So Brexit must be legal. The morning after the night before, most people seem to think yesterday’s court ruling on Brexit means a mess. It does not. The way forward is crystal clear.

High court judges may be secretive, unelected toffs, but these three are right: referendums are not material parts of the British constitution. Parliament, warts and all, is sovereign. It can deny withdrawal and face the consequences.

Brexit timetable still on track despite article 50 ruling, Theresa May to tell EU Read more

In 2005, French and Dutch electors voted against the Lisbon treaty but were defied by their governments and/or assemblies. The tabloids may howl, but no one elects them. The British parliament can stop Theresa May in her tracks or force on her an act for withdrawal.

If leave campaigners want “more control” for the UK parliament, they should acknowledge the control it still has. For a government to seek to drastically alter UK law requires parliamentary consent, in such a case as this both before and after the event.

So much for constitutional law. Politics is a different matter. May is today saying she will press ahead, come what will. During the 2015 referendum debate MPs did not so much as hint they would disregard the outcome if they did not like it. The then prime minister, David Cameron, said he would be bound by it and his resignation honoured that pledge. The outcome was not overwhelming but it was decisive. However much leftwing remainers may hate it, democracy is about numbers.

In other words parliament may be constitutionally in control of the process, but politically it is trapped. It freely asked for a clear instruction from the British people, and was given one. It should withdraw the UK from the EU, no ifs or buts.

Channelling this through parliament may complicate and postpone Brexit – for which the economy will give MPs no thanks – but the guidance of parliament should strengthen not weaken the negotiation.

After this Brexit ruling, MPs must seize their moment | Martin Kettle Read more

That is why the prime minister should forget her appeal to the supreme court. Instead May should request a swift vote of confidence from the Commons in proceeding to withdraw. The Commons may demand a full Brexit bill, whatever that might say, but woe betide any MP who filibustered or voted against it. May must accept that any eventual deal will require ratification, and in extremis this could of course be refused. (If the Lords know what is good for them, they should keep out of this one.) But that is what the law says.

The Commons can, and in my view should, howl and plead for “soft Brexit”. But if ministers are denied a vote of confidence in pressing ahead with withdrawal, the government would fall and a general election would be politically inevitable. Remain MPs might plead Edmund Burke’s line about owing his voters “his judgment” not his obedience, but it would be a virtual single-issue election, with the moral weight for leave.

Remain may still have shots in its locker, but it is democratically implausible. May can concede what she can to MPs, and promise what she can. She has a nightmare ahead of her. But for now she should obey the judges, call the remainers’ bluff and seek a swift vote of confidence in her decision to withdraw and negotiate.