Want the top news headlines sent to your inbox daily? Sign up to our FREE newsletter below Subscribe Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

Don’t blame the judges. When the Supreme Court ruled that Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, it wasn’t because they oppose Brexit.

It was because they believe he broke the law . And if that’s their honest opinion, after looking at the evidence, they have to say so. That’s their job.

But our MPs are a different matter. Many of them do want to stop Brexit , and that’s one of the reasons we haven’t left yet.

What’s more, they may be right. Not just right in the sense that Brexit is a bad idea, but right in the sense that they also have a job to do, and it involves preventing the UK from making what they believe to be a terrible mistake.

There’s a lot of talk about democracy at the moment. Supporters of Brexit point out that a majority of people who took part in the 2016 referendum voted to leave the EU , and they say that democracy means carrying out their wishes.

But what we’ve seen since 2016 is a clash between two different ideas of democracy.

When we talk about democracy here in the UK, we generally don't mean asking the public to make decisions. We mean representative democracy, in which we elect people to make decisions for us.

After an election, our MPs (or councillors, or Members of the Scottish Parliament) are expected to use their judgment to make decisions on our behalf, and in our interests. Democracy means we elect them, and if we think they've done a poor job then we can replace them with someone else, four or five years later. But it doesn’t mean we tell them what to do. As long as they are in their post, they're meant to think for themselves.

Of course, many MPs consult constituents on a regular basis. Some organise formal surveys to gauge local opinion, and most will pay attention to the issues raised when people write to them, or when they go out knocking on doors. But they're not supposed to advocate a course of action that they believe will make their constituents poorer, even if, for some bizarre reason, their constituents urge them to.

How the North East voted in the EU Referendum in June 2016 Newcastle: Remain 65,404 (50.7%); Leave 63,598 (49.3%) Sunderland: Remain 51,930 (38.7%); Leave 82,394 (61.3%) North Tyneside: Remain 52,873 (46.63%); Leave 60,589 (53.37%) Gateshead: Remain 44,429 (43.2%); Leave 58,529 (56.8%) South Tyneside: Remain 30,014 (38%); Leave 49,065 (62%) Durham: Remain 113,521 (42.5%); Leave 153,877 (57.5%) Northumberland: Remain 82,022 (46%); Leave 96,699 (54%)

That's why many MPs haven't been able to bring themselves to deliver Brexit, despite the referendum result.

And it's not much of a secret. While some MPs will insist they are only opposed to a "bad Brexit" or (if they are opposition MPs) a "Tory Brexit", their true feelings are clear from some of the things they say.

For example, some MPs will argue that when voters supported Brexit in 2016, "they didn't vote to make themselves poorer". It sounds reasonable enough, except that it's just not true. Every version of Brexit, whether we leave with a deal or without, will make the UK poorer (that is, poorer than if we stay in the EU), as a number of Treasury studies have shown.

While supporters of Brexit argue that the UK will be better off in the long run (because we’ll have signed lots of trade deals, etc), nobody seriously disputes that there will be a huge shock to the economy in the short term.

People did vote to make themselves poorer, by 52% to 48%. Any MP who says they won't vote for a Brexit that will make the UK poorer is simply saying they won't vote for any type of Brexit.

Another argument we hear from anti-Brexit MPs is that they can't vote for a deal that's worse than the one we have at the moment. But they know that any deal will be worse than the current arrangements.

Either it will become harder to trade with the EU, because we’ll be outside the Customs Union and Single Market, or we’ll still be in the EU's institutions but we'll no longer have any say over how they are run. In other words, we'll have to obey rules set by other people, whereas we currently help to make the rules.

If you won't accept a deal that's worse than what we have now then you won't accept any deal at all. And the MPs who take this line also tend to be vehemently opposed to leaving with no deal at all (though a so-called no-deal Brexit would only mean putting off the date that we sign an agreement with the EU).

Initially, many anti-Brexit MPs didn't have a long term plan. They simply weren't willing to vote for a deal that would allow Brexit to happen. But as time went by, an increasing number came round to the idea of holding a second referendum, which might lead to Brexit being cancelled.

And the easier it becomes to imagine the whole thing being scrapped, the less chance there is of MPs allowing Brexit to go ahead. Why would you give up when victory appears possible?

Some MPs will object to what I've said here. They hate being accused of blocking Brexit, partly because of the abuse they get from Brexiteers. But they are blocking Brexit - not because they are "traitors" or opponents of democracy, but because they are doing the job we elected them to do.

Having said that, there has also, in recent weeks, been a more cynical political calculation at play.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has pledged to take us out of the EU by October 31. But MPs have passed legislation requiring him to write to the EU requesting another delay, unless he either brings a Brexit deal to Parliament and convinces them to approve it, or convinces Parliament to agree to a no-deal Brexit.

The dream of many MPs (including some of the former Tories he's booted out of the Parliamentary party, as well as the opposition) is to keep him in Number 10, against his will, and to force him to write that letter.

In other words, the goal is to humiliate Boris Johnson.