If you’re an ardent remainer hoping the high court judgment is a chink of light that could ultimately result in Britain remaining in the European Union, don’t hold your breath. Brexit itself was not on trial – but Theresa May’s bullish approach to it, and ultimately her political judgment, was.

If the government fails in its bid to have the ruling overturned on appeal, the Brexit secretary, David Davis, has made clear he would put a bill before both houses of parliament, presumably authorising the government to trigger article 50.

But while there are plenty of MPs on both sides of the House of Commons who backed remain during the referendum campaign, and still believe Britain would be better off in, only a handful of diehards now say they want to block Brexit.

One prominent pro-EU MP on the Conservative back benches told the Guardian “almost every one of my colleagues, apart perhaps from Ken Clarke, will vote to trigger article 50”.

In the House of Lords, meanwhile, where there is a strong remain majority, Labour’s leader Baroness Smith says there is little appetite for trying to prevent it. “It’s not a case of the Lords trying to block the government,” she insists.

Instead, parliamentarians in both Houses will seize on the opportunity to force the government to lay out in more detail the principles the government will adopt in the negotiations – and they feel emboldened to do so because of the way the issue has been handled since June.

During the months between taking office and the Conservative party conference, May moved from “Brexit means Brexit” to promising to deliver the best possible deal for the economy, consistent with taking back control of immigration and escaping the jurisdiction of the European court of justice.

But she also hardened up her position on the role parliament should play, or rather not play – insisting she would take the ultimate decision about triggering the two-year divorce process without giving MPs a vote.

It is perhaps too early in May’s premiership to judge how her government will operate, but some in Westminster suggest Thursday’s court judgment – and certainly MPs’ reaction to it – ultimately came about because of a characteristic decision-making style.

Perhaps a lack of boldness – or more charitably, swagger – prevented her from locking in parliament’s approval in her early days in Downing Street, by offering MPs a vote validating the result of the referendum, something it would have been very hard for them to refuse.

David Cameron had said throughout the referendum campaign that he would trigger article 50 immediately if the public voted to leave. May chose to delay, perhaps on the advice of Whitehall civil servants understandably anxious about the scale of the challenge of the negotiations.

But by stringing out the process, while appearing to give MPs and the public as little information as possible about the government’s stance, she has riled many in her own party.

Meanwhile, by carrying out such a sweeping reshuffle when she arrived in No 10, she has peopled the back benches with articulate advocates of a different, more collegiate approach – such as those sacked in the reshuffle, including Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry and George Osborne, who have all begun to flex their muscles.

There have been other early indicators of a less-than-sure political touch, too: May blundered into a row with the Bank of England’s governor, Mark Carney, by breaking the convention that politicians don’t comment on monetary policy, expressing concerns in her conference speech she had concerns about quantitative easing.

She struck a pose as the champion of the people against big business but watered down Cameron’s planned obesity strategy so radically that even supermarkets said they would have liked tougher regulation.

On Heathrow, she partially suspended cabinet collective responsibility and shelved the idea of an immediate vote for fear of the scale of opposition in her own party. She still lost an MP over it and then chose not to stand a candidate against him. It hardly looks like deft political management.

And over a series of other questions: from Hinkley Point C to Amber Rudd’s language on immigration; to the Orgreave non-inquiry; to the secret Nissan deal; somehow the political dots haven’t quite joined up.

Whitehall insiders say, despite May’s loathing of Cameron’s “chumocracy”, that key decisions are made by a tight clique of close allies and are not always subjected to the test of open, robust debate.

If the supreme court upholds Thursday’s ruling, No 10 has conceded that the “logical conclusion” will be to place a bill on triggering article 50 before both houses of parliament. But to have been dragged into doing so is not a great look. One pro-remain MP muttered darkly yesterday: “At best, she’s been very badly advised.”