The High Court’s decision in the Article 50 litigation (R (Miller) v Secretary of State) illustrates the tension between the rule of law, the democratic will and the place of our representatives to determine it. Put another way, between the judiciary, the electorate and Parliament.

Who has the authority and who the legitimacy to make decisions of such magnitude as Britain’s membership of the European Union? How may those decisions be made? And who must arbitrate when the powers of government and Parliament and the effect of the decision of the people, in a referendum, are in doubt?

That final question answers itself. A strong and independent judiciary, able not only to determine complex questions of law but to do justice for the weak against the strong, is the cornerstone of a society of laws. Judges have an onerous responsibility. They are not the “enemies of the people” but the guardians of their rights. They must balance the relationship between people, government and Parliament. Yet they are fallible and will always disappoint some. To attack judges or litigants personally is the behaviour of the demagogue, not of mainstream newspapers or democratic politicians.

So the judiciary cannot be blamed for determining the limits of the authority of the Crown, the role of the people and the power of Parliament. But that is not to say that they – or their power – are beyond criticism; nor that criticism of judgments is in some way contrary to the rule of law. Far from it. Open – even distasteful – debate is the lifeblood of a stable society.

Landmark Brexit Ruling: What happened and what happens next?

These tensions could not be more heightened than they were in Miller. The referendum it concerned was authorised by an Act of Parliament introduced by a government elected on a manifesto commitment to follow its result; it was enacted on the express understanding that the government (not Parliament) would withdraw in the event of a Leave vote; and the prime minister, during the campaign, undertook to give notice under Article 50 in that event. Save for one reference to the legal effect of a referendum being advisory in a House of Commons paper, the intention of Parliament was to delegate the decision to the electorate.

Yet the political argument of the claimants has been to represent themselves as the champions of Parliamentary sovereignty; occasionally expressed in opposition to “popular democracy”. It is suggested that ensuring that Parliament has a vote before notification – a process that will lead inevitably to the United Kingdom leaving the European Union – would be to allow the government to defeat rights accrued by membership of the Union, including rights that could not be replicated outside it.

This argument succeeded in its legal form. The government’s freedom to operate in the “international plane” by terminating the EU Treaties was, the Court found, abrogated by the European Communities Act 1972, whether or not the 1972 Act expressly withdrew that prerogative power. Notification would have the inevitable result of terminating “statutory” rights and so could not be done without Parliamentary approval.

The government’s legal argument can be put simply. Only the Crown has the power to act internationally; only the government can make or terminate treaties. Indeed, the Court recognised that “the Crown’s prerogative power to conduct international relations is regarded as wide and outside the purview of the courts precisely because the Crown cannot, in ordinary circumstances, alter domestic law by using such power to make or unmake a treaty.” (Paragraph 32)

An important part of the government’s argument – though given little weight in oral argument – was that rights conferred by Acts of Parliament dependent upon the UK being a party to treaties can be and have been varied and even removed by the government. A particular example is the right not to be subject to “double taxation”, which, though enshrined in domestic law, are vulnerable to being terminated not only by the government but by foreign governments. This argument is supported by Professor John Finnis, Professor Mark Elliott and Professor Paul Craig.

Brexit Concerns Show all 26 1 /26 Brexit Concerns Brexit Concerns Brexit will put British patients at 'back of the queue' for new drugs Brexit will put British patients at the “back of the queue” for vital new drugs, the Government has been warned – forcing them to wait up to two years longer A medicines regulator has raised the alarm over a likely decision to pull out of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), as well as the EU itself. ealth Secretary Jeremy Hunt dropped the bombshell , when he said he expected the UK would quit the EMA – because it is subject to rulings by the European Court of Justice. Getty Images Brexit Concerns London to lose status as 'gateway to Europe' for banks One of Germany’s top banking regulators has warned that London could lose its status as “gateway to Europe” for the banking sector after Britain quits the European trading bloc. Andreas Dombret, who is an executive board member for the Bundesbank—Germany’s central bank—told a private meeting of German businesses and banks earlier this week in Frankfurt that even if banking rules were “equivalent” between the UK and the rest of the EU, that was still “miles away from [Britain having] access to the single market”, the BBC reports. Jason Hawkes Brexit Concerns Exodus The number of financial sector professionals in Britain and continental Europe looking for jobs in Ireland rocketed in the months after the UK voted to leave the European Union Shutterstock Brexit Concerns Brexit is making FTSE 100 executives richer Pay packages of many FTSE 100 chief executive officers are partly tied to how well share prices are doing rather than the CEO’s performance -- and some stocks are soaring. ritish equities got a boost since the June vote because the likes of Rio Tinto, Smiths Group and WPP generate most sales abroad and earn a fortune when they convert these revenues back into the weakened pound. Sterling’s fall also made UK stocks more affordable for overseas investors. Rex Brexit Concerns Theresa May: UK to leave single market Theresa May has said the UK "cannot possibly" remain within the European single market, as staying in it would mean "not leaving the EU at all". Getty Brexit Concerns Lead campaigner Gina Miller and her team outside the High Court Getty Brexit Concerns Raymond McCord holds up his newly issued Irish passport alongside his British passport outside the High Court in Belfast following a judges dismissal of the UK's first legal challenges to Brexit PA wire Brexit Concerns SDLP leader Colum Eastwood leaving the High Court in Belfast following a judges dismissal of the UK's first legal challenges to Brexit PA wire Brexit Concerns Migrants with luggage walk past a graffiti on a wall as they leave the 'Jungle' migrant camp, as part of a major three-day operation planned to clear the camp in Calais Getty Brexit Concerns Migrants leave messages on their tents in the Jungle migrant camp Getty Brexit Concerns The Adventist Development and Relief Agency (Adra) which distributes approximately 700 meals daily in the northern Paris camp states that it is noticing a spike in new migrant arrivals this week, potentially linked the the Calais 'jungle' camp closure - with around 1000 meals distributed today EPA Brexit Concerns Migrant workers pick apples at Stocks Farm in Suckley, Britain Reuters Brexit Concerns Many farmers across the country are voicing concerns that Brexit could be a dangerous step into the unknown for the farming industry Getty Brexit Concerns Bank of England governor Mark Carney who said the long-term outlook for the UK economy is positive, but growth was slowing in the wake of the Brexit vote PA Brexit Concerns The Dow Jones industrial average closed down over 600 points on the news with markets around the globe pluninging Getty Brexit Concerns Immigration officers deal with each member of the public seeking entry into the United Kingdom but on average, 10 a day are refused entry at this London airport and between 2008 and 2009, 33,100 people were detained at the airport for mainly passport irregularities Getty Brexit Concerns A number of global investment giants have threatened to move their European operations out of London if Brexit proves to have a negative impact on their businesses Getty Brexit Concerns Following the possibility of a Brexit the UK would be released from its renewable energy targets under the EU Renewable Energy Directive and from EU state aid restrictions, potentially giving the government more freedom both in the design and phasing out of renewable energy support regimes Getty Brexit Concerns A woman looking at a chart showing the drop in the pound (Sterling) against the US Dollar in London after Britain voted to leave the EU Getty Brexit Concerns Young protesters outside the Houses of Parliament in Westminster, to protest against the United Kingdom's decision to leave the EU following the referendum Getty Brexit Concerns Applications from Northern Ireland citizens for Irish Passports has soared to a record high after the UK Voted in favour of Leaving the EU Getty Brexit Concerns NFU Vice President Minette Batters with Secretary of State, Andrea Leadsome at the National Farmers Union (NFU) took machinery, produce, farmers and staff to Westminster to encourage Members of Parliament to back British farming, post Brexit Getty Brexit Concerns The latest reports released by the UK Cabinet Office warn that expats would lose a range of specific rights to live, to work and to access pensions, healthcare and public services. The same reports added that UK citizens abroad would not be able to assume that these rights will be guaranteed in the future Getty Brexit Concerns A British resident living in Spain asks questions during an informative Brexit talk by the "Brexpats in Spain" group, about Spanish legal issues to become Spanish citizens, at the town hall in Benalmadena, Spain Reuters Brexit Concerns The collapse of Great Britain appears to have been greatly exaggerated given the late summer crowds visiting city museums, hotels, and other important tourist attractions Getty Brexit Concerns The U.K. should maintain European Union regulations covering everything from working hours to chemicals until after the government sets out its plans for Brexit, said British manufacturers anxious to avoid a policy vacuum and safeguard access to their biggest export market Getty

So it is by no means certain – despite the strength of the High Court (effectively the Court of Appeal in all but name and containing its two most senior judges) – that the government’s appeal will fail.

Yet what is the true legal effect of this decision? The control that the Court has declared Parliament to have is extremely limited: no more than that only it may authorise notification of withdrawal from the EU by the government. While an Article 50 notification might contain expressions of objectives, these could not bind the Government acting on the international plane. Moreover – as the Court acknowledged – even if objectives set out in an Act of Parliament could bind the government, the negotiations are wholly outside Parliament’s hands. Ultimately, Parliament will be limited to authorising withdrawal and to authorising or to rejecting, but probably not to amending, the deal agreed with the European Council.

And what of the political effect? Parliament has already enacted a referendum on the understanding that it would respect the will of the people. The only decision that the people have made is to leave the EU and the only way in which it can be put into effect is through notification by Article 50. So Parliament has had its sovereignty “restored” in order to choose between respecting the result of a referendum it legislated for or to ignore it. It may do no more.

A grand and important assertion of Parliamentary sovereignty? A grubby attempt to thwart the will of the people? Or a damp squib?