• THE judgment of the Supreme Court makes mention of “parliamentary sovereignty” – claimed by complainants as cause for action.

But this appears to overlook the fact that it cannot exist when a country’s wish and right to rule itself (for example, jurisdiction and regulation over its borders, seas, trade and law) have been signed away to other powers by those temporary custodians of that place without a mandate from the people they presume to represent and who now stand in the way of the completion of a majority vote, claiming that parliamentary sovereignty is at risk.

It is not explained how something that’s been signed away without a referral to the electorate at any time prior to the 2016 public vote can be at risk.

It can be argued that in that context, the government has a duty to the electorate that transcends that owed to a parliament that shows little inclination to keep its promise under the terms of that referendum and cites “parliamentary sovereignty” as its reason to obstruct, delay and perhaps ultimately to frustrate the will and intent of that vote.

A general election cannot come soon enough.

MARK NEWBERRY, W1