My guess is that he would have argued that this is a matter for Parliament, with no need to resort to the judiciary.
The Supreme Court hears the Government’s appeal this week. Ministers must get on with moving Article 50 as quickly as possible.
The second part of our mini-series on the growth of judicial power.
The first part of a mini-series on the growth of judicial power.
As MPs, we have to react positively, optimistically and maturely as we try to make sense of the mandate given to us by the British people.
Many on the centre-right call for more plebiscites or get cross about courts taking political decisions. But our appetite for the one and our anger at the other is limited.
And on Brexit, as one who campaigned for In, I say we should get on with it, and avoid the one outcome that is infinitely less preferable to Leave or Remain: limbo.
Whether or not May wants an early election is beside the point: recent events illustrate why governments shouldn’t be imprisoned in office.
It flows from the Crown-in-Parliament, so support for it is entirely compatible with advocating Parliamentary sovereignty.
The key point at stake is not what Parliament has a right to do, but what it is wise to do – in the wake of the most emphatic popular vote in modern history.
Plus: John Rees-Evans’s bizarrre views. May’s flourishing line in jokes. Trump’s chances of winning. And: let Article 50 be put to a vote in Parliament and let’s get on with it.
Eight of the ten were Leavers. And a certain diehard opponent of Brexit didn’t make the cut.
MPs voted for the people to decide. They made their view quite clear.
Matters might reach a point at which although Brexit is not blocked, orderly government becomes impossible.
EEA membership would give us the best of both worlds – remaining in the Single Market while also being free to control migration.