Madam,

Quentin Deakin (‘Cat among the pigeons’, Letters, last week’s Cambrian News) is surely right. The decision by the High Court reveals the narrowness of their legalistic views. For High Courts have no direct connection with us, the people. The judges are not elected, as our MPs are, or selected from among duly elected MPs, as ministers are. There is, if you like, no jury representing the people to finalise their decisons after they present their legal arguments.

Asked to say who should decide, since they have no recourse to, or brief for, the people at all, they had to say, well,... Parliament.

But Parliament is exactly one of those institutions in which we the people have lost trust and respect. MPs appear to be self-serving and divisive. Only unelected judges could think such two-faced and fractious MPs, and the House of Lords, would have cred with us.A more useful judgement, that the huge sums spent on their cogitations could have produced instead, would be that Britain can still decide to remain in the EU even after triggering Article 50. Which she can.

Accepting we trigger Article 50 and then vote on whether the deal negotiated is good enough to finish the process of Brexiting, or to remain members, is the way to go, for cats and pigeons both. Trump’s election threatens individuals’ rights across the world. Those who favoured Brexit feel their majority rights are threatened by bigger majorities or bureaucracies in the EU. If the EU is the only safe haven for individual rights, threatened by what are now mainstream politicans in US and here, former wholehearted Brexiteers have, I feel, an unexpected and painful re-evaluation to make. Equally, Trump’s hostility to trade treaties may strike Brexiteers as an attempt to impose US economic hegemony through tariffs and subsidies on everyone including the UK, rather than as a blow against the EU that helps them.

There are no easy answers in the complex world we face.

Yours etc

Ian MacIntyre

Arthog Terrace

Arthog.