This is where I believe Ireland does it well. The legislature passes an act setting up a referendum on making a specified change to the wording of the Irish constitution. The electorate votes. If passed by a simple majority, the constitution changes, and the mandate of the people is discharged.

Para 97 of Costello J.'s judgment: "This court thus affirms the decision of the High Court. However this Court cannot conclude its judgment without referring to the use of slang or colloquialisms in a formal judgment of the High Court." There follows the objection to 'gaslighting' and 'Mordor'.

Case law of CJEU discussed in paras 60 and 66 of Costello J., notably Wells, where "the CJEU held that Member States are required to 'nullify the unlawful consequences of a breach of Community law", and, in para. 63 "the case of Aqua-Pri, in a judgment of 10 November 2022".

Turning to the judgement of Costello J. in the Court of Appeal, para. 58: "Insofar as the appellants contend that they ought to be permitted to advance this argument, the CJEU has consistently upheld national rules requiring a complaint to be properly pleaded."

[In continuation...] "Examples of gaslighting the decision-maker don't get much better than this."

[Humphreys J., re gaslighting, para. 148.] "Insofar as this complains about failure by the board, this issue is so baroque that there couldn't workably be an autonomous obligation, so the board could not be faulted for failing to do something it was never asked to do. [tbc]

[In continuation ...] "and the written and oral submissions which made it the whole pivot of the applicants' case. But the fragile fragment of language in the pleadings just isn't sufficient to bear the weight now being placed on it."

Regarding "the complaint that Irish law provides defective transposition" Para. 121: "We need to look at what is pleaded very specifically. When we do so, what emerges is a massive contrast between the pleadings, which make one lonely and solitary passing reference to the remedial obligation, [tbc]

Para. 117: The applicants "failed, prior to instituting the proceedings, to properly call on the relevant decision maker [...] to exercise relevant powers within that Minister's competence, failed to specify what powers should be exercised [etc.]. One does not simply walk into Mordor - ..."

[in continuation...] "on which the whole tottering edifice of European argument was erected." Humpreys J. then quotes "the aphorism offfered by the late Edmund King QC in his post on Essex Court Chambers website [...] 'Every single case is won on the facts, even the ones that supposedly aren't'."