THE hard Brexiteer is a curious animal. In their relentless pursuit to bring about the worst possible Brexit they have turned on the Government, the Cabinet, Theresa May, the Speaker of the House, opposition MPs, backbenchers … anyone who gets in their way.

Now it seems Brexiteers are turning their hostility towards the Queen, with one claiming to be “bitterly disappointed” that the head of state was not willing to intervene and facilitate a hard Brexit.

Suzanne Evans, a Brexit campaigner for Leavers of Britain, hit out at the Queen through quote-tweeting a post from Andrew Lilico, the executive director and principle of Europe Economics.

In his tweet, Lilico said: “If the Monarchy cannot even intervene, one way or another, in a matter such as the Cooper-Letwin Bill, it is absurd to believe it could stand up against an elected Communist or fascist Parliament.

“Our Monarchy has demonstrated itself no longer for for purpose, alas.”

Evans’s response was to label Lilico’s post “spot on”.

“I’m an ardent royalist and love our @RoyalFamily but this is spot on,” she wrote. “Bitterly disappointed.”

Just a quick reminder that the Cooper-Letwin Bill is a historic piece of legislation which forced the Government to delay Article 50 and set out its timetable for withdrawal, thus preventing the UK from crashing out without a deal.

It takes its name from the two MPs to bring the bill forward – Labour’s Yvette Cooper and Tory Oliver Letwin.

READ MORE: MPs to rush through bid to stop no-deal

For that bill to become legislation, it required Royal Assent from the Queen, the very thing Lilico and Evans are saying she should have withheld for the Cooper-Letwin Bill.

We suppose this is a good time to throw in another quick reminder, this time that the Queen’s role as head of state is symbolic and the Monarch no longer possesses a political or executive role.

Last week, 20 academics in constitutional law rubbished suggestions the Queen could be asked to intervene.

In a letter to the Times, they said such a move would be “unconstitutional” and and would break a 300-year-old convention.

"Such an action would be utterly without precedent in the UK: assent has not been refused for more than 300 years and our view is that any advice would be unconstitutional,” they wrote.

"Once a bill has been passed by Parliament the Queen's role is purely ceremonial. And this is for good reason. Any attempt to advise refusal of Royal Assent to a bill passed by Parliament would would stand constitutional principle on its head. It would presume a governmental power to over-ride parliament, yet it is in government not parliament that sovereignty resides."

That won’t prevent the most ardent of hard Brexiteers doing what they can to take the UK off a cliff edge...