The political naivety of the Brexit court cases

In a week where Remain MPs have been trying to foist an extension of the Article 50 period onto Boris Johnson, you might be forgiven for thinking that it is Parliament that has provided the arena for the latest battle in the Brexit war.

But, if a group of legal campaigners have their way, it will be in the Scottish Courts that the real action takes place. The Good Law Project – the brainchild of tax barrister Jolyon Maugham – has been arguing in the Scottish Court of Session today that it’s illegal for Parliament to be prorogued by the PM. Irrespective of the outcome, it’s likely that the matter will be argued all the way to the Supreme Court.

Those behind the prorogation case, (modestly named by one of its petitioners, the SNP MP (and QC) Joanna Cherry, as the ‘Cherry case’) want to stop Brexit. So, while the minutiae of the judgment will doubtless be used to enliven dinner party conversation for academic and constitutional lawyers for weeks or months to come (I’m washing my hair that evening), the real test for this sort of litigation is whether it actually changes the political outcome of Brexit.