In potentially allowing a Final Say, the Supreme Court has proven itself a friend of democracy

With almost each day the Brexit crisis seems to grow more acute, interrupted only by occasional bouts of nervous exhaustion within the governing party.

The prime minister appears to have survived a cabinet meeting without suffering any further resignations and, for now, has avoided a vote of no confidence. This is what passes for success for Theresa May these days. She has, on the other hand, to cope with the vague threat of a veto from the Spanish for her draft UK-EU withdrawal agreement.

And, by the same token, with almost each day the case for a Final Say on the terms of Brexit, now they are known, grows in strength. The weakest of the objections – practicality – raised against having another referendum has no substance. There will be time for a Final Say. For one important obstacle to such a national verdict has been removed by the Supreme Court (formerly known as “enemies of the people” in some quarters), which has ruled that the government has no business trying to prevent a judicial review of the UK’s, and the EU’s, Article 50 legislation.

Obscure as the initiative that was taken some months ago via a Scottish court may seem, the fact that the question will now go to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for adjudication is encouraging for anyone who feels democracy has not yet run its course on Brexit.

The substantive issue is a simple one: can the UK unilaterally withdraw Article 50? The relevant European Union treaty is silent on the point, as it is on most things to do with secession, because it was hardly envisaged that anyone would wish to quit the most successful multinational trading bloc in the history of the world. If, as seems reasonable, the ECJ rules in an expedited manner that the UK can indeed do so, then that closes off one of the arguments used by Brexiteers against a Final Say. Time will now be needed for a second referendum, and the UK, we may safely assume, will be allowed the possibility to have a vote.

The other side of the equation – the acquiescence of the European Commission, parliament and other member state governments – may also be assumed. All the indications are that while the EU would refuse any extension of the Article 50 timetable to facilitate yet more fatuous negotiations over the withdrawal agreement, set to be ratified by the European Council, there would be flexibility if it was to allow the British people to reflect on the actual Brexit they have before them. It may or may not constitute “the Brexit we voted for”, as it is sometimes said, but it is The Deal – the only deal available now.

It is interesting that the prime minister nowadays makes reference to the three options facing parliament: her Brexit; hard Brexit or no Brexit at all. In other words, the government explicitly allows for the possibility that, on their terms, Brexit can be “frustrated”.

This is going too far. All those who want a Final Say are asking for precisely just that. As they learn more about the withdrawal agreement, in its final treaty form, and they weigh up the political declaration on the future relationship between the UK and the EU, they will be able to sift the arguments for the first time in an informed manner.

No doubt some, on either side, will be ideologically committed to leave or remain – that is their right. Others will want to judge the balance of advantage of each option, for sovereignty, for jobs or for peace and security. Each voter will have their own agenda; which is why there never was some monolithic Brexit that everyone voted for. Many will not have changed their minds since 2016; others will have done so; still more will wish to vote in a referendum they missed last time, or will be coming onto the electoral rolls for the first time.

So it is hardly undemocratic to wish to have a further vote. The Supreme Court, not for the first time, has proven itself the friend of democracy, and the friend of the people.