Enough rope to hang themselves?

The High Court has ruled that Parliament must have the last word on matters which affect domestic laws and the rights of citizens. Submitting Article 50 does both of those things and therefore Parliament must be involved.

The government will naturally appeal to the Supreme Court and we will see if they win in the next round, while licking our lips at the irony of the EU Court possibly becoming involved in the issue.

The judgement has produced a horrific outpouring of ill-informed barrack-room lawyers claiming the judges are unelected (!?), over-riding the will of the people ... Oh the irony that the Brexiteers were so keen to live the EU that Parliament could 'take back sovereignty'.

Then there was the sexist and racist stuff about one of the judges being gay and the person who funded the case being born in Guyana. Shock horror! Is this the best 'reasoned argument' they can find?

Nick Clegg continues to do well as an opponent of Brexit, playing a long and politically sensible game. You can tell that his opponents are worried by their vituperative comments about him and the words they try to put into his mouth.

He was his typically clear self using three familiar phrases about the referendum:

• It showed a direction but not a destination. We have no idea where we are actually going (although someone no doubt has a plan that they don;t want to share with anyone else) 
• It showed what people do not like but it did not show what they do like
• It was based on mendacious lies

His view of the way forward is clear:

• Parliament must be sovereign. It is hard to disagree with this, despite the attempts of Theresa May and her cohorts to act like Tudor monarchs
• Parliament should be told what the government is seeking to achieve. Are we going to be in the single market or outside it? Are we going to allow free movement of people or not (almost certainly not)? How much will this all cost us?
• Parliament should have a vote on this before Article 50 is submitted
• Parliament should then be permitted to review what is actually on offer at the end of the negotiations and vote on whether it meets the objectives and whether it is acceptable
• If the government fails to convince Parliament then it must return to the people for their view

It is hard to argue with this as a sensible and parliamentary way of doing things, high risk though it is. If, as Nick no doubt believes, the EU will give a simple round 'No' to the proposals, then the game will be up. It gives the Three Blind Mice enough rope to hang themselves.

Risky? Probably but is is more of a plan than any we have heard so far from the government.