Ross Clark

In one respect Gina Miller is right. Today’s Supreme Court decision is bigger than Brexit. We are now in a civil war without bullets – between two sides who both claim to be fighting for democracy but who have very different ideas of what it entails. In the one corner are those who believe that democracy is where the electorate vote for something in a plebiscite and then government carries out its instructions; in the other corner are those who believe that democracy is Parliament and the courts acting together in what they see as the best interests of the people. As I have written here before, the correct term for what the latter group advocate, and what was demonstrated in the show of power by the Supreme Court this morning is Kritarchy, rule by judges.

Another week, another step along the road to Britain’s transformation into a kritarchy – rule by judges. Last week, the Court of Session in Edinburgh and the High Court in London both ruled that Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament for five weeks had been lawful. But if you thought it was all over you haven’t read Bleak House. Just as Dickens’s fictional family, the Jarndyces, were torn apart by an endless legal dispute, Joanna Cherry and her lawyers are going to take this to the wire. It turns out that the Court of Session has an Inner House, to which you can appeal if you don’t like its first decision. This morning, three judges reversed last week’s decision and decided that it was, after all, illegal.

According to John Bercow he has chosen to step down on 31 October because it would be the 'least disruptive and most democratic course of action' if he stayed on for the votes on the Queen’s speech expected in the last week of October. But there is a somewhat glaring reason for choosing the last day of October – it is a none-too-subtle hint that he sees it as his duty to frustrate Britain’s departure from the EU, which was due on that date but which, thanks to the law passed by Parliament today, now seems likely to be delayed again. Going for that date is Bercow’s way of saying 'job done'. Two years ago, following the 2017 general election, Bercow went back on his previous intention to step down some time in 2018.

So there goes the reputation of Boris Johnson’s henchmen as cunning operators. It has been a bad week for Dominic Cummings and others in the Downing Street bunker who were widely assumed to have gamed every possibility and to have some genius strategy for delivering Brexit by 31 October, in spite of the assembled forces of Remain who are determined to stop them. Clearly, not everything has gone to plan. The Remainers have enjoyed their Battle of Marston Moor. It is Parliamentarians 1, Cavaliers 0. On Monday, a bill seeking to prevent a no-deal Brexit on 31 October will become law – and Boris has been denied his fallback: a general election. But not so fast.

Was there ever such a principled stand over a such a feeble cause? If today’s Tory rebels were intent on overturning the 2016 referendum result because, in all their conscience, they could support a policy of leaving the EU, I would not agree with what they were doing, but I would have some grudging respect for it. Instead, what is the great issue at stake in today’s vote? Another extension of Article 50 to 31 January. Yep, another three whole months in the EU. But to what purpose? The rebels can’t come up with a more specific demand because they do not know or cannot agree on what they want. Some want to remain, others think we should leave but do not know how.

There is a role in British public life known as the Elder Statesman – a former cabinet minister who dispenses wisdom to those currently in office based on their own experiences and observations. There are two qualifications for such a position: firstly, that you leave a decent period between leaving office and setting yourself up in the role, so that it is clear you are not simply trying to settle old scores; and secondly that you are prepared to take an objective approach to your own time in office, admitting to mistakes, saying how you would now approach the problems that you faced in office, with the benefit of hindsight. Philip Hammond fails on both grounds.

A standard version of this autumn’s events is beginning to emerge. Labour brings a no-confidence vote in the Government on 4 September. The Tories, down to a majority of one – and with several Conservative old-timers vowing to go out in style by torpedoing their own Government in a last act of defiance to stop a no-deal Brexit – loses. Rather than resign, Boris spends the 14 days he would be allowed under the Fixed Term Parliament Act trying to build a majority. He fails. And Corbyn, too, is unable to form a majority. Boris calls a general election – but crucially stretches it out just beyond 31 October, when we drop out of the EU without a deal. No further Parliamentary efforts can be made to stop no deal because the Commons will be prorogued for the election.

The sense of excitement among some Remainers is almost palpable. Finally – after three years of waiting – a quarter of negative growth has materialised following all the grim warnings of Brexit-related economic turmoil. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) this morning released its first estimate for economic growth for the second quarter of this year, which has come out at minus 0.2 per cent. That counteracts unexpectedly strong growth in the first quarter of 0.5 per cent. Manufacturing, which shrank by 2.3 per cent, was the worst-performing sector of the economy. The dominant services sector expanded but only just, at 0.1 per cent.