Polly Toynbee: Taking back control begins here
If seizing back sovereignty meant anything, then parliament is supreme. Now MPs must seize the day to ensure they debate and decide at every stage in the Brexit process. No more floundering and prevaricating, this is the time for MPs to lay down the law with strong red line amendments to the bill triggering article 50.
Start out in the right frame of mind, with warmth and goodwill to our European friends and neighbours. Declare unequivocal, unilateral and unconditional love for all our EU citizens resident here, welcoming them to stay with open arms – and get it written into this bill. Just do it. Because we want them and we need them and because surely that will secure the safety of the 1.2 million Brits in their lands. Start out in a spirit of solidarity and these negotiations will be better-natured than many fear. And add in a plea for universal EU visa-free travel, for God’s sake.
For Ireland’s sake, write an amendment committing to a soft border, which is urgent as the Northern Ireland constitution teeters perilously.
What of all those 32 EU agencies we should be sorry to leave? Add in amendments declaring at least an aim to stay in Interpol, the EU environment agency, the marine and aviation agencies, and keeping all current invaluable EU protections for our citizens. “No one worse off” should be a founding principle enshrined here, as the supreme court ruling suggests.
Before triggering this bill, we must know how the story ends. What if the final Brexit deal is so bad parliament simply can’t pass it? What if the EU parliament at the last fence votes it down? Before any MP presses this trigger, each one must know, written into the bill, that this is never irrevocable. Let no MP commit a gross dereliction of duty by signing blindly, obediently, with no clue as to what it means or where it may lead. Taking back control begins here.
Mark Wallace: Fair enough. As a leaver, I wanted parliament to be sovereign once more
The most over-enthusiastic people on each side of the Brexit divide have a vested interest in overstating the importance of this case. However, those remainers and leavers who respectively dream and fume that it will prevent Brexit are simply wrong.
Everyone has a right to have their legal claims heard – even those who hope to use the law as a form of political rearguard action. But this exercise is far more interesting in terms of constitutional law than in terms of politics. As president of the supreme court Lord Neuberger said, the judgment has nothing to do with whether the UK should leave the EU, or the terms on which we do so.
The ruling is fair enough. As a leaver, I wanted parliament to be sovereign once more. That parliament must vote to leave the EU is not a problem in either theory or practice.
What will happen next? The government will present a Brexit bill, which it has been preparing for some months. MPs will vote for that bill – the vast majority of Tories because they believe in implementing the referendum result, the majority of Labour MPs because they fear the retribution of their own voters if they try to defy them.
Peers may delay the bill, but they won’t block it – not least because it would be unwise for an unelected chamber to pit itself against the largest vote in British political history. At worst, the government can use the Salisbury convention; the Conservative manifesto pledged to “honour the result” of the referendum.
The fact the devolved administrations failed to secure a veto on Brexit, and the apparent rejection of deputy president Brenda Hale’s idea that a short bill would be insufficient to replace the 1972 European Communities Act, reinforce what was already clear: article 50 will still be triggered.
Schona Jolly: The question now is: how does parliament handle the removal of people’s rights?
The supreme court, deeply conscious of the divisions and rancour that the high court judgment led to in the national debate, has sought to pre-empt similar fury by setting out in the clearest terms that the legal issue had nothing to do with “the wisdom of the decision to withdraw from the European Union, the terms of withdrawal, the timetable or arrangements for withdrawal, or the details of any future relationship with the EU”. All of that remains live, and should be on the table, as the debate now is turned back across Parliament Square.
Like the high court before it, the supreme court has lent its strong support to our centuries-long constitutional tradition of parliamentary sovereignty. Rights are bound to be impacted by withdrawal, and the court recognises that withdrawal from the EU will constitute fundamental constitutional change.
A big question for parliament now is how it tackles the issue of withdrawal and removal of rights, and whether it does so through the bill that Theresa May is settling as we speak, or whether it insists on clarity for the great repeal bill and a white paper setting out how and what rights will be lost, amended or retained.
The biggest disappointment will come to those hoping that the court would rule a practical blow to Brexit by the need for formal involvement of the devolved nations. Unanimously, the court ruled against that by concluding that although the devolution legislation assumed that the UK would remain a member of the EU, it did not go further and require the UK to remain a member of the EU. This may yet bring to bear its own political demons as the political fallout over a hard Brexit deepens.
The judgment is carefully worded, less critical than that of the high court, but nonetheless reminds the nation that parliament was careless with the wording of the 2015 Referendum Act, which the court unsurprisingly concludes simply did not provide for a change in the law of the land. That inherent failure of parliament, and David Cameron’s government, paves the way for the new law that must be drafted. Those drafting it this time, for all the talk of unamendable bills, would be well advised to avoid further appeals and confusion by ensuring that any bill is carefully drafted, and properly debated. A constitutional change of this order should not be hurried.
Gisela Stuart: A mature decision that won’t even slow Brexit, let alone jeopardise it
Some expect leavers like me to have a problem with this judgment. But I won’t hear of talk of “undemocratic judges” or “establishment stitch-ups”.
Don’t forget, we voted on 23 June to go back to being a self-governing democracy under the rule of law. The supreme court has not “blocked Brexit”, all the judges have done is clarify the law. It is now for the government to operate under the framework it has laid down. That is not something to berate – that’s the hallmark of a mature democracy.
As a campaigner for Brexit, I do not see the application of democracy and due process as an obstacle – indeed I don’t expect this decision to even slow down the process. Why?
MPs and Lords know that a refusal to implement the decision made by a majority of the British public last year would erode trust in democratic institutions. Many MPs also know that, if they vote against article 50, they will be voting against their own constituents. The leave campaign won more votes than any campaign in British history. Had it been a general election, leave would have won over 400 seats in the House of Commons, and we’d all be calling it a landslide victory.
And the Lords? They know that if they vote down Brexit they risk making radical reform of the Lords the public’s No 1 priority. Ultimately, an acceptance that the democratic will of the public has to be respected combined with a natural sense of self-preservation will see both houses vote for article 50.
Last month, MPs voted to trigger article 50 within the government’s timetable in a non-binding motion. The polls show that more people than ever before think that Brexit should happen. The political forces are overwhelmingly behind us leaving, and parliamentarians know that there is no mandate to block Brexit.
The judges have done their job, now it’s time for politicians to do theirs.