All kinds of constitutional questions are alive after last June’s Brexit vote. Given the furore surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling to permit MPs a say in proceedings and the House of Lords’ two rejections of the bill, clearly it has aggravated more than wrangling over territory.

Supreme Court members have been branded “enemies of the people” by some Brexiteers; the Lords as “Brexit blockers”. If unelected peers should vote to block the Brexit bill this week, former UKIP leader Nigel Farage says they will “vote for their own abolition”, hinting a referendum could be called on the upper chamber’s existence.

Despite the commotion that has surrounded the Brexit bill’s ‘ping-pong’ between the Commons and the Lords, it will in all likelihood be given the green light. According to media sources, the Prime Minister may trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty as early as Tuesday.

Mr Farage says it will signal “the point of no return” But, on that point, has the United Kingdom itself reached a point of no return after the referendum? The shape of the nation, function of institutions and make-up of the party political landscape currently seem up for grabs.

It’s interesting how the Brexiteers’ attack on the Lords brings them into sync with political opponents on the opposite side of the spectrum, like former Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg – an avid Remainer – for instance, who have long called for extensive reform of the chamber. They bemoan its make-up, powers afforded and the expense accrued by the unelected.

The Lords has not sought to “block” the wishes of “the people”, but to suggest two changes to the bill: 1) that the Government should give MPs a “meaningful vote” on the final Brexit deal; and 2) the Government should guarantee the rights of EU citizens when it leaves the EU.

Nevetheless, when this episode draws to a close, could it be peers versus “the people” next?

Did you know that the House of Lords is the only unelected chamber of its kind in Europe? With over 800 peers, it is the second-largest parliamentary chamber in the world, after China’s National People’s Congress.

Whilst some argue that peers enhance our democracy in scrutinising legislation passed by MPs, others criticise it as providing “a retirement home for former politicians” (Nick Clegg’s words, not mine).

The majority of Lords, supposedly above party politics, still designate themselves by party affiliation; and more often than not they obey the party whip as much as MPs do in the Commons.

Too expensive, elitist and out of touch – sound familiar? If Britain’s membership of the European Union was brought to an abrupt end by “the people’s army”, what’s to stop the House of Lords becoming a target for total reform, if not abolition?