As stated previously, and whilst I did not vote to leave the EU, I believe firmly that the EU referendum result must be honoured and implemented. This means leaving the EU. As an MP, I do not seek a vote to trigger Article 50 because, in my eyes, Parliament transferred the voting on this matter to the public via a referendum.
A recent judgment from the High Court has determined that only Parliament can change the law. I do not agree that the triggering of Article 50 is a change in the law. Article 50 is an article of the European Treaty, which is itself incorporated into our law. Triggering Article 50 does not change the law, it starts a process off which will then lead to the EU treaties being removed from our laws. Accordingly, and once we actually finish our negotiations with EU partners, and formally leave the EU, there will be a change in the law but this is the stage where the Government has announced that Parliament will be given a vote.
I do recognise the argument that, once Article 50 has been triggered, there is no need for Parliament to vote at all because our departure from the EU will follow. However, certain secondary legislation may fall without it being reenacted hence Parliament will be given a vote on legislation for the new post-EU settlement. This vote, and legislation, should act to will the EU Treaty from our laws at the same time. This argument is all rather technical - there will be a vote on the EU settlement hence I would have preferred that the High Court viewed this as such and not held that the failure for Parliament to vote on Article 50 constitutes a failure by the sovereign body of Parliament to be changing the law.
On the basis that we are where the High Court judgment has taken us, I believe that it would be best for Parliament to react by immediately voting on Article 50. The uncertainty involved in waiting for a further Supreme Court judgment, which may be considered unlikely to overturn a unanimous verdict from the tribunal below it, and the public concern which exists, does no one any good. Better, in my view, for Parliament to vote and put the matter to rest once and for all (giving the Government a forward trigger date to be used when the Prime Minister wishes to trigger). I do not feel that there is a need to hold a Parliamentary debate on the triggering of Article 50. We all had a long enough debate in the run-up to 23 June 2016. We could end all of this uncertainty, delay and legal expense in the time it takes to get MPs through a division lobby. The thought that enough MPs would vote against the will of a public determination via a referendum is most unlikely.
Whilst I am keen to advance the triggering of Article 50, and whilst I would have preferred that the court had not made the judgment it did, the reaction to the decision by the judiciary in certain quarters of the press has been distasteful. It is absolutely right that the the judiciary act as a check and balance on the executive. Without this, we have a form of tyranny. Singling out the judges who made this pronouncement, and even listing their sexuality, is appalling and is the type of 'dog whistling' which causes others to react in an even more sinister manner. It is high time that the media stops whipping up this form of outrage. A failure to stop it will mean that good people will not put themselves forward for office.
Whilst I believe that the courts, via judicial activism, are making decisions which may stray in to the domain of legislature or executive, it is for the legislature to then pass laws, using its democratic mandate, to retain the balance. Singling out judges, and abusing them, for making judicial determination is a low point and I hope this will stop (as much as I hope we can quickly trigger Article 50 and start the process of exiting the EU on favourable terms).