I thank the Member for those questions and the points that he raises, which are very similar to the points he’s raised consistently over the past couple of months. Let me say, first of all, it has been very clear in everything I’ve said, and what the First Minister has said, that we respect the outcome of the referendum; the question is how Brexit takes place—that it takes place within the proper constitutional and lawful environment. That is what the case has actually been all about. Just to refer to the point with regard to EU treaties only, that is not correct. The fundamental point was that the prerogative, or a prerogative, cannot be used to change Laws passed by Parliament or to take away rights from individual citizens. And that would apply in other circumstances as well.

I’ll try and deal with the point the Member makes about what was the point of all of this. It was a fundamentally important point. I am very disappointed that he has still not grasped it. The point is the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. That is the point. Because there are two streams of legal approach: one is that we operate by the rule of law. That is, a law that is based on fundamental principles and rights. The other is an approach to law where the sole purpose of law is to implement popular demand by Government, irrespective of the rule of law, principles and rights. And we see how those two have developed in history. Every dictatorship that has taken place has sought to undermine the rule of law. The approach he adopts is the approach that was adopted by Germany in overthrowing the rule of law in Germany, in Chile, and in Stalin’s Russia, and that is why the rule of law is so fundamentally important: laws based on principles. The approach he adopts is the approach that’s adopted by dictators, those who want to bypass fundamental rights, and that is not an approach I would ever advocate that we adopt within this Assembly or within the UK. That is why those rights are so important, and that is why the decision today in the Supreme Court was fundamental, because it was establishing very, very clearly the rights of the people of this country. It was underlining our parliamentary democracy and our system of fundamental rights, and that is something to be defended.