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.

It's lucky our criminal justice system doesn't allow decisions based on lies to stand. It's a shame there isn't more integrity in politics and journalism.

Green and others, please understand that this referendum was never binding, and who of you would claim that these politicians haven't broken big important promises before. As for Cameron, he in action voided the referendum by resigning and giving the legals time to potentially stop this from making it to the Art. 50. What he did there is the important bit, not his words, but what he did to stop it from happening and making the pressure increase and the legality of it all. The leave/remain was far to close and perimeters for a reliable and informed vote was non-existent in this referendum. They may as well have asked people if their favorite colour is black or white and had a vote on that. It has no legal binding, end of story. Now I hope the parliament take their allotted time and make an informed vote regarding this mess.

It's lucky our criminal justice system doesn't allow decisions based on lies to stand. It's a shame there isn't more integrity in politics and journalism.

I find it very odd that there is a widespread belief that the last few weeks of campaigning (lies on both sides) gave the Leave vote the edge. This subject has been the main topic of political discussion amongst my friends for years. Votes were not decided two weeks ago they were formed after years of watching the EU in mounting horror for me, not for those who voted Remain. The Referendum has been on the cards for years the last few ridiculous weeks didn't affect my vote.. The stupidity of the '350 million' or of Project Fear balance each other out. Both sides held shameful campaigns,

Exactly.

Which bit of legally needing primary legislation to invoke Article 50 don't people get? If it's not legal, it's not legal so it's going to be up for challenge. If it's unclear it's up for challenge. Thats how law normally works.

The Referendum has been on the cards for years the last few ridiculous weeks didn't affect my vote.

Hear hear. We've been watching it for decades.

The "350 million" was challenged so often in the media (and more often than the "remain" falsehoods) that nearly everyone would know it had been disputed.

Whirlwinds Cameron resigned, how does that 'void' the referendum? It can't possibly do so.

As for it being 'advisory', silly game to play...next General Election, expect a UKIP govt, as all those leavers and those who feel disenfranchised will not vote for the parties who welched on the referendum. Be very careful what you wish for.

Lightening - which bit of the EU was horrifying to watch?

Which bit of legally needing primary legislation to invoke Article 50 don't people get?

For a start, it's debatable.

UK Constitutional Law Association Robert Craig: Triggering Article 50 Does not Require Fresh Legislation

After outlining the other views, Robert Craig explains why "Article 50 is therefore already incorporated in UK law by primary legislation. Executive discretion to use it has therefore already been authorised and approved by parliament."

Yes and that's why I said if it's unclear it's up for challenge. Clearly those barristers believe it isn't clear and are therefore going to challenge any suggestion that primary legislation isn't required.

green your repeated autocorrect to Britex has really made me chuckle. I might refer to it as Britex from now on.

If that wasn't autocorrect and you are dyslexic, then I apologise.

You have absolutely no idea whatsoever whether or not the lies balanced each other out. I would have no problem with Brexit on the back of a referendum campaign that was held fairly and honestly - Brexit is what my dh wanted and he had intelligent reasons for his beliefs, just as I did for my opposing beliefs. However, the campaigning was not fair, or reasonable, it merely served to make me and most other people even more mistrustful of those responsible for governing us. I have absolutely no faith in any of our political parties being capable of getting us out of the mess we have been led into by our government and just foresee a bunch of intolerant bigots trying to take over the asylum. The referendum was the final nail in the coffin for respect of our political system, and without any residual respect, you end up with unpredictable anarchy.

In or out of the EU we are up shit creek atm.

Tom - yep autocorrect. Worst is I texted husband as he forgot something called him A pillock and it changed it to pollock! Didn't have the desired effect

Votes were not decided two weeks ago they were formed after years of watching the EU in mounting horror

Well said

Can someone tell me what horror they were watching unfold?

Great, either way you look at it, makes a mockery of democracy in this country.

From Remain angle, the lies and manipulation during the Referendum constitute the mockery.

From Leave angle, the fact that a letter is used to try to brush aside a majority vote on a record turnout.

Oh well, the sham is being seen for what it is...

Votes were not decided two weeks ago they were formed after years of watching the EU in mounting horror.

Totally agree, my vote was decided years ago. I voted Labour in the 2015 election because they weren't guaranteeing a referendum. The decision to hold a referendum and let the great British public decide was not one I wanted to see. I continued to watch with mounting horror as immigrants were continually scapegoated and I knew it would be close. I voted remain and would do so again.

In answer to a post earlier

I know three people who wish they had voted to remain and would change their vite. Whether they really would I'm not sure, but the dramatic effects to the markets and £ seem to be the reason for their change of mind. Before hand they had possibly thought it was scaremongering but now they can see it is a reality.

Looks like Theresa May will lead the Tory party and I doubt she will call for a general election for a few years yet.

kirinm I can only speak for myself, but the main issue for years has been the insidious creep towards an ever more unaccountable superstate

Some of us are old enough to remember that we joined on the understanding it would simply be a trading bloc (the "common market" as it was originally called) and the behemoth it's turned into is profoundly unwanted

In what way was or is the EU unaccountable? What measure do they make that they don't have to account for?

ivy forgive me, but I honestly don't have time for yet another long post about the processes of the EU commissioners/parliament and how they fly in the face of proper democracy

It's all been said countless times already, and the information's out there for anyone who wants to follow it up. I'm the first to accept that others may be quite comfortable with the steamrollering which goes on - though never ask me why - but I was asked for my own reasons and gave them

Yes. Only advisory. So it doesn't have to stand as our (destroyed) future.

Where's the politicians with the guts to stand up and say we can see what this is doing to our economy, our future, our NHS, everything - so we are going to reject that bit of 'advice'.

There was no mandate anyway in a couple of %.