What happened Brexit in court

Theresa May’s strategy of withholding details of her Brexit plans was knocked sideways last week when the High Court ruled that she could not trigger Article 50, the mechanism for withdrawal from the EU, without first winning Parliament’s consent. Downing Street insisted the verdict would not affect its Brexit timetable – it aims to trigger Article 50 by the end of March 2017 – and appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the verdict.

The ruling outraged the pro-brexit lobby ( see page 22), who saw it as an underhand way of enabling MPS to set the terms of May’s negotiating strategy. It also brought calls from the PM’S supporters for an early election to strengthen her position. However the resignation of the pro-brexit Tory MP Stephen Phillips last Friday revealed some of the deep divisions inside the party. Phillips accused May of failing to consult MPS.

What the editorials said

Even before last week’s ruling, Brexit posed “the most complex and politically explosive challenge” a prime minister has had to face in decades, said The Times. May’s task now looks even trickier. MPS won’t dare to defy this summer’s referendum result by blocking Article 50 altogether, but they will push for a say in the Government’s “negotiating priorities”. And so they should, said The Observer. MPS must now demand a green paper on Brexit, as well as “a binding vote” on the final terms of a Brexit deal.

If the PM now shows a little more of her hand then so much the better, said The Daily Telegraph. Of course, there may be “good reasons” for some secrecy – public discussion could undermine our negotiating stance with the EU – but if May wants to keep the support of her party, she needs to seek a wider spread of opinion. Decisions regarding our Brexit strategy are too important to be left to a “tiny coterie of untested advisers around the Prime Minister”.