Thank you for those questions and suggestions, some of which, I have to say, were contradictory—and some were confusing. But, just dealing initially with the issue of the independence of the judiciary—which, I’m glad to say, I think the Member was saying he does support—it is a good idea, since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, for example, states very clearly that

‘the Lord Chancellor, other Ministers of the Crown and all with responsibility for matters relating to the judiciary or otherwise to the administration of justice must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary’.

That is the statutory position. So, you will not be surprised—and I hope the Member will then disassociate himself from the comments that were made by his acting leader, Nigel Farage, who said that they would be leading a march of 100,000 people to the Supreme Court and people were so angry that there might well be violence arising as a consequence. That, all I can see, is an attempt to intimidate an independent judiciary. I hope he will disassociate himself from any such suggestion, and also disassociate himself from the statement that was made by the UKIP leadership contender Suzanne Evans, who suggested judges should face the prospect of being sacked by MPs in the wake of the article 50 case. She warned about judges intervening and the conflicts of interest and, basically, made it very clear that, unless judges agree with UKIP, they would want to see mechanisms for them to be actually sacked.

It seems to me to be a complete contradiction that what actually happened during the referendum, which was partly about the concept of the sovereignty of Parliament—but it appears to be the sovereignty of Parliament and the independence of the judiciary, so long as you actually agree with us, otherwise, it can actually be bypassed. I hope you will make very clear in statements you subsequently make that you actually disassociate yourself from those inflammatory comments that have been made.

The judgment will not be—whatever decision the Supreme Court comes to—it will not be anything to do with the European referendum debate, the merits or demerits otherwise. I’ve said that very clearly in the oral statement I’ve made. It was made very clear in the judge. This is about what is the legal, democratic, constitutional mechanism for actually triggering article 50, the consequence of which—as a consequence of the statement by the UK Government that triggering article 50 is an irreversible process—means that, at the end of that process, statutory legislation would actually become defunct. It was around the issue of what the mechanism to supplant primary legislation that Parliament has actually created and how can that be done—can it be done by an executive or can it be done by Parliament itself? The Supreme Court has accepted the arguments that were made that this can only be done by Parliament itself because of the constitutional principles that have been established over 300 years that are actually about the protection of the will of the people and preventing usurpation of our democratic institutions.