High Court Rules "No to EEA Vote"

Peter Wilding, who is the founder of British Influence, a pro-Single Market think-tank, today lost his bid in the High Court to force MPs to vote separately on leaving the European Economic Area. They argue that Britain should remain in the EEA, which they say continues our membership of the Single Market whilst being able to control our borders. Like others who appear selectively-deaf, such is no longer an option as the Commission has ruled-out any cherry-picking.

It is unlikely that we could remain a member of the Single Market, by not leaving the EEA, since we would be rejecting one of the 'Four Freedoms' - and thus cherry-picking - but other than that, his ideas have some merit and would be reassuring to grieving Remainers. The downside to that would be Parliament's and our courts' continued subservience to the ECJ which Mrs May has completely ruled-out.

One thing that I think is worth bearing in mind is that the type of Brexit Britain ends up with will be determined by:-

1. the EU's negotiators,
2. the Council of Europe,
   
3. the Commission,
4. the European Parliament, and, finally
   
5. the European Court of Justice

and in that order. The Commission has already laid the groundwork for a "hard" Brexit due to its inflexibility. The ECJ's most senior judge, Koen Lenaerts, yesterday told newspaper reporters that he was sure that the Court would have the final say on any deal. We could end up with the situation that David Davis' team agree a deal with their interlocutors on which our Parliament has a debate and votes. Suppose they vote to approve the deal and then Juncker has second thoughts and refers it to the ECJ. They could take months - or even a year or two - to rule one way or the other and that would be an intolerable situation.