The Brexit view is a good deal more coherent than the Trump one. Brexit’s leaders, for example, want to open up world markets rather than put up new tariff walls. But both share a desire to bring power home to the nation’s own citizens. Both recognise that everything is different now.

Part of the great bluff of the Washington elites and their Europhile cousins is that there is only one sensible way of doing things and they, being the experts, can tell the rest of us what it is. But since 2001 in relation to security, and 2008 in relation to money, their way doesn’t look so sensible.

Does Mr Obama’s deal to let Iran off the hook about nuclear weapons feel outstandingly rational? Does Angela Merkel look wise to have let in 1 million Middle-Eastern immigrants? Does reinforcing the euro seem like the way of the future after its imposition has impoverished the younger generation right across southern Europe? A growing constituency calls the bluff of the established order.  

Once you start on this road, establishment disapproval only makes you feel stronger. Why vote for an elderly groper with strange hair and no political experience? Why incur the anger of the 27 other EU member states by Brexiting?

Partly because of seeing the pursed lips of the powerful when you do so. The only person who piped up to say the emperor had no clothes was a child: being electoral naughty boys proves to be fun.

It is not within the power of electors to run their country. It is within their power to point out to the self-righteous mighty when they are wrong. That is what has happened, first in Britain, now in America. By that logic, Mrs Clinton had to lose to Mr Trump.

I can think of at least one difference between Brexit and Mr Trump’s administration. The former will be led by a woman who didn’t even vote for it, the latter by the man himself.

The British situation may be the better, because it is less likely to inspire false hopes. It wouldn’t take all that many errors for Mr Trump’s vision to turn into Brexit minus minus minus.

David Fuller's view

I am feeling an eerie calm for the second time in five months, during a period of considerable emotion in the markets, the press, on TV and apparently within public gatherings.  The calm is not due to numbness in response to events, or disinterest.  Perhaps a little fatigue is a factor having stayed up to watch an extraordinary election result. Mainly, however, I think these emotional reactions to shock events which have not actually harmed us are seldom warranted.

Consider sudden market surges in response to elections.  It is often a case of garbage in and garbage out, as trading systems are programmed to buy or sell following a specific result.  The sudden moves are alarming, but seldom based on wisdom, and are soon reversed. 

Extreme reactions to the UK’s Brexit vote in June or Trump’s “Brexit plus plus plus” prediction before he had won are another example.  Will he be as objectionable with the gravity of office as he was during the campaign which he probably did not expect to win?  It is possible, but I doubt it in terms of most issues, especially if he surrounds himself with a knowledgeable team of specialists to deal with the complexities of high office.  

I also think the UK will benefit from Trump’s presidency more than any other country.  Obama was critical of Brexit but Trump who has strong loyalties likes the UK.  Theresa May was quick to congratulate him in a sensible comment emphasising the long history and special relationship with the USA.  In contrast, a number of senior EU officials were openly critical of Trump following his election.  I doubt that will help them. 

If Trump proves to be a good president in terms of the US economy, as any sensible person would hope, I think the UK will benefit from a revival of the special relationship.  However, if Trump proves to be a liability as President, the UK may partially reverse the brain drain of previous decades. 

Here is a PDF of Charles Moore's article.