Pedantically the UK Gov. could takes the case to the ECJ after losing the Supreme Court decision, but they won't.

Since the question is regarding the triggering of Article 50, part of the Lisbon Treaty, then legally either side could take it as far as the ECJ. Politically however you would likely cause a constitutional crisis if that was allowed to happen. A general election is more likely to happen first.

You've got to laugh haven't you...



A British Court with British appointed judges rules that the British Parliament should decide British Law.

Isn't that what the Mail and it's readers are in favour of rather than "interference" from Brussels?

I don't believe that that is correct. The issue is: what can the government do without explicit consent of Parliament? That is a UK constitutional issue, not an EU one. The fact that the issue is one that affects an EU treaty is irrelevant. In other words, the ECJ does not have jurisdiction over the process used by member states to decide whether to invoke Article 50.

Article 50(1) confirms this.

I believe that this was stated by the Court at paragraph 9 as can be seen here:site giving link to judgment

I have only had a cursory look through the judgment, but nothing jumped out at me as suggesting that the ECJ could make such a ruling.

Not being a constitutional lawyer, I accept I may be wrong.

From a legal point of view royal prerogative can be used to negotiate, enter into and withdraw from international treaties. What it cannot be used for is to remove preexisting rights of citizens without Parliamentary consent.

If the triggering of Article 50 is considered revocable, i.e. 18 months down the line HMG decides it's going to be too hard to make it work and we have another referendum in which 'Remain' wins, then the government can push ahead.

If the triggering of Article 50 is considered irrevocable, which the judges obviously decided it would be, then Parliamentary approval would be required. However given that the man who wrote Article 50, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, says that it's not irrevocable there's obviously disagreement on the subject.

Should the Supreme Court therefore deem it necessary to seek clarification then it would approach the ECJ for its legal advice which in effect would hand over the decision to the EU.

Laugh? I think I would rather cry. The politics is getting so ugly and deceptive with cabinet ministers trotting out DM style soundbites on what's happening.

It would be interesting if the parliamentary/Lords process lead to a derailment and an election were called (itself now requiring a new act). Having said that, the folks on LBC today were very much of the opinion that the Conservatives would sweep to victory. Not so sure, IMO if Britain ever has a proper debate on Brexit, some Leavers may re-evaluate their choice.

OK but that would only be a decision upon the revocable/irrevocable issue. It wouldn't have authority to determine what process HMG should use to invoke Article 50, excepting, of course, what form they have to use to do so

I thought that the argument went something like; only knuckle dragging, "stupid" people voted for Brexit, whereas the enlightened, "intelligent" people voted for Remain.

That being the case, I doubt very much that the outcome would be any different, unless the Remain side could get more of their vote out, particularly as the "experts" that predicted severe financial consequences of Brexit have had their credibility affected by what has actually happened.

Cue a constitutional nightmare and Mrs May pushing for a fresh mandate through an election. If she's wise she'll remember what happened to Gordon Brown who also become Prime Minster without an election, bottled going straight to the polls and got kicked out two years later. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act makes it more difficult than it used to be but it can be done.

The support for leaving has actually risen slightly since the result, presumably as a result of the many of the doomsayers' predictions failing to come to fruition. A second referendum would also produce a 'Leave' vote hence the remaining Remainers attempting to frustrate the process through the courts.

I thought that she was adamant that an early election was not on the cards.

This latest hearing all seems to be a storm in a teacup to me. An Act of Parliament could be written and passed relatively quickly that sets out the process to be used to trigger Article 50. So long as it isn't ridiculous, I see little chance of it not being enacted with the majority that the government has.

I fail to see how Corbyn's demand that Parliament votes upon the negotiating position prior to the negotiations beginning is anything other than the mutterings of an idiot. When has that ever been Parliament's position prior to any previous government negotiating any previous Treaty?

It would be fascinating to know what the actual breakdown of voter "capability" and motivation was on either side. Clearly there would be hard core in each camp who would not change their view. But the margin was very close (2%) and the campaign was very short (six weeks). With hindsight, the dis-information is becoming more apparent: no cake and eat it, no £350MN/week for the NHS, rising xenophobia and abuse, sterling devalued, and higher prices guaranteed next year. I think some of the 2%, let alone the rest of the non-hard core Leavers might have second thoughts. The Remainers are less likely to convert to Leave in the circumstances.

As to financial consequences, it hasn't happened yet. The FX is a market assessment on the long term effects of Brexit, but the actual pain has not taken place. Slap some French inspired tariffs on UK goods and see some UK manufacturers fail; let Frankfurt obfuscate financial services regulations, and watch a number of City banks move out of London; provide some taxpayer money to Nissan and any other major employer threatening to move, and the good ship UK heads into very choppy waters. We may be able to compensate for declining EU trade by ROW trade, but who knows.

But her majority is actually slim and a significant number of her own MPs are highly indignant about her approach in failing to reveal what is the outcome she envisages. You're right that a simple Act giving approval to trigger A50 could pass through the Commons quite quickly (but I doubt it would pass quickly through the HoLs). But what her Tory dissenters want is information about the negotiating goal, something she has pigheadedly refused to provide.

All this Brexit stuff has exposed how fabulously polarized the cultural divide is in the UK. What a wonderful gift to the part of the academic community feeling a little overwhelmed and irrelevant by the weight given to terrorism and middle-eastern politics.

That was before this ruling. If she's wise she'll grab the opportunity to rout Labour and increase her slim majority.

If that all it was then I doubt they would be little delay. Problem is many of the hardcore Remainers, particularly in the Lords, are hellbent on stopping Brexit and see this as their primary opportunity. If Parliament is required by law to pass an Act to trigger Article 50 then they can just prevent the bill from passing and force a vote of no confidence in the government and a general election.