High Court rejects Theresa May's interpretation that she could exclude Parliament because referendum result gave her executive authority to pursue Brexit

Today the High Court handed down a judgement that Parliament must have a vote on how and when to proceed with Article 50 (BBC, 2016). While the Government will appeal, the ruling is nonetheless a blow to Theresa May's approach so far: to interpret the 'Brexit' vote as a mandate to exclude Parliament and wield the executive prerogative.

If the ruling stands up on appeal, what might be the impact upon any future referendum in the UK? One thing at least seems clear: it would be hard for anyone to argue ever again that it was constitutional to take a referendum was a legal basis for executive action.

In the UK, certain powers are 'reserved' - that is to say, that it does not require the assent of Parliament for the Executive Body (the Prime Minister and the Cabinet) to wield them. These powers are referred to as the Royal Prerogative, thought they devolved to the Prime Minister.

On assuming office as Prime Minister, Theresa May made one particularly huge decision: to interpret the 'Brexit' result she had inherited from the referendum as a mandate to exclude Parliament and proceed with the process by exercising her executive prerogative.

That, of course, provoked a reaction from Parliament. Without pursuing the blocking of 'Brexit, some, including MPs, argued that proceeding without Parliament's involvement and consent would be a violation of Britain's constitutional process (Politics Home, 2016).

It should also raise concerns. Whatever the perception of the referendum, it was legally only advisory and non-binding. To interpret such a mandate - popular acclamation, without legal basis - as justification for wielding unscrutinised executive power, would be to set a very disturbing precedent.

As the High Court ruling itself explains, Parliament is sovereign, with the law and the constitution being assembled and drawing their authority from its Acts. The exception is where it had explicit handed over, or shared, sovereignty explicitly in the form of an Act.

Britain's relationship with the European Union is in fact defined by such Acts of Parliament. These Acts form a part of the UK's constitution - and further, they confer certain Rights and Protections extended to UK citizens by Britain's EU membership.

To try and undo a significant part of the constitution, and to take away these significant rights - including, not least, European citizenship - without following constitutional procedure, was a dangerous path for May to tread upon. So why attempt it?

Perhaps the simplest answer would be that it was the only way in which the result could not be potentially challenged, and so potentially defeated. That, however, confers upon the referendum, retroactively, powers it did not possess. The referendum was not legally binding, yet Theresa May decided to interpret it as being so.

Further, Theresa May decided to interpret the referendum result as extending to her, as Prime Minister, the executive power to alter the constitution and the rights of citizens, without the checks, scrutiny or consent of elected representatives.

If the High Court ruling stands, then that interpretation will be invalidated it what could be seen to be a significant precedent: popular acclamation is not accepted as sufficient grounds for the unscrutinised wielding of executive power.

Yet trouble lies ahead. The ruling puts the Judiciary and the 'Brexit' voters at direct odds in their interpretation of what the majority won by the Leave campaign means. The opinion of Brexiters towards the 48% who voted Remain is already low and suspicious.

And what if Parliament should reject the kind of deal Theresa May is pursuing? Even if only the deal and not the ultimate end of exiting the EU, it may well be taken as a direct affront. There may even have to be an election before such a vote could take place, as the MPs who sit in the Commons at present have no mandate whatsoever for a 'Brexit'.

The High Court ruling has begun a new chapter in the Brexit story. Parliament, with or without an election, must now weigh in on the negotiations - meaning the Government must come clean about its plan and priorities in the process of untangling the UK from the EU. But if the ruling against the appeal is successful? It would set precedents that do not bear thinking about.

Theresa May in Birmingham to set out her Conservative & Unionist agenda

Theresa May is setting out her agenda at the Conservative Party Conference at The ICC in Birmingham, city where her Unionist hero Joseph Chamberlain made his name. Image: ICC Birmingham by Bob Hall (License) (Cropped)

This weekend's Conservative Party conference in Birmingham became Theresa May's first attempt to set out a distinct policy platform. A chance to define her own approach to being head of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister, separate from that of the Cameron Government that she inherited.

At the conference some major policies positions were announcement, including setting of a date for the triggering of Article 50, that begins the two-year long process of the UK exiting the EU - for which the government's negotiating position was leaked - and the prioritising, by the Chancellor Phillip Hammond, of spending on housing over the budget deficit.

These policies together produce an image of Britain as the new Prime Minister wishes to see it. But before the larger picture can be assembled, let's look at the pieces themselves.

First, there is the Government's position on Article 50 negotiations. The main thrust of the official announcement was only to establish that the two-year Brexit process will be triggered by the end of March 2017 and that the government was set upon the course to make the UK no longer be part of a supranational institution (BBC, 2016).

From the Prime Minister's own statements, it was clear that she intended to pursue particular priorities, getting UK out of European Court of Justice jurisdiction and establishing new migration controls, that made Britain's continued membership of the Single Market no longer a red line in negotiations (Kuenssberg, 2016) - a huge deviation from the position of the Cameron Ministry and the Conservative Manifesto.

Second, but by no means of less importance, is the decision by the Chancellor to give priority to infrastructure spending over paying down the deficit (BBC, 2016{2}). Few shifts could more dramatically demonstrate that the Cameron-Osborne era is over than to decrease the priority of tackling the deficit, which has been held over all government spending decisions for six years.

Compared to the leanness of Chancellor Osborne's approach, the dropping of the 2019-2020 target for eliminating the deficit and now a plan to invest in the UK's housing and transport, and even new borrowing to do so, is a big leap. Chancellor Hammond has called the shift a pragmatic response to new circumstances (BBC, 2016{3}) - part of the more mundane, pragmatic attitude that has replaced the 'flash' of the Cameron-Osborne era (Kuenssberg, 2016).

Yet despite what the Chancellor says, expert opinion has for years now (Elliott, 2016) called on Osborne to change tack and reject austerity as damaging to economic prospects in the UK. For Labour, who have spent six years being crucified for its pro-spending attitude its hard to say whether they will feel vindicated or bitter at the change of direction in the Conservative Party.

So what kind of picture do these pieces make when assembled? What do these key policies add up to?

Earlier speeches from Theresa May's leadership mentioned her admiration for Joseph Chamberlain and expressed an intention to restore the place of Unionism in the Conservative & Unionist Party. Chamberlain's two most famous projects were to lead, as Mayor, the rebuilding and reordering of Birmingham and, as an MP, to lead the opposition to free trade and champion trade tariffs between the British Empire and the rest of the world.

Chamberlain's attitude made an us and them of the English-speaking British Empire and the rest of the world, putting 'British' priorities first. While the barriers he put up around Britain served to subsidise and protect domestic business, they did so mainly by hurting the poorest - as the Liberals of the day pointed out with cold facts (Marr, 2009). In its day Chamberlain's aggressively nationalist & imperial vision was ultimately defeated by the Liberal Party of Asquith, Lloyd George and Churchill.

That sense of national unity, in distinction between a British way and everyone else, seems present in May's vision - less individual and competitive than Cameron's, more social and corporate. So inspired by Chamberlain does Theresa May's own platform seem, that announcing her positions at a party conference in Birmingham seems not to be a coincidence but rather a purposeful statement. A symbol of the increased prominence of Unionism within the Conservative brand.

In her pursuing her independently British path, some sort of Chamberlain-esque increase in the will to use the proceeds to fund pragmatic interventions that improve the state in which workers live would be appreciated - especially compared to the austere whittling of front line services and civic spaces of her predecessors.

Yet May's own scepticism of 'supranational' institutions risks putting Britain behind a new set of barriers, with many of the same problems as those erected by her hero. Whatever her Government's slogan proclaims - "A Country That Works For Everyone" - Unionism, by its very nature, buys into the idea of exclusivity. The new Prime Minister will have to go a long way to convince progressives that those outside of the highest echelons will ultimately benefit from, and share in, the spoils of this British corporation.

Welcome Back Westminster: Big decisions ahead for Members of Parliament

After a summer recess intended as a break from politics as usual - but which in reality turned into a carnival of political attractions - Westminster is back in session and there are some big decisions ahead.

Top of the list for progressives is human rights. With the first PMQs of the new term in sight, the Justice Secretary took it upon herself to confirm Conservative intentions towards the Human Rights Act and the UK's relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Liz Truss, newly appointed Justice Secretary announced during the break that Conservative manifesto plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights will go ahead (Stone, 2016). The plan has been widely criticised and spent a lot of time buried in the face of parliamentary opposition (Sankey, 2016) - including within Conservative ranks.

That decision goes nearly hand in hand with the decision ahead of Theresa May regarding Article 50 - which triggers the beginning of the UK's exit from the European Union. So divided are the Tories that the PM arranged a special gathering at Chequers, the PM's country retreat, to hash out a common strategy (BBC, 2016).

The product, that has been seen so far, is a refusal from Theresa May to commit to any of the Brexit campaign's promises: in particular the promises of points-based immigration and £100m a week in extra funding for the NHS (Mason, 2016). Even continuing to contribute to the EU's budget was not ruled out.

Beyond the headline issues, even just in the first week back MPs must get to grips with questions on refugee children, debate the government's budget which is at its third reading in the Commons, while the Lords tackle the Investigatory Powers Bill - the latest iteration of the so called Snooper's Charter.

Meanwhile Labour's leadership election has been seemingly fruitless and has made the attempt to oust Jeremy Corbyn from the leadership look a shambles. Owen Smith's challenge hasn't really materialised in the debates and he has been unable to set himself apart.

That is not, though, necessarily to say that there is substantial ground between the two candidates. Corbyn clearly has faults and never really set himself apart either - even in front of audiences where he enjoyed a clear majority of members' support. Yet for Smith to replace Corbyn, he has to demonstrate himself to be clearly better suited and he has so far failed.

And if, as his polling numbers of around 60% or higher suggest, Corbyn is re-elected leader in three weeks time, the divisions in the party are unlikely to have been resolved - MPs opposed to Corbyn, having failed to oust him, have more schemes planned to undermine him (Whale, 2016).

In all, the Summer seems to have been an embarrassing failure for the Labour Parliamentary Party and its disaffected MPs, and their disappointment looks likely to spill over long into the next Westminster session.

After a summer where Labour have appeared chronically unable to get their house in order, while the Tories got theirs settled almost too quickly, and with only one utterly fringe MP having a 'Brexit' mandate from voters, in a house that by overwhelming majority supported remain, UK politics is back but its actors look unready to deal with the important matters ahead.

Surely against this backdrop, a new election has to be a very real consideration. For the Left, in as difficult a position as it seems, a Progressive Alliance seems to be the only way to take the fight to the Conservatives, who look right now able to win in virtually the same manner as Theresa May became Tory leader and Prime Minister - uncontested.

Caroline Lucas, in her return to the Green Party leadership in a job share, certainly put her best foot forward in making the forming of a Progressive Alliance her number one priority (BBC, 2016{2}). While for the Greens any strategy to increase their own representation is certainly in their interest, an alliance would also help to increase the representation of diverse voices in Parliament and rally the Left opposition to mount a serious challenge to the Conservative position.

However, plans for an Left alliance are already looking to near to scuppered by Labour's inability to get beyond its need to be the single and uncontested party of progressives. The party's official stance remains firmly opposed to pluralism, with even Jeremy Corbyn ruling out a Progressive Alliance by rolling out the party's usual lines about its historic role.

Its belief in the two-party, adversarial, system, and its own special role in that system, is summed up in the slogan on its Pride banners: "Only Labour can deliver equality".

That attitude doesn't bode well for a project aiming to build a Progressive Alliance. While there has been some warming up to pluralism and proportional representation by some individual MPs or members, the Labour Party's official stance remains intransigent.

There are big decisions ahead and progressives can only really face them working together. That means respecting the desire for broader representation, finding common ground, and working across partisan boundaries - rather than trying to wrangle everyone under one programme announced with one voice.

The Left cannot be frightened of debate between plural voices. The Left is diverse and its diversity is its strength. The way ahead for the opposition in Parliament, and the wider progressive movement, is to embrace plurality and co-operation, in the name of the common good.