So, the Government’s appeal over its power to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to leave the EU, has gone to the Supreme Court. It is a process of which I disapprove both in principle and on practical considerations.

I was opposed to creating the Supreme Court in the first place. It was preceded by the ‘Law Lords’, more properly called the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary: they sat as part of a parliamentary process as members of the House of Lords. I was brought up with the doctrine that the ‘High Court of Parliament’ was our highest court and that no other court could question proceedings in Parliament.

Tony Blair’s downgrading of the role of Lord Chancellor and the creation of a new supreme court separate from Parliament, struck me as an unwise decision, potentially setting Parliament and the courts against one another. I believe that it is the proper role of Parliament to hold government ministers to account, and not for the judges to do so.

On practical grounds, I think the Government might have been wiser to have simply accepted the High Court’s judgement that parliamentary approval was required to trigger article 50, and to have brought the necessary measure before Parliament, rather than seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Government however, believes that there is an important point of principle about the use by ministers of the Crown Prerogative, which needs to be properly settled. Well, then let it be settled in Parliament with legislation. One of the most important lessons I learnt at school was ‘if you are not going to like the answer, then don’t ask the question’.

There is now every possibility that the judges will settle the matter in a way that constrains ministerial use of prerogative powers that will have much wider restrictions on effective government. Even worse, the appeal has provided for the Scottish Executive to join in the legal action. What on earth will be the outcome if the court rules that the Government must first seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament before triggering Article 50?

‘Sufficient unto the day is the trouble thereof’. Perhaps it’s unwise to worry ourselves with speculations about all the things that could go wrong. It is possible, after all, that the Government might just win the appeal. In any event, hold on to your seats: we may be in for a bumpy ride; It certainly isn’t going to be dull.

Two former prime ministers and a deputy prime minister have now stepped forward in support of a second EU referendum on the grounds that we didn’t really know what we were voting for first time around.
All three were passionate in their support for the losing side in June. The notion that we didn’t know what it was really about is, in my opinion, nonsense. The Remain campaign painted the bleakest of prospects for the UK if people voted to leave.

On only one thing were both sides in agreement: the importance of the vote and its finality in settling the question for at least a generation.
Yet, I am a democrat, and voters do have a right to change their minds. I have never favoured that particular species of democracy evident in many less developed parts of the world: ‘one person, one vote, once’ …and rarely, if ever again.

I can’t say, however, I have detected any enthusiasm for re-running the referendum beyond a handful of my constituents. On the contrary, there is a frustration, expressed even by many who voted to remain in the EU, to simply get on with the process of leaving, end the uncertainty, and make a fresh start. I rather suspect that were we to oblige our former prime ministers, the result would be even more emphatically in favour of leaving the EU.
So, I am certainly not afraid of the result of a second referendum, but I do believe it would be deeply damaging to hold out the prospect of having one. The former prime ministers are incredulous that none of their dire warnings of the approaching apocalypse came true after the June referendum, nevertheless they continue to repeat them. Tony Blair says that people will demand a second referendum when they feel the pain caused by the result of the first one. (He is wrong on two counts: I don’t believe in the pain, rather I believe we will prosper; and second, even were there to be the prospect of pain, I think voters have already made up their minds and steeled themselves against it).

The problem is that a second referendum is designed to deliver the very pain that its supporters believe is necessary to deliver a reversal of the previous outcome.
Currently there are increasingly important voices in Europe pointing to the need to negotiate mutually advantageous exit terms with us. A second referendum will silence them and present the hawks – who really want to force us to remain in the union – with an opportunity to negotiate the worst possible terms for our departure, in the misplaced confidence that UK voters will reject them in the final ballot. The consequence will be that the UK will vote to leave anyway, but will do so on terms that will be damaging to Europe, and much less advantageous to us. It would be a spectacular own goal.

Mr Justice Jackson said that his ruling that a 14 year old girl’s body could be frozen and cryogenically preserved was not about the ‘science’ of cryogenics, merely a case of whether a dying minor (who cannot legally make a will), should have her wishes complied with after death, when her estranged parents were in dispute – perhaps, a defining tale of our times.
The judge did however, suggest that the Government should consider regulation of the cryogenic practices.

Psalm 90 states that “three score and ten are the number of our years” and I can understand that anyone looking at a shorter life would feel cheated, particularly a child blighted by disease. Even the rest of us, healthy, with longevity increasing every year, might envy the patriarchs who, before the Flood, lived so much longer. Adam was 930 years old and Noah made it to 950.

I don’t believe that pumping the body full of anti-freeze and storing it in liquid nitrogen is an answer. The science of re-animating a corpse is no more plausible to-day than it was when Mary Shelley published Frankenstein in 1818. The £37,000 cost of preserving the body is a gamble on the prospect of future technology discovering how to bring it back to life, and then to cure it of whatever was the cause of death in the first place. It is not clear when, if ever, sufficient medical priority would be attached to such an endeavour to justify deploying the necessary resources and expertise.

Aside from the question of how one would regulate and police the industry, the danger is that the Judge’s request for government regulation, would of itself confer credibility on the practice, almost as it were officially sanctioned.

Yet the desire to preserve the body is quite normal. The ancients mummified them. Daily, billions of Christians recite the creeds stating explicitly “I believe in the resurrection of the body”. This begs all sorts of questions, including, is it the body in its prime, or old and wrinkly?

Certainly there was something different about the body of Jesus after the Resurrection: neither Mary Magdalene nor the disciples on the road to Emmaus initially recognised him (even though he bore the stigmata of the crucifixion).

In any event, faith in resurrection by divine intervention for an eternal and quite different existence, seems to me a much better prospect than an investment in an inevitably temporary re-animation, even if science can ever deliver it.

Anyway, irrespective of the judge’s request, I’m sure won’t be regulating it.

I thought that the daftest Brexit offering, was the demand by opposition MPs and one (now former) Conservative MP, that the Government share its EU exit negotiating strategy and objectives with the House of Commons. As one of my colleagues put it “I just wish I had had the opportunity to play high stakes poker with them”. As I’ve said before in this column, if you really want a particular thing out of a negotiation, you don’t reveal it, on the contrary, you show that you are absolutely indifferent about it, otherwise your counterparty will raise his price accordingly.

Now however, Tim Farron has revived an earlier demand for a second referendum: One at the outcome of the article 50 negotiations, so that people can decide to either remain, or to leave on the basis of the negotiated terms.

There is a small fly in the ointment: So far, we have been told that article 50, once invoked, is irreversible (indeed the High Court based its recent judgement on this very fact) and that the EU won’t negotiate with us at all until we do invoke article 50. There is therefore, no logic whatsoever to any post article 50 referendum, because the moment we invoke the article there is already no going back, even if a subsequent referendum result demanded it.

(Of course, this could all change with the Government’s appeal to the Supreme Court).

There is another glaring problem, obvious to anyone who thinks about it for a moment: The EU does not want us to leave; holding another referendum at the end of the negotiations presents the EU with an opportunity to offer the most dreadful terms imaginable (including cutting off its own nose to spite its face), confident that these terms will be rejected in the referendum.

Of course, that is the objective of those that propose the second referendum: they want to reverse the result of the first one, so perhaps Tim Farron isn’t daft at all, but he must think that we all are.
The notion that we did not know what we were voting for on 23rd June, and that we need a second chance to get the right answer, is not untypical of elites who disparage and distrust democracy.
The Remain campaign painted a picture of the ‘hardest’ Brexit imaginable. They told us that not only would the Leave campaign’s extra billions for the NHS never materialise, but that on the contrary, we would be too poor and too denuded of NHS staff to afford to have an NHS at all. The voters didn’t fall for it. They have made their decision and it is now the responsibility of all democrats to get on and implement it.

The National Park Authority has issued a quite extraordinary notice on the Latchmore ‘restoration’ planning application: It says that it is minded to grant approval (the actual decision will be taken on 15 Nov), but that it supports my request to the Secretary of State to have the application ‘called in’ – given “the unusually high number of objections and the widely perceived view that the Authority has a prejudicial interest in the application”.

I would have thought that the unusually high number of objections would be proper grounds to reject the application, or at the very least to examine why so many people are so opposed to it.
As for the perceived conflict of interest, I’m glad that they have finally spotted it: not long ago we were just being told that it was routine for planning authorities to determine their own applications. Which is true, but then, this is no routine application.

The 40 or so pages of the High Court’s ruling can be summed up in three sentences:
The 1972 Act joined us up to the EEC;
Article 50 invokes an irreversible process that leads automatically to our leaving the EU;
Therefore, if ministers – using the prerogative power of the Crown – initiate article 50, the result will reverse the provision of the 1972 Act, offending the constitutional principle that prerogative power cannot reverse an act of Parliament.

They key issue as to how we now proceed to deliver the referendum result, depends on the remedy to the High Court judgement. There are three possibilities.

First, the Government wins its appeal in the Supreme Court and carries on to negotiate the terms of our exit.

Second, it loses, but it is judged that a resolution of both Houses is sufficient to authorise the Government to invoke article 50. I am confident that this could be delivered quickly – although it could be messy in the Lords. Voting against such a resolution would require an MP or peer to explicitly oppose the referendum result, which is a tall order and I estimate that few would be so foolhardy.

Third, it is judged that such a resolution is insufficient, and that a full act of Parliament is required. This does really get us into dangerous territory. Opponents could cover themselves by supporting the bill at second reading, but then delay and derail the process by seeking to amend the bill during prolonged committee and report stages, by trying to tie the Government down to a specific negotiating strategy. Nick Clegg has already announced that the Liberal Democrat peers will do exactly that.

In such a scenario the obvious way out would be to dissolve Parliament and settle the contest in an election. Press speculation already suggests that this is what the PM will do. As I have pointed out in this column previously however, calling an election is no longer in the PM’s gift http://www.desmondswaynemp.com/ds-blog/begging-for-an-election/
and would involve jumping through a complex set of hoops.

Clearly, the best way out is for the Government to win its appeal. Whatever happens, it’s not going to be dull.

Despite what you may see of the gladiatorial contest for half an hour every week at Prime Minister’s questions, overwhelmingly the smooth and orderly functioning of Parliament and our legislative process works on goodwill, co-operation and understanding.

The vacancy on the Justice select committee was a Labour vacancy. It was a matter for the Labour Party to fill it. Whether I approved or disapproved of their choice, the choice was theirs to make.

The ill-considered attempt by rogue colleagues to interfere with Labour’s choice and overturn it, could have had disastrous consequences for all the other areas where ‘give and take’ are necessary to ensure the Parliament can function without always descending into an unseemly row.

Had Labour voted to veto a Conservative choice for a select committee, I would have been incandescent with rage. Accordingly, I voted to uphold Labour’s right to make its choice, whomsoever they had chosen.

The discovery that one of the children admitted to the UK from the Calais Jungle turns out to be a 22 year old student from Kabul University, reinforces the lecture that the President of Afghanistan gave me, and about which I wrote in this column last week: Some of his people are bravely taking the fight to the Taliban, whilst others are giving up and running away.

The United Kingdom has sent many of its own sons and daughters to fight the Taliban. I asked the Home Secretary in the Commons last week, if she would bear the President’s words in mind, when deciding which priority cases are most deserving of our support.

The National Audit Office has written to let me know that they will investigate my concerns about the New Forest wetland restorations (of which Latchmore is the largest and most controversial). Specifically, they will investigate my complaint that public expenditure rules have been improperly circumvented; and that the way that this has been done has contributed to the questionable quality of the works.

There have been a number of reviews of the schemes, some have been highly critical whilst others have been fulsome in their praise, It turns out that one of the organisations that gave the Forestry Commission the ‘thumbs up’ for the work on the wetland restorations, has on its board the managing director of the main contractor doing the restoration work.

I still await a response from the Minister to the submission I sent her including my belief that Natural England have broken their own rules and the Habitat Regulations by authorising the works without first carrying out the ‘appropriate’ assessment.

Natural England and the Forestry Commission have announced another review, but it seems to me absolutely absurd however, that they should proceed with the planning application for Latchmore before this new review has concluded. One can only assume that they have already made up their minds, and that they are determined to carry on as before irrespective of what this latest review may find.

The National Audit Office have indicated that they hope to give some indication on the progress of their investigation by 30th November.

I can barely bring myself to watch TV scenes reporting the distress of refugees, particularly where children are involved.

Of the refugees that we have already admitted as part of our commitment to resettle 20,000 of the most vulnerable Syrians, half have been children. These have been accompanied children because the UN advice is that unaccompanied children are much better off staying in the region where there remains the possibility of being reunited with their extended families. Notwithstanding, we have also made commitments to take such children where it is judged to be in their best interests and, in addition, we have committed to take unaccompanied children who have already made it to the European mainland.
There is however, a preponderance of young men, and men not so young, some of which claim to be children, and many of which claim to be refugees, when many are actually migrants.

(I blame no migrant for seeking a better life, but our proper response to the problem of mass migration is to invest in the economic development of the places from which they are migrating. The UK is one of the very few developed nations meeting its commitment to spend 0.7% of our national income on this important international development aid. If all the developed nations did so, and if we had all done so 40 years ago when that commitment was made, perhaps we would not be faced with mass migration on the scale that we are now dealing with.)

When I visited the President of Afghanistan earlier this year I raised with him the issue of our difficulty in returning Afghans whose claims to asylum in Europe had been rejected. In the end, he agreed to take personal charge of the issue and to resolve the matter, but before we got to that satisfactory conclusion, he delivered a lecture to me. This is the gist of it: He told me that his main effort had to be delivering progress for all the people of Afghanistan who, despite their difficulties, had stuck with it; that his priority was the needs of the young men and women who were taking the fight to the Taliban. Only after these priorities were met, could he address the issue of receiving back those of his countrymen who gave up on his country and went away.

When we think of the blood and treasure that the United Kingdom has expended in Afghanistan, we might reflect on the President’s lecture.