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.

The referendum should not override the power of parliament. However morally MPs should not vote against what has been decided by their constituents

So if a referendum approved hanging or abolition of rights to abortion, MPs are obliged to follow their constituents rather their own conviction of what is right for the country as a whole?

Huppo,

Get thee to Bradford and make your difference there! But don't describe anything said there as "unfortunate" or I cannot promise your safety.

Iappreciate the letter is well intentioned, and understand the desire to make a difference but this is a question of "everything looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer".

I say again, litigation lawyers are used to controlled environments whose rules they know and expect to be enforced. We are not in that environment.

This is not a problem arising from a lack of legal advice. This is not going to be decided by a court. The court hearings will just become part of the drama.

Or the death penalty - which polls show people are in majority favour of.

Morally MP's are obliged to act in the best interests of their constituents. Not just do whatever they're told to.

No. We haven't had referenda on those topics thankfully. But we did on this (which was a terrible mistake). I don't think you can hold a referendum and then ignore it, what would be the point of asking people to go out and vote? I sincerely hope we can work out a way to ignore it, but I don't honestly think it would be right. Anyway, surely MPs who went against their constituents would be voted out and they are not going to risk that.

"Theresa May has an absolute responsibility to ensure the rule of Law is followed before triggering such a monumental and irreversible constitutional change as Article 50. The Chilcot Inquiry has served as an important reminder of that."

Excellent point.

Greenwood, I suppose the problem is that the decision to have the referendum was ratified in a General Election?

Whereas thankfully no one proposes one on capital punishment in their manifesto (and no one mainstream ever will now - hey, a silver lining!)

I must say I'm a bit disappointed we can't find a quote where "Mrs. May has said she will serve notice when she is assured of a better deal for the UK. "

It would surely have been incompatible with her declaration that "Brexit means Brexit" and also difficult to square with the fact that negotiation starts after notice is given.

Ho hum.

Alisvolatpropiis, under normal circumstances yes, but not if you just had a referendum on that topic.

The point of an advisory referendum is to garner public opinion.

Can anyone link me to the list of lawyers that signed? I'm keen to read it.

We get hired for both sides of an argument and this is no different. This isn't lawyers valiantly taking a stand for our constitution. This is lawyers wanting to change a political outcome of a referendum once it has happened because they don't like it.

No voter went to the polls in the belief that the referendum was 'advisory' - voters thought they were actually having their say, and they were right.

I really do think it is creepy for lawyers to behave like this. It plays to every kind of arrogant, elitist, stereotype. If these lawyers wanted to do something useful they could be applying themselves in a thousand other ways. God knows, there's plenty to do. But accepting a demonstrably democratic process would be a start.

Majestic, as a sovereign nation, our Parliament are duty bound to act in the best interests of its citizens, which may or may not fit in with what the public currently wants.

Morals don't come in to it, the law does.

Agree with majestic and addtobasket.

Hear hear AddToBasket.

Parliament are duty bound to act in the best interests of its citizens, which may or may not fit in with what the public currently wants

It is this ^^ kind of we-know-best arrogance that get politicians hurled out on their ears and only the foolish think they can behave in this way. Lawyers are less self-aware - I think the sanction will probably be being ignored.

If only those who didn't want Britain in the EU in the first place had had that choice.

"In a sense they did have. Heath was elected in 1970 and took us in."

Yes, but that wasn't the EU as we now know it... there wasn't a referendum when John Major signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992.

By the time we get round to triggering the exit, a lot of water may have gone under the bridge. What is the status of the referendum result then? How long does the outcome remain binding for, those who contend it is or should be binding?
The referendum is a snapshot of opinion at a given time, no more. And I see no reason why the economic and other interests of half the population should be ridden roughshod over as a result of it, and it disgusts me to hear people argue that they should. I wasn't daft enough to vote for this idiocy and I'm damned if i see if I and my family should suffer for it.

Karlos, that is a smart question.time makes a difference.

Family lawyers offering advice on constitutional law just winds people up.

My god. Are we not bored of this yet. We voted out. Both sides lied. Politicians always lie. I wish ppl would focus on what we want out of leaving the eu now and not try and back track 💤

I don't want Brexit to happen and I am all in favour of the conspiracies and whatever dark arts can prevent it.

No voter went to the polls in the belief that the referendum was 'advisory' - voters thought they were having their say

Their say on what? They didn't vote on a plan, merely an idea. And many of the leave voters I've encountered are furious at the prospect of an EEA deal because that's not want they voted for. 'What's the point of that, I voted to leave the EU' one said. Well quite.

It's completely irrelevant if the voters were uninformed as to the advisory nature of the referendum, the information was available.

But accepting a demonstrably democratic process would be a start.

As 'demonstrably democratic' as the German 1933 referendum to leave the League of Nations? And subsequent referendums. There is no longer a constitutional mechanism in Germany to hold national referendums as the Nazis copious use of them proved them to be an easily manipulable mob vote.

It seems to me that the decision to trigger Article 50 must be 'demonstrably democratic' or we would be setting a dangerous precedent for leaders to make nation-changing decisions without recourse to Parliament.

Add

It isn't arrogant, it is the entire point of having a Parliament

The vote was the vote - Brexit means Brexit. We can influence what that will look like but not whether it happens.

Lawyers attempts to somehow retrospectively turn voters into a large focus group is disingenuous. I didn't hear a 1053 lawyers suggesting that this was an awful lot of money an time to be spent on just canvassing opinion.

The government invited voters to vote. Those voters were voting whether or not to leave the EU. They voted to leave. The government will now put that into action - as it must.

Have your say on the advisory nature before the event. It is only arrogance that tries to stop this after the vote.

I wish ppl would focus on what we want out of leaving the eu now and not try and back track 💤

That's like having your British citizenship stripped away from you, and 3 weeks later being told you should be okay with it.

(And I have googled but still can't find the list of signatories).