WHAT strange contradictions Brexit has led us into. Here’s one band of people, who have been content for decades to witness powers being transferred from the British Parliament to Europe, now rushing to proclaim the “sovereignty” of our Parliament, which it argues must have the last word on triggering Brexit.

And here’s another band of people, who have protested throughout those same decades about the loss of Parliamentary sovereignty to Brussels, insisting that Parliament has no role in launching Brexit.

But with one of these groups, the contradiction is more apparent than real. For the second group, the Brexiteers, fully acknowledge the sovereignty of Parliament. They point out that it was the authority of Parliament, by a vote of 6-1, that introduced the Referendum Act, which delegated the decision on EU membership to the British people. The referendum had been promised in the manifesto of what became the Government, with the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, stating the decision would be final. He went so far as to say that if Britain voted Leave, he would submit our notice – Article 50 – immediately.

Alas, that wasn’t done – a crucial mistake. And now three High Court judges have ruled that the matter must be put to Parliament. The predictable outrage at this has been branded an attack on the independence of the judiciary, a pillar of the British constitution.

Of course we need to recognise that judges are not like other people. That one of the High Court three is a founder member of the European Law Institute, whose aims include “the enhancement of European legal integration”, need give us no concern whatsoever. In other fields, with other subjects, anyone charged with making a decision who thought there might be the remotest suspicion of self-interest, would probably feel compelled to withdraw. But judges have learned to put any personal opinions or inclinations aside. Only the law, as they perceive it, informs their rulings. Absolutely, no doubt about that. And the High Court trio ruled in favour of Parliament, against the people. Or rather, since we need to be careful here, against the Government. So be it.

The distinction between Government and Parliament is worth highlighting. A Government can take us to war without consulting Parliament. There’s already concern that this very necessary power (the need to act quickly) could be undermined if the Supreme Court confirms that the Government must take Brexit, on which it was empowered to act by the people, to Parliament. Deep water indeed.

The high (72 per cent) turn out for the referendum mirrored not only the importance of the issue – Britain’s future status in the world – but people’s belief that here was a rare instance where their vote really counted – every one equal. Nigel Farage is not alone in warning of possibly violent consequences of thwarting their will. Over what he calls “the most unconscionable betrayal of the British people”, Tory MP Sir Gerald Howarth foresees “the risk of very angry protests that could lead to violence”.

To me the “betrayal” strongly evokes the Peasants Revolt of 1381. Its leaders were executed after promised reforms had dispersed the mobs. Nothing changes.