We're clearly at a watershed moment and we have an 11-0 judgment—perhaps 'exorbitant' is a fair way of describing that. But, clearly, what has happened is that prerogative powers are not now considered to be beyond the rule of law and they are subject to judicial review. Given that prerogative powers are so vast, potentially, and are not amenable, or at least previously, to any other review, and we've clearly seen that in the way the Crown was involved—now, it is the case that in previous centuries the Crown could deny the exercise of the prerogative by the Prime Minister, but, clearly, in our democratic age we've gone a long way beyond that. Therefore, given all those grey areas in how far prerogative powers can be extended, we absolutely need the principle of judicial review, and I warmly welcome this morning's judgment. It really does establish beyond any question our democracy and the proper rule of law.

Prorogation clearly needs a clearer set of rules, based on all-party agreement. It is about when Parliament can sit, and it's much more than a suspension, because, for that time, it wipes out all parliamentary activity. It seems to me that all this talk comes down to this: should Parliament sit during a national crisis? And are we seriously going to say that it should not? I know many people may not agree with what Parliament does with that time, but it seems to me extraordinary that we would think it fit that Parliament would not sit at that time of importance.

If you accepted that, the most extreme would be that, in May 1940, Neville Chamberlain should have prorogued Parliament so the Government could concentrate fully on the external and vicious threat Britain was under. Clearly, that would have been wrong. You need the institution of Parliament and Crown, i.e. Government and Parliament, acting together. The independence of the judiciary is at the heart of the rule of law, and that means you've absolutely got to accept what the judgment is, especially when it is so emphatic. In private, you may not agree with it fully, but to come out then and question a judgment, however you do it, and there are elaborate ways of saying you disagree, is not at all helpful.

I would however say this, given the tenor of some of the exchanges, in their proceedings the judges were very keen to divide this case away from the issue of Brexit, and I think we should do the same. It does come at this important time of the question of Brexit, but this is about much more than Brexit, it's about the viability of the British constitution.