Gina Miller, lead claimant in the Article 50 case ©Victoria Jones/PA Wire/PA Images

In its judgment in the Miller case, delivered this morning, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could not trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament. The government had argued that it could use prerogative powers—the rag bag of executive powers left over from Britain’s days as an absolute monarchy—to begin the withdrawal process from the EU. But the Court proved itself the true guardian of parliamentary sovereignty by insisting that the process for Brexit depended on parliamentary consent.

In the turbulent months after the referendum, there seemed some promise that the intervention of the courts would bring order to the chaos and Brexit might be stopped, or at least delayed. But politics has moved on. After the High Court decision in November, Theresa May prepared a draft bill authorising the government to make the Article 50 declaration and the Supreme Court judgment no longer holds momentous political significance. No doubt that’s why Liz Truss felt able to issue an unusually gracious statement praising the independence an integrity of the judiciary.

YOU'VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don't worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we'll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we'll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Email

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.