Yes, it's obviously nothing other than sour grapes to attempt to clarify the status of certain articles of law and International Treaties.
I mean, sure, it's a little cynical (understatement) but it seems as if we have arrived at a position whereby legal rights are being regarded as either alternatives to, or even actively against, democracy, rather than running alongside it. And besides, it is hardly democratic to imply that the will of the people is somehow irreversible if the will of the people in the future changes. In practice, this is a BIG "if", and I don't expect that there will be any public will in the short-term to overturn the decision made in June. But for the option not to be there at all, if either the government, or Parliament, or the people wish it in theory, feels like an even greater subversion of democracy.
It's the same with the Supreme Court case, that people either don't understand or are determined not to, which is primarily about clarifying matters of law, and not an attempt to subvert democracy.