Supreme Court: serving or subverting democracy?

Britons have always been suspicious of the EU's grandiose sentiments on that score.

In the early days of Britain's EU membership, Brits were relatively comfortable with the reality of a common trading community. Britain is, after all, a mercantile nation.

However, British people, on the whole, have never liked the idea of being governed from beyond their shores - and especially not by what they've seen as a largely unelected bureaucrat class.

To this day, if the EU had proven that a trading pact was the extent of its ambitions, I think the 2016 result would have been different.

I also believe that if in their pre-referendum negotiations with David Cameron, EU leaders had been less belligerent, arrogant and elitist in their demeanour, the vote might have been closer.

The Supreme Court has said that it was only interested in matters of law and that it was justified in hearing this case because two lower courts have already been involved with similar cases.

A key factor in the Courts verdict seems to have been the length of the prorogation period and the timing of it in light of Boris Johnson's pledge to take the UK out of the EU by October 31.

There are three responses to this. First, some previous governments have called for longer recesses than this one.

Second, it is always assumed that there will be some level of political advantage for the government in the timing of a prorogation.

Third, this particular Parliament has continually set out to frustrate the express will of the people, as it was expressed in a legally binding referendum.

In carrying out Brexit, Parliament should answer - and be seen to answer - to the people, not the courts.

Unless, of course, Supreme Court justices are willing to stand for public election.