I welcome the Counsel General’s statement, in particular the paragraph where he talks about respecting the people in this context and a ‘full and frank debate’ taking place in Parliament on the issues, as if we haven’t already debated all of these issues to death. Nevertheless, will he confirm, therefore, that respect for the people in this context means that we should respect the result of the referendum, which was to leave the European Union? In which case, because article 50 is merely the trigger for achieving the outcome that the people have said that they want, we should do all in our power to facilitate the decision that the people have made. In which case, I struggle to see what the point was of this titanic legal struggle in the first place.

The length of the dramatis personae of distinguished lawyers at the beginning of the judgment shows that virtually half the bar has been involved in this case, one way or another. What was the point of all this if the decision to leave the European Union triggered by article 50 has already been made and a debate in Parliament is merely a rubber stamp for that? When he replied to Mark Isherwood a moment ago, he seemed to be characterising the exercise of the royal prerogative as an act of tyranny, as though Charles I were still on the throne. Does he not accept that there is a qualitative difference between the attempts of the King in the seventeenth century to impose taxes on the people without parliamentary consent—that it is qualitatively quite different from a decision following a referendum of the British people, which the Government of the day is seeking to facilitate? The use of the prerogative in this case is not to frustrate democracy but actually to enhance it—to bring it into effect.

I also think that the statement that the Counsel General has made on the effect of this judgment perhaps is a little liberal, because if you read the judgment—we’ve all had a very short time in which to do so—in paragraph 86, Lord Neuberger says that:

‘the Royal prerogative to make and unmake treaties, which operates wholly on the international plane, cannot be exercised in relation to the EU Treaties, at least in the absence of domestic sanction in appropriate statutory form.’

So, this judgment applies to the EU treaties. It doesn’t necessarily apply to any other treaties or any other act of the prerogative affecting our relations with other countries in the world. It’s because the EU legal system is unique, in the sense that it creates legislation that is directly applicable to this country and to each individual, and gives rights to people beyond the parliamentary context that the judges in this case have come to the decision that they have. And it may not, therefore, be as the Counsel General says, that the prerogative power in constitutional cases is constrained as a result of this decision.

As regards the particular decision in this case, will he also accept that leaving the European Union, as the judges said in paragraph 130, could actually enhance the powers of this Assembly? So, far from actually being a threat to the powers of this Assembly and the Welsh Government, it’s actually an opportunity that we should grasp with open arms. Lord Neuberger says,

‘The removal of the EU constraints on withdrawal from the EU Treaties will alter the competence of the devolved institutions unless new legislative constraints are introduced. In the absence of such new restraints, withdrawal from the EU will enhance the devolved competence.’

Should we not all welcome that with open arms? And I fully accept what the Counsel General said about the Westminster Government not grabbing powers from this Assembly, and in that respect he will, I think, have the unanimous support of all the Members of this Assembly. It certainly cannot be the case that, as a result of devolving powers from Brussels to the United Kingdom, we should actually find that the devolution of powers from Westminster to Cardiff should be diminished. Therefore, he will have the full support of my party—his Government will have the full support of my party—in anything that needs to be done in order to make that absolutely clear.