What the supreme court's article 50 verdict could mean for May

A surprise government victory seems unlikely but could vindicate its decision to appeal against high court ruling

Brexit ruling: supreme court announces article 50 judgment - live

Government lawyers have been examining the possible legal routes that could open up for Theresa May after the supreme court delivers its verdict in the article 50 appeal.

Government victory

Victory for the prime minister would deliver the simplest and most direct approach to initiating article 50 of the treaty on European Union, which formally begins the UK’s departure from the EU.

If, despite politically managed expectations, the 11 justices decide that the royal prerogative powers are sufficiently extensive, then she would not have to consult parliament and could proceed immediately to Brussels without bothering to secure parliamentary approval.

A surprise victory for the government at this late stage seems unlikely and would be met with head-scratching in No 10, which has already conceded that parliament should be consulted at the end of the Brexit process.

However, it would at least vindicate the expensive decision to appeal against the high court defeat. It could also strengthen the government’s resolve to carry out negotiations without ongoing reference to parliament.

Narrow defeat

The more widely expected outcome is that the justices, by a significant majority, follow the high court’s earlier ruling and declare that the government’s executive powers to sign international treaties, as inherited through the royal prerogative, do not extend to uprooting parliamentary legislation such as the European Communities Act of 1972, which delivered specific rights to British citizens.

After months of legal setbacks for the government on the issue, a narrow ruling from the supreme court that parliament must be consulted before article 50 is invoked would probably be met with a sigh of relief in Downing Street.

Rupert Croft, of Crofts Solicitors, who represents Fair Deal for Expats – one of the claimant groups in the case – said: “If the government loses, the supreme court may adopt the same approach as the high court and simply say that the government does not have power to trigger Brexit without parliamentary authority. The justices may want to keep clear of interfering with political matters [such as specifying the type of motion or bill required].”

Even if the judgment requires that a simple bill is passed by parliament, few are in any doubt that May has the Commons majority she needs for it to pass, and there is little chance of the House of Lords voting it down alone.

But any bill, however short, can be amended, and there will be a range of attempts to attach conditions. Labour favours procedural tweaks that can get enough Tory support to pass. The Liberal Democrats and Scottish National party will put up more symbolic resistance. Either way, this would be a bump in the road for the government, rather than a lasting obstacle.

Additional conditions

It is less likely that the judges will attach additional conditions specifying what needs to be in a bill or stipulating that MPs and peers should have further specific roles in supervising Brexit. The justices are likely to consider that to be trespassing on purely political matters.

The devil would be in the detail and how strident the judges are in their language, but it could be seen as a sign of the courts seeking to rein in the untrammelled power of the executive in negotiating the terms of the exit as well as the principle of seeking an exit. As it is, the prime minister has already promised parliament a vote on the final shape of any Brexit deal.

Constitutional uncertainty

One under-anticipated element that could introduce constitutional uncertainty and complexity into the government’s roadmap for triggering Brexit is the part to be played by the devolved assemblies in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff.

Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh lawyers will read the judgment closely to see whether it grants them any procedural or consultative role in the process of triggering Brexit.

The supreme court decision will test the significance of the Sewel convention, which states that if Westminster is introducing legislation on issues that have been devolved, it “normally” has to seek the consent of the devolved parliaments.

Handing the SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon, something that looks like a veto is the nightmare scenario for a government that has a self-imposed deadline to invoke article 50 by the end of March.

Extending the principle of parliamentary approval to all regional assemblies would take far longer if May has to shepherd a bill through not just Westminster but the much more hostile Holyrood, Stormont and Welsh assemblies.

Sturgeon is fiercely opposed to leaving the EU single market and could use the process to rekindle demands for a special carve-out for Scotland. Obtaining the assent of the devolved government in Northern Ireland would be complicated even more by the absence of a government until at least 2 March, when new elections to the power-sharing executive are planned.

Since the Sewel convention is qualified by the imprecise phrase “normally”, most lawyers would be surprised if the justices find that it imposes an extra layer of obligations on the government. Barristers arguing in Belfast’s high court that the Good Friday agreement ceded constitutional sovereignty to Stormont over its future status lost their appeal in the lower court.


Owen Bowcott and Dan Roberts

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Supreme court poised to deliver article 50 judgment
Lord Neuberger to summarise decision on whether government needs approval of MPs and peers to initiate EU exit

Owen Bowcott and Jessica Elgot

24, Jan, 2017 @6:00 AM

Article image
Government takes Brexit article 50 case to UK supreme court
DExEU trying to stop case about reversability of Brexit from going to EU court

Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent

16, Nov, 2018 @1:06 PM

Article image
Article 50 judgment: key points from the supreme court ruling
Main points from supreme court judgment on whether the UK government needs parliamentary approval to initiate EU exit

Jon Henley

24, Jan, 2017 @10:00 AM

Article image
Lawyers warn May against short Brexit bill if supreme court says vote is needed
PM and Brexit secretary are advised not to put single-clause bill to MPs because it could result in further court appeals

Anushka Asthana and Owen Bowcott

23, Jan, 2017 @10:00 PM

Article image
Brexit: government will introduce article 50 bill 'within days' following supreme court ruling – as it happened
Rolling coverage of the supreme court Brexit article 50 judgment, with reaction and analysis

Andrew Sparrow

24, Jan, 2017 @5:31 PM

Article image
Government will lose Brexit supreme court case, ministers believe
Senior government figures believe seven of 11 judges will uphold demand that Theresa May secure MPs’ backing for article 50

Anushka Asthana and Heather Stewart

11, Jan, 2017 @9:29 AM

Article image
Article 50 could be reversed, government may argue in Brexit case
Lawyers consider potential change of tack for supreme court challenge to ruling that MPs must vote to trigger EU exit

Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent

12, Nov, 2016 @6:40 AM

Article image
Article 50 ruling allows MPs a meaningful role in Brexit – if they want it | Dan Roberts
This reassertion of the right of MPs to be consulted on Brexit may be just the start of parliament’s newfound responsibilities

Dan Roberts Brexit policy editor

24, Jan, 2017 @12:38 PM

Article image
Stormont assembly's consent required before Brexit, court told
Process of leaving European Union would involve ‘driving a wedge’ between Northern Ireland and Irish Republic, lawyers argue

Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent

07, Dec, 2016 @7:35 PM

Article image
Supreme court rules parliament must have vote to trigger article 50
Justices rule by eight to three against government over EU exit, but ministers do not need devolved assemblies’ consent

Owen Bowcott, Rowena Mason and Anushka Asthana

24, Jan, 2017 @10:45 AM