Report comment

Well no, I don't altogether agree, David. I think it would have been vital for us to get out of the EU as soon as possible no matter who had won the US election. In any case I have hopes that Mr Trump may not prove to be the disaster many are predicting - certainly his reported overtures to Russia seem to me wholly commendable. Liberal critics have for decades blamed Republican presidents for their coldness towards Russia, so it's hard to see why they should be down on Trump for reversing that tendency. Still, I can't say I have the same absolute confidence that his presidency will prove to be a good thing for America and the West as I have that Brexit will be beneficial for Britain and the world. But (as you said in a previous post) let us for the moment give him the benefit of the doubt.

As to Mr Fearnley, I'm afraid we must just agree to disagree. I maintain that my phraseology was strictly accurate: the High Court judgment gives parliament an immediate and practical power to defeat the people's decision. If the judgment had gone the other way parliament would not have had that power, and no one doubts that Article 50 would have been triggered without a further vote. Unrealistic assertions as to what might theoretically have been "open to parliament" take us nowhere. The High Court decision brings within the sphere of practical politics what (for solid constitutional and "policy" reasons) was previously outside that sphere. This is why we must hope the Supreme Court reverses the judgment next month; or failing that, that the Labour leadership lives up to its promise to wave Brexit through.