Report comment

I fear Lady Hale is fooling herself, or trying to fool us. Of course, the Supreme Court was conned, as the Government had three perfectly good arguments to defeat the Article 50 case and chose not to use them. They fought and won the other three issues before the court that they wanted to win (whether any of the devolved governments had any say in the matter).
The Miller case was founded on 3 principles:
1 Parliamentary supremacy - The 1972 act was passed by Parliament of its own choice, so only it could decide to revoke it - false - it was presented with a treaty negotiated solely by government under royal prerogative and had only one choice - reject it, or if it did not it was then bound by the constitution at the direction of the Government to enact the necessary legislation without argument or debate
2 Lack of a constitutional provision - false - the Ponsonby protocol in one form and another has governed these matters since the Georgian era, and was recently updated by the last Labour Government
3 Irrevocability of the Article 50 notice - false, as has now been established and was pretty obvious at the time.
If Ms Miller had not brought this case I doubt if Article 50 notice would have been served, because Theresa May is too cautious a person to have bypassed the Commons completely, but if she had gone voluntarily to it for authority the inbuilt Leaver majority would have tied her in knots, and would still be arguing what should or should not be within the relevant Act.