In reply to Keith:

"Whilst the referendum result was a political decision which Cameron, May and Corbyn all feel politically obliged to accept, in legal terms it was not a decision made in accordance with the country's constitution, which is required for Article 80(sic) to be triggered.

That is just an assertion and it is disputed."

I accept it is disputed, but you can find a lawyer to argue the opposite of every legal position. I think the majority of informed opinion is that it is not binding, but I recognise that some experts have argued otherwise. I don't claim to be an expert. The Government itself seems to think that is a political commitment rather than a legal obligation, since this was not an issue before the High Court, or the appeal to the Supreme Court.

It now falls to the Government to exercise Article 50 and the question is how to do this lawfully. I'm not saying the government is right or wrong to claim this can be done under prerogative powers. That will be decided by the Supreme Court.

What tends to be overlooked is that it is not the role of the courts to consider the will of the people. Their job is to interpret the law. In our system the will of the people is expressed through Parliament, and if Parliament doesn't like how the courts interpret law it has the power to change the law. Referenda don't sit easily in this system, which is why they are usually advisory rather than binding. The problem in this case is the referendum has raised very high expectations whilst lacking any agreement on what Brexit actually means, and with only a slim majority.

The legal question is necessary and will bring necessary certainty to the legal process, which both sides should welcome. However even if the Supreme Court decides the government can use prerogative powers it would be naive to think that the process won't be anything other than highly political. We are in for a rough ride.