Hello and welcome to The Spectator podcast. I'm Isabel Hardman. On this week's episode, we're going to be talking about next week's Supreme Court case on the government's right to trigger Article 50. We'll also be looking at whether British data scientists help Donald Trump win the White House, and will be asking whether

America's president-elect has helped a brutal martial art become a mainstream phenomenon.

Monday's Supreme Court case will decide whether or not the government can kickstart Brexit

without the say-so of Parliament. It's a legal wrangle which has already sparked a furious backlash.

The earlier High Court ruling

saw the three judges responsible labelled enemies of the people and Brexit blockers. So whatever

the Supreme Court decides, it's likely that a response will be just as angry. But who is in the

right? In his spectator cover piece this week, Joshua Rosenberg,QC says the underlying issue in the case could not be greater,

with the political future of the United Kingdom and its relationship with the European Union at stake.

Joshua says the stage is set for a landmark case, which for once really does justify that cliché.

He joined Timothy Endicott, professor of legal philosophy at

Oxford University, to judge the judges. And I asked Timothy to explain where the case had got to.

Sure. Well, where we've got to is an instant classic of constitutional law from the divisional

court, a judgment that the government does not have the authority to trigger Article 50

because that would result, presumably, they assume that it was result inevitably, in Britain leaving

the European Union. That would deprive you and me of rights that we have. We have those rights

because Parliament gave them to us in 1972

in the European Communities Act,

and the Divisional Court decided that in that case,

the government's action would be overruling a statute of Parliament,

and that's constitutionally impossible.

And whatever the Supreme Court decides next week, students are going to be

...