Well done Gina Miller. Not only has she won a famous legal victory but she has clarified what the June 23 referendum was all about. For many who voted to leave the European Union it was about restoring control and sovereignty to our nation.

So perhaps it was not what Mrs Miller intended, but the case before the Supreme Court has made a reality of Brexit. It can now proceed with the full wind of the law and Parliament in its sails. The very people who for decades were utterly indifferent to the fact that our Parliament had been emasculated by its self-imposed subservience to supra-national institutions have given it a new lease of life.

By challenging Brexit in order to stop it she has supercharged it. Remainers have become the great defenders of the sovereignty they previously wanted to see pooled.

Mind you, for a legal hearing of such constitutional magnitude it ended with something of a whimper. The Supreme Court reasserted what most people had always thought to be the case – that the Government cannot change the law by executive fiat. Indeed, even the Government never argued that it could. 

What was at issue was whether triggering Article 50 amounted to a change in the law. But so much of our legislation is tied up with EU membership that once the Attorney General, Jeremy Wright, had accepted that the departure procedure was irrevocable he was going to lose. His only point was that this was a treaty matter and therefore fell within the scope of an executive prerogative, but the judges did not agree (or rather, eight of them didn’t; the fact that three justices found for the Government shows this was not as clear cut as many had assumed).

What is less easy to explain is why the Remain side also accepted that triggering Article 50 was an irrevocable act. Arguably, Lord Pannick QC had to make this point to win his legal case, but politically it means that any Remainer hope of thwarting Brexit has been scuppered. The main parties too have declined to stand in its way, accepting that, to all intents and purposes, the June 23 referendum was the moment when we decided to leave. This is an important constitutional point that the court has not really addressed.

David Fuller's view

This was an interesting, if somewhat complicated legal decision, which Mrs May’s government was well prepared for.  MPs who oppose the Government will have their say, although they have already had their chance to vote in the Referendum.  Additionally, public support in favour of Brexit is much stronger today than it was at the Referendum on 23^rd June.  The Project Fear campaign was clearly wrong, and the EU has hardly distinguished itself with its post-Referendum threats.

If the Government cannot get Brexit past Parliament and the House of Lords – unlikely but possible – the Government will call a General Election and win with an increased majority.     

Here is a PDF of Philip Johnston’s column.