EVEN if Brexit is an utter disaster, members of the Westminster Parliament, which is supposedly the supreme decision-making body in the UK, will never get the chance to vote on stopping Brexit.

Who says so? Lawyers for the Tory Government, who yesterday went to the Court of Session and effectively told MPs and every other politician and the public that the Government will never permit a vote in the Houses of Parliament to cancel Brexit.

On the day that Prime Minister Theresa May refused to say what sort of deal she wanted from Brexit, government lawyers told Scotland’s highest civil court that the possibility of revoking Article 50 was “entirely hypothetical” and there would be no vote allowed at Westminster.

The ‘Scottish Seven’ parliamentarians from four parties – Joanna Cherry QC MP and MEP Alyn Smith of the SNP, Green MSPs Andy Wightman and Ross Greer, Labour MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler and Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine – have launched a crowd-funded legal action to try and get the Court of Session to refer the issue of whether Article 50 can be revoked by the Westminster Parliament to the European courts.

They want the European Court of Justice to determine whether the Article 50 withdrawal process can be revoked by the UK on its own, without first securing the consent of the other 27 EU member states if the public or MPs decide the Brexit deal is not acceptable.

The Scottish Seven say that MPs should have three choices before Brexit – whether to accept any deal between the EU and the UK, to reject it and leave the EU without a deal, or to reject the deal and remain in the EU.

Their case is that Article 50 can be revoked by the UK Parliament, but the UK Government yesterday ruled out that possibility meaning that MPs will only be asked to vote on whether or not to accept the final exit deal, or for the country to leave the EU without a deal.

Setting out arguments for the Scottish Seven Aidan O’Neill QC told the court: “The petitioners submit that the current Article 50 notice can, as a matter of European Union law, be revoked unilaterally by the UK acting in good faith.

“The petitioners acknowledge that, being an unresolved point of EU law, this issue can only authoritatively be determined by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

“The petitioners therefore request this court to make the necessary ... preliminary reference to the CJEU.”

He went on: “There is a live and genuine dispute between the parties and the statement that Article 50 will not be withdrawn is not such as to mean that there is no dispute or that this court is not able to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction ... Now is the time in which this matter has to be dealt with.”

David Johnston, QC for the UK Government, said the case had “no real prospect of success” and should be halted, insisting there was “no live issue” for the court to address.

He said: “The court should not entertain an entirely hypothetical debate and Court of Justice would not do so either. The policy of the UK Government is that the notification under Article 50 will not be withdrawn and that policy has been repeatedly stated.”

The QC explained that the UK Government will hold a vote in Parliament on the final deal reached with the EU, and Parliament can then vote to accept the deal or move forward with no deal.

He added: “What is important is that neither of those options involves revoking the notification under Article 50. This is why there is no live issue. It is entirely hypothetical. There is no live issue and no substance in the proceedings.”

Judge Lord Doherty said he will issue his decision “early next week”.