Report comment

I wonder if the Daily Mail writers have actually read the judgment? It upholds the sovereignty of Parliament under our constitution, and is explicit it is not concerned with the merits of Brexit, which are not relevant to the question asked of the court.

Somewhat bizarre that the Daily Mail, which has campaigned vigorously for British laws for Britain, should now campaign against key components of the British constitution.

If the 'will of the people' expressed through the referendum is sufficient mandate constitutionally, then we should indeed go, asap, and whether or not any alternative trade deals (with anyone) can be made. That, after all, is what the referendum result stated by necessary implication (if that result alone is all that counts, constitutionally).