Act one: the 11 judges of the supreme court deliver their judgment. Act two: the newspapers deliver their judgment on the judgment.
In fact, the Brexit-supporting titles do not repeat the front page outrage with which they greeted the original high court ruling.
Despite the decision, which confirmed that prime minister Theresa May must gain parliament’s consent to trigger an exit from the European Union, they choose to see it in positive terms.
Except, of course, the Daily Mail. It now turns its attention to MPs in the belief that a number of them are plotting to thwart Brexit. And it also seeks to pour scorn on Gina Miller, the woman who brought the case against the government.
The Daily Telegraph’s front page, while registering the fact that opposition parties will seek to thwart May’s plans, is headlined “There can be no turning back”.
And the Sun, reminding its audience of another Conservative prime minister, asserts that the “Lady’s not for turning back”.
Similarly, the Daily Express, always eager to ensure there will be no backsliding, quotes a Brexit minister who warns that “MPs must not stop EU exit”.
Metro, predicting a swift political resolution, goes with “Ready Brexit”...
... while the Financial Times reports on its front page that May will “table fast-track legislation to keep her Brexit plan on track”.
In the FT’s view, the decision was “the most significant constitutional judgment for a generation” and “a triumph for Britain’s judicial system and the supreme court”.
Noting that “the case has also been marked by intemperate and demagogic attacks on the judiciary” it reminded its readers of the Daily Mail’s “enemies of the people” headline.
It commented sharply: “This argument is so grotesquely at odds with the facts and with the law that only a profound cynic, or a great fool, would profess it.
“Many people campaigned in good faith for Britain to leave the EU so that parliamentary sovereignty could be revitalised and important decisions about Britain’s future could be brought closer to British voters. This is what the supreme court ruling has done.”
The i newspaper’s main story, like the FT’s, reports that the government will aim to pick themselves up quickly from this defeat.
The Times is straightforward in noting that the supreme court judges made history in a “Brexit blow to ministers”.
But the Guardian moves matters on a little by carrying a report about a coming split among Tory MPs about Brexit.
The Guardian also thought the supreme court “spoke for Britain” in rejecting the government’s appeal. In so doing it upheld the rule of law, “not the rule of ministers”, which “was the right decision legally, constitutionally and morally”.
It regarded Gina Miller and her co-plaintiffs as “the heroes, not the villains, in this story”. May had been wrong to appeal against the original ruling and parliament “should be much more courageous in holding her to account”.
In the Guardian’s view, it is understandable that both the main parties are, like the voters, divided. “Both are unhealthily afraid of the bullying anti-EU press ... [but] it is parliament that is sovereign, not the referendum, let alone the Daily Mail.”
