I’m merely talking in terms of constitutional principle and I’m not expressing a view on any individual judge. For myself, if I may say, I don’t personally have any problem with this judgement in the High Court. It seems to me that there shouldn’t be any difficulty in Parliament providing a means for a vote on the issue if that is what is required, and it’ll be interesting to know if Labour, Plaid Cymru and the other parties will give effect to the will of the people, as expressed in a referendum, in such a vote. Because although this case has been on the question of the royal prerogative and the extent to which that may be used to begin the process of effecting our withdrawal from the European Union, what we’re actually talking about here is the people’s prerogative, as expressed in a vote in the referendum, which was on the simple question of should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU—no ifs or buts and no qualifications about whether we have a successor agreement with the EU or remain in the single market, or whatever. The people have decided this issue and Parliament is under a moral duty to respect their wishes. I’d be grateful to know if the Counsel General accepts that.

I note from the judgment that, although the Counsel General was represented in the High Court proceedings, the counsel, on his behalf, didn’t actually didn’t play any part in the proceedings. Is it his intention, in the Supreme Court, that he should be represented not by a mute, but by someone who will play a full part in the proceedings? Therefore, will he be supporting the Government’s view that, in triggering article 50, it’s the people’s prerogative that the Government is giving effect to?

I’m quite surprised by the judgment in some ways, because although it is settled law that the Crown may not, by the use of its prerogative, change the law of the land and the rights and obligations imposed upon or given to private individuals—and that goes back as far as the Case of Proclamations in 1610, and was fully brought up to date in a case in 1916 called the Zamora, which was also referred to in the judgment—the mere fact of giving notice of withdrawal from a treaty does not, in itself, impliedly repeal any legislation. Therefore, in order to give effect to withdrawal, the European Communities Act itself will have to be repealed and therefore that will go through the normal parliamentary processes. And all legislation that hangs upon it that we want to retain, even if only on a temporary basis, therefore, has to be legislated for by means of another positive Bill. So, primary legislation is the inevitable by-product of this trigger of article 50, and therefore parliamentary propriety is to be respected and will be respected throughout the whole process.

So, I’d be interested to know if the Counsel General agrees with me on that point and that, therefore, the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament, as he referred to, in the words of Lord Bingham, will not only be respected but facilitated, because, as it is at the minute—this is the last point that I want to make—as a result of our membership of the European Union, we have created a new legal order in Europe, which is actually superior to the Crown in Parliament. Therefore, the whole of this process, which we’re now beginning to engage in, is to restore the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament, and ultimately, the power of the British people to determine who they are going to be governed by.