Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:46 pm
Just_a_fan wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:35 pm
The referendum was an opinion finder, not a legally-binding vote. The legislation passed by Parliament says as much.
The funniest part about the whole sorry affair is people before the referendum shouting "Parliament must be sovereign" are now shouting "how dare Parliament be sovereign".
try reading what our PM Mr Cameron wrote to each household in the land
you are swallowing the expertly-written false and pernicious narratives that the conspiracy has been peddling since 2016
do you imagine the Scottish Independence Referendum was just an opinion finder !! ??
or the Alternative Vote Referendum ?
The law setting up the EU referendum specifically said it was advisory.
The law setting up the proportional voting referendum specifically said it was binding ( requiring a super majority)
The law setting up the Scottish referendum was passed in The Scottish Assembly after powers were devolved by the U.K. parliament. It required a simple majority and I haven’t been able to determine if it were binding. But see below.
Mr Cameron intervened on both occasions promising things that were not in his gift but could only be effected by Parliament.
As I understand it the constitutional position on the EU referendum is:
Parliament 1 passed a law saying we would have a referendum the result of which would be advisory to that parliament.
Acting on that advice Parliament 1 invoked Article 50 (the Supreme Court decided only Parliament had that authority)
There was a general election and Parliament 2 was formed.
It is a rule of our constitution that any Parliament is not bound by decisions of a previous Parliament. Otherwise laws would be in perpetuity.
So constitutionally the current Parliament can make any change it likes, Revoke Article 50, hold another referendum, adopt the proposed deal or leave with no deal. Or anything else it decides.
You may feel that some paths would be morally questionable, but the constitution doesn’t care about morals.
Constitutionally the members of parliament who make decisions on behalf of their constituents are held to account in general elections, procedurally they are held to account first by party conclaves who decide if they can represent the party. And it is that procedural but non-constitutional process that caused this mess to accrue, IMHO.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus