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.

Shiny - why? How do you seem to know that fact.

Isn't it Theresa May who is responsible for not controlling non-EU immigration? I believe she was angry with Cameron for his ridiculous promises on immigration. So anyone thinking controlled immigration is going to happen, dream on. If it goes down, it will be because nobody wants to live and work here any more.

Czech foreign minister has suggested very vocally Junckers should resign. I think Polish politicians have spoken out against him and his role in Brexit as well.

But I think its a stupid argument because no remain leavers wanted the same

The difference is that the Remainers were voting for the status quo: a known entity, with all its imperfections out in the open. Leavers voted for a series of promises, most of which cannot be delivered - as the leaders of the Brexit campaign admit.

Shiny - why? How do you seem to know that fact

Don't take my word for it - listen to Daniel Hannan admit it here

You cannot have the single market without free movement of labour - and the Brexiters know it. You have been misled.

'The difference is that the Remainers were voting for the status quo: a known entity, with all its imperfections out in the open. Leavers voted for a series of promises, most of which cannot be delivered - as the leaders of the Brexit campaign admit.'

There is no 'status quo'. The imperfections are far from 'in the open'. Europe is continually evolving and many European politicians want a far deeper union.

Equally, the extent of the pain being felt in southern Europe and the potential for many of the Southern European members to either have to be rescued at the cost of hundreds of billions (or even trillions) or Euros was not heavily mentioned.

As I read it, they are not saying that the govt can ignore the referendum result, but that there needs to be a vote in Parliament on primary legislation before Article 50 can be triggered.

What's the problem?

larrygrylls - I view southern Europe like other parts of the UK myself but appreciate I am extreme (can't think of my line for leaving the EU for example - ok with EU army, Ok with EU superstate etc). I would rather earmark £250bn for helping them than for shoring up banks and markets after a shock result in a referendum that should never have been had.

I can't see Theresa May chucking the single market out the window in favour of trade with Peru, Columbia, and South Korea.

Have you any idea of the effect leaving the single market will have on us?

Underpar,

It could be a lot more than £250bio. I really don't see most countries' populace X accepting significant pay rises to bail out Spain (for instance).

you are at least honest, though, in having a consistent view. But then you really have to accept tax harmonisation, otherwise you get tax paying nations bailing out nations with lower taxes.

opensideno7 - That is your definition of controlled?? Okaaaay

whats your definition then? as from what I read these system people talk about dont make any difference if anything it goes up!

Bengalcatmum - South Korea wants a free trade agreement with us without any payments, legislation, movement ect.

Im not surprised anyone who want to sell us stuff will want a free trade agreement, what are we going to sell them that they cant make cheaper etc??!?!!? How would that help UK to generate money rather than spend it easier?

Free trade/movement is the deal that labour and tories are going for. There will be raging on the streets, with no general election to have seen what the plan was for the general public, I predict a massive UKIP surge in voters - protest as they anarchically would just walk away with no deal.

Breaking dad

whats your definition then?

The fact whether or not that they currently are net contributors, doesn't make the immigration controlled or otherwise, they are entirely unrelated factors.

larrygrylls - Yes, as I say, EU superstate governing all states would be ok for me. I honestly totally identify as European and struggle to understand what being British means to me.

The fact whether or not that they currently are net contributors, doesn't make the immigration controlled or otherwise, they are entirely unrelated factors.

I beg to differ, the fact they put in, more than they take out completely destroys the argument about their being a 'drain', 'uncontrolled' etc. The question is why aren't services being increased in line with tax amd NI receipts regardless of the source wether in nationals or foreign.

I beg to differ, the fact they put in, more than they take out completely destroys the argument about their being a 'drain',*

They are totally separate arguments. Whether they (the immigrants) are a drain or not, is utterly irrelevant to whether we currently have controlled or uncontrolled immigaration.