This cannot sensibly be doubted. Parliament is not sovereign by Divine Right nor because of some mystical power derived from banks of the Thames by Westminster. Parliament is sovereign because, generally speaking, it is the best manifestation of the wisdom and will of the people. Where that wisdom and will has a better manifestation, whether in a general election or in a referendum, Parliament must take second place.

The fact that the constitutional buck must stop with the people becomes clear when you consider what would happen if Parliament voted to extend its own term by fifty years or to limit the franchise to people who were members of a particular political party. Both acts would be unconstitutional because both would be undemocratic. In such a case we would probably expect the Queen to step in and restore order, and we would expect her to do so using the royal prerogative.

At first glance it seems bizarre to argue that the royal prerogative should trump the power of Parliament. But when one understands that the royal prerogative has become an instrument of the popular will, it becomes bizarre to argue that it should not.

Part of the genius of an uncodified constitution is that it allows us to adapt to circumstances. Referendums are a new development and must now be accorded a place in our constitutional hierarchy. That place, surely, must be at the top of the tree. A Government seeking to enact the result of a referendum must, therefore, be standing on the firmest of constitutional ground. If there is a danger, as there clearly is, that Parliament would seek to frustrate this process then Parliament must be bypassed.

Once the royal prerogative provided the legal justification for a monarch to rule by dictatorial decree; now it is the means by which a Prime Minister can speed the enactment of a democratic decision. It is a topsy-turvy business but it makes historical, legal and constitutional sense. We must hope that the Supreme Court will agree.