THE claim that the Supreme Court’s decision this week safeguards the sovereignty of Parliament is ironic in the extreme.
Those making it are the same MPs who are content to live under a system where more and more rules and regulations that govern our lives are made by unelected bureaucrats.
That being said, the court’s ruling has now cleared the air and we can push ahead with Brexit.
And, reassuringly, it did not give the devolved regions powers to prevent this.
Now, the Government will publish a White Paper in order to trigger Article 50, after which we can begin to negotiate our exit from the EU.
It’s likely to mirror closely the Prime Minister’s speech on 17 January at Lancaster House, where Mrs May’s objectives were crystal clear.
The White Paper will allow MPs, especially those still wedded to remaining in, or partly in, the EU to voice their concerns.
As I understand it, a Bill will be introduced into the House next week.
Time is of the essence.
On a broader point, though, I am concerned at the judiciary’s foray into our political domain, not least where it concerns what is termed a Royal Prerogative.
We have inherited this through our monarchy, thereby allowing the Government to make decisions, such as going to war, without seeking a vote.
Could this recent decision mean that a member of the public could now take the Government to court if they disagreed with any future military action?
It’s worth noting that a Royal Prerogative was used both in 1914 and 1939.
I raised this issue in the Chamber on Tuesday.
David Davis had no clear answer, but Lord Reed, one of the three dissenting judges, questioned their right to interfere with political issues.
It’s a worrying precedent.