A thousand lawyers send letter to Cameron over EU Referendum

[BrexitThunderbolt]

It starts:
TO THE PRIME MINISTER AND ALL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

9 July 2016

Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament

Re: Brexit

We are all individual members of the Bars of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We are writing to propose a way forward which reconciles the legal, constitutional and political issues which arise following the Brexit referendum.

The result of the referendum must be acknowledged. Our legal opinion is that the referendum is advisory.

The European Referendum Act does not make it legally binding. We believe that in order to trigger Article 50, there must first be primary legislation. It is of the utmost importance that the legislative process is informed by an objective understanding as to the benefits, costs and risks of triggering Article 50.

link to the whole letter here

I am particularly pleased to see this included in their reasons for writing as they do:
There is evidence that the referendum result was influenced by misrepresentations of fact and promises that could not be delivered.

Since the result was only narrowly in favour of Brexit, it cannot be discounted that the misrepresentations and promises were a decisive or contributory factor in the result.

A planning lawyer!!!
I am still at a loss as to why people seem to think leaving the EU is going to be such a catastrophe. why? I am old enough to remember the UK before we joined and we were fine then! I voted to stay in in the 1975 referendum. The SNP were for out in these days by the way!

"I am old enough to remember the UK before we joined and we were fine then! "

Yep, that old chestnut again. This is why we are in this mess! Do you rally think,leaving the EU now as it is and as we are link and intertwined with it after 49 years is the same as never having joined? (and also we don't know what would have happened had we not joined so that argument doesn't really work on that front either).

Sorry about typos. Maths 49 years was meant to say 40 before anyone pulls me up on it.

What linking and intertwining are you talking about Thegirl?

Corcory

The economy depends on the City which depends on having a "passport" to do business in the EU. If we were primarily a manufacturing nation it would be less bad. We cannot become manufacturers again because it is v. Expensive to manufacture here.

"Yep, that old chestnut again."
It's not an old chestnut , it is valid point

" This is why we are in this mess!"
Why? I don't see the connection.

Trade, law, free movement of eu citizens.

The connection is that a whole bunch of baby boomers voted for Brexit apparently with the beleif that we could just go back to how it was before the EU existed, but it's not that simple.

Neither do I Redactio!
The passporting of financial services is only relevant if the company don't have a branch in the EU. They only need to have a brass plate somewhere to get round that. Anyway the mifir regulations for non EU financial services come into effect in 2 years - about the right time for many of our institutions to take advantage of them when we leave.

Any other linking and intertwining?

Er, I didn't mention Passporting, my answer to yours is the post directly above yours.

Sorry Thegirl thought that was you.
Trade, well that will still happen in or out of the EU. We may just have to pay some trade tariffs. Laws can be changed, disgarded or adopted as our own and made into statute as many have been already. We don't want free movement of EU citizens, that's the point.
I'll go back to my 'old chestnut' which is completely relevant in that I travelled in Europe before we joined the common market and when it was still the common market before we had these free movement laws and we didn't have to have visas and I certainly don't remember it being difficult.
I certainly don't want to go back to how things were before we joined the common market the world has moved on since then, but I am simply pointing out that it wasn't that bad and that the UK isn't going to fall apart. I really don't understand where we have got such a defeatist attitude from I always thought of the British as a stoic nation rising above adversity etc.

Why is it such a catastrophe?

Because we haven't even left left yet, but there is no no plan for brexit. Not even a reasonable plan of action. None of us know what brexit will look like.

But so far, our credit rating has been downgraded, our Universities are face cuts in funding, investments in the UK are falling, or stalling, companies in the UK are making contingency plans to move to EU countries - which will lead to job losses all over the UK, the pound value has dropped off a cliff, Scotland and NI are rethinking the Union, the housing market stagnating, with reports of property sales falling through, our scientists are finding EU contracts and funding are gone, racist attacks on the rise, no materialisation of extra money into the NHS (haha), the economy looking unstable, the repercussions of leaving the single market and/or losing passporting rights - not known yet - but will be devastating to us all if it happens.

I can't put it better than the words of Lord Bilimoria speaking in the HOL on 5th July: "A clown and a buffoon led this this referendum - The Pied Piper of Hamlin leading the British people over the white cliffs of Dover."

Corcory,

I don't think that is right about the passporting. Let me know if you want to know more.

I think your personal experiences of ye olden days are just that? There was no internet, the Chinese rode bicycles to get around, India was a very different place.... all of that has changed.

Corcory - Long term business decisions are being made now by companies that are dependent on access to the single market. They're not going to stay in the UK out of the goodness of their hearts - they are responsible to their shareholders. So far, things have stabilised, (although the pound is still on the floor), partly through Mark Carney's contingency planning, and maybe because we are still hoping against hope that we will remain in the single market, or that brexit may not actually happen.

The city passporting is so important, and not just to the financial traders earning the dosh there. London is the global leader in the clearing of financial trades - utterly dependent on the EU city passport. Approx 50% of global financial interest rates clearing and 40% of global foreign currency transaction clearing went through the London financial sector in 2014.

The revenue for this, is a massive part of our economy. It's a major funder of our public services. Without it, govt spending on our very infrastructure will suffer - our housing, healthcare, transport, education, welfare spending.

Btw - all that information ^ is taken from the HOL debates on the EU referendum, which I have been listening to in awe of the intelligence of the debate.

There are, btw, some very reasoned arguments from the HOL's on the Leavers side, too - far more than I have read anywhere else - MN or the media. Like the HOC, more are for Remain, which is not a surprise, but very interesting to hear the debate.

Anyhow, there is a running theme of respect and understanding for the results of referendum running through the debates, but at the same time, a great uneasiness about the democratic process which will now lead to the triggering of A50 and the actual leaving of the EU - and a message of great care being needed now for such a great change. They draw attention to the need for parliamentary debate and approval, and variously, a need to gain some form of approval for the type of brexit we will negotiate - either by further referendum or general election.

Certainly, the heavy-weight lawyers disagree on what is required. Some saying a parliamentary vote is required, others saying that A50 can be triggered via parliamentary privilege. There is certainly a strong contingent stating that the referendum itself was undemocratic and populist, and cannot just go through without further due parliamentary process - debates, and a vote. Which, to me, seems reasonable, or even essential.

I always thought of the British as a stoic nation rising above adversity etc.

...whereas now we actively vote for adversity!

There is certainly a strong contingent stating that the referendum itself was undemocratic and populist

But that's not a legal position, that's a political one... And also comes back to the arrogance of lawyers thinking they can bend the referendum to an outcome they prefer.Neither 'undemocratic' nor 'populist' have a bearing on what is in law. They are being retrospectively applied to the result.

Referendums were the earliest form of democracy (Athens was basically governed entirely by them) so not sure how they could be described as undemocratic.

As for 'populist', again, is it the actual European Referendum Act 2015 as passed by the Parliament you object to as being populist? Or is it just that the result was voted for by the plebs who's views we should ignore?

But that's not a legal position

No, that's why, directly before the part of my post you quoted, I wrote this: "Certainly, the heavy-weight lawyers disagree on what is required. Some saying a parliamentary vote is required, others saying that A50 can be triggered via parliamentary privilege." The lawyers (who I'm sure are familiar with the Referendum Act, don't agree. MPs don't agree. So, as I've said all along - it would be wise to make sure it's watertight.

But we can that point argue back and forth from now until the cows come home, and still not reach conclusion... if the lawyers don't agree, how will we? MPs in the HOC have already said this is likely to be decided in the courts.

Under that's v interesting about the House of Lords debates (if I have the acronym correctly). Are these the recent debates on a second ref?

MPs in the HOC have already said this is likely to be decided in the courts.

No, this is likely to be decided by referendum on 23 June 2016 when a clear question was put to British voters.

The god-complex of some lawyers should have shown itself earlier and either objected to the legislation as they were entitled to - and to challenge it in the courts - or to suggest amendments.

Night The debates I have been listening to were from the 5th and 6th July - so before they installed Theresa May. There are also the HOC debates which are interesting too.

Several have called for some form of further approval from the electorate on what Brexit should mean- so not another referendum to rehash the first, but more the case for a referendum on the precise terms of Brexit, which could take the form of a General Election. They were extremely disparaging of both the campaigns - pointing out (rightly) that the promises that induced a lot of people to vote Leave have melted away within hours of the vote result.

Lord Hain said: If, as we might all agree, the Brexit vote was a salutary one of no confidence in the whole political class, will that not be made even worse, perhaps creating a dangerous mood of betrayal, without a referendum for voters to decide whether they support the final Brexit deal?

Marvellous thank you, I will have a listen.

Lord Hain is using rhetoric. The referendum wasn't a vote on the political class, it was a vote to remain in or to leave Europe.

Not only the above, but an HoC vote would stop TM doing a Blair, so that if it goes horribly wrong, she won't have to shoulder all the blame herself.