Parliament. We will spend a great deal of time debating and voting on the Great Repeal Bill and ultimately Parliament may even be faced with choices on certain Leave options at the end of the negotiation process.
But you cannot negotiate by committee, least of all with 27 other players looking you in the eye across the negotiating table. The Government has to be free to play its hand to secure the best deal for Britain outside of the EU without constantly having to look over its shoulder and revealing its cards. By all means take advice from Parliament, from experts and indeed high ranking lawyers, but it is down to Government and the top team appointed to do the deal. Whilst that is a respectable mantra which ministers have blithely trotted out in recent months it would help their case if the Prime Minster did give further details about the likely structure of negotiations, who is doing what and what happens next. I am sure markets and constituents alike, from which ever side of the argument, would appreciate that.
So let’s be clear this ruling is purely about triggering the process of Brexit not what the outcome should look like. Let’s thank the judges for making that clear, not waste any more taxpayers’ money on challenges in the courts, pass a Bill immediately that puts it beyond doubt and get on with the tricky negotiating stuff ahead which results in us leaving the EU. I am sure that is what my constituents want and that is what I am ready and willing to support.