Enemies of the People (Skeleton).

Today the UK Law Lords have just handed down their ruling on the triggering of Article 50 to allow Britain to exit from the European Union (EU) - the so-called "Brexit." This is obviously a complex ruling that I will need to read and properly digest.

However in talking about the subject when the case was heard in mid-November 2016 I said that there was nothing in the European Union Referendum Act of 2015 to suggest the referendum vote was advisory rather than binding. That type of statement is what a lawyer would consider a caveat.

When it comes to UK acts of Parliament you not only get the text of the act itself but also extensive explanatory and guiding notes explaining the context of the act. Having read them the guidance notes for the referendum act it make it quite clear that the referendum was advisory.

Therefore the Law Lords ruling that Parliament must give its consent to the triggering of Article 50 seems broadly correct.

That ruling does not mean that Brexit has in any way been stopped. The government has a working majority of 12. That means for Parliament not to give its consent 12 government MP's would have to rebel alongside all MP's who are not members of the governing party. Although not impossible this seems extremely unlikely.

However the Law Lords have ruled that rather than simply issuing a statement of consent acknowledging the referendum result Parliament must instead pass a full act. This is something I will have to look a closely but on this point the Law Lords do seem to have exceeded their authority.

Requiring an act of Parliament which its various committee, reading and voting stages gives dissenting MP's opportunity to severely delay the triggering of Article 50. That seems a spectacularly bad idea.

As I mentioned when the case was being heard whenever in 2017 Article 50 is triggered Brexit will come into effect on January 1st  2019 (1/1/19). The purpose of triggering it in March 2017 is that it gives UK businesses 9 months to learn and adapt to the changes. If the triggering of Article 50 slips from March the adaptation time is going to be reduced making the whole process more disruptive.

If the delay caused by Parliament turns out to be significant Britain could be forced to delay triggering Article 50 until March 2018. That extra year of uncertainty will do real damage to the UK economy significantly weakening Britain's negotiating position prior to the negotiation even starting. It will also significantly irritate Britain's negotiating partners withing the EU.

Last Tuesday's (17/1/17) speech by Prime Minister May on Brexit actually provides a good example of the type of problems cause by Britain's puffed up and self-important MP's. Prime Minister May did not want to give this speech but was pressured into it by British MP's and media's inability to talk about anything else.

The speech laid out in detail the UK's negotiating position. Although the headline was that the UK would leave both the single market and the customs union it also laid out positions that the UK is prepared to be flexible on. For example the claim that the UK will no longer contribute to the EU budget seems wildly optimistic.

The EU's position has long been that it will not negotiate with the UK until Article 50 has been triggered. By inviting all the EU Ambassadors to hear the speech in person the UK was using it as an attempt to start the negotiation early.

Although everyone is diplomatically polite aside from laying out the UK's position in detail that little stunt seems to have had a lot of people quietly taking note of something they're going to make Britain pay for during those negotiations.

A further delay is likely to mean a bigger bill.

10:45 on 24/1/17 (UK date).