This is potentially a game-changer!

[pensivepolly]

Breaking news from the High Court on Article 50: www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/parliament-must-trigger-brexit-high-court-rules

"To say, the 2015 EU Referendum Act stated it was "only advisory", is wholly incorrect"

It is correct, you can twist and turn as much as you like, but it is correct to say that the referendum was advisory.

Sorry if it doesn't suit you. But you are wrong.

All referendums in the UK are advisory because parliament is sovereign, you'd need to have constitutional reform prior to the referendum act occurring for it to be binding. This it means that the lack of any provision for the act being legally binding, in the act, means that it isn't.

I have no intention on repeating over and over again, why you are wrong. You choose not to deal in facts, rather 'opinion'

I will merely point you to both the Electoral Commission, who were legally held to account to ensure voters understood what they were voting for, and also the Governments leaflet issued to every household. Both these statements accurately spell out, what the 2015 EU Referendum Act decision was.

If indeed your claim that the Act stated it was advisory only, then both the government of the day AND the independant, impartial Electoral Commission, tasked with ensuring the legalities were adhered to, broke the law under the 2015 EU Referendum Act. (Ill post links)

Last para.

Governments leaflet to every household.

Anything less than representing accurately the 2015 EU Referendum Act, is breaking the law.

So why did Farrage accept yesterday that the referendum was advisory ?

Why does everyone else accept this as there has been no change to constitutional law?

The leaflet wasn't a legally binding document btw.

The referendum wasn't binding because no change has been made to parliaments sovereignty.

End of discussion

Chris, you're wrong - none of what you've posted means the referendum was legally binding. It was advisory, DC (and now TM) have promised to implement the result of the vote.

As I said, even Farage admits it was not legally binding.

There are some very patient people on this thread.

It was advisory. But a parliamentary vote against it, or designed to frustrate it by forcing a poor negotiating position still creates a constitutional crisis. Because parliament's raison d'être is to represent the people and the will of the people. Politicians stand on the basis of a manifesto which gives them a mandate to follow their policies if they win.

Now they have been given a clear mandate by the electorate. If they don't follow it, a constitutional crisis will be caused by MPs going against their explicit purpose - which is to represent the people.

A double layer of this is that the only social classes who voted remain were the wealthy and powerful ABs. And it is now the wealthy and powerful ABs sitting in parliament and with the money to bring court cases who are taking control and subverting the wishes of the electorate. A wealthy minority acting for their own wishes rather than the will and interests of other, mainly poorer people, is not a democracy. It's a plutocracy.

To so absolutely subvert the political system to such an extent that the entire basis of that system (democracy) is subverted, does cause a huge constitutional crisis.

So although the referendum wasn't binding, it is still formed in a way that should make defying it almost impossible to do without causing a huge crisis.

I voted Remain and am neither wealthy nor powerful, more's the pity. 16 million is a big 'minority'.

One of the people bringing the court case voted Leave, in case it's been forgotten. Why should he be trying to thwart his own wishes?

And the Leave champions - Farage, Banks, Gove, Fox, Murdoch - yep, all as poor as church mice.

As far as I can see, the referendum bill doesn't actually specify any interpretation of the outcome, e.g. what constitutes a victory.

A legally binding referendum would have to state clearly that such-and-such an outcome has such-and-such consequences.

E.g. "In the event of a simple majority of ballots being cast for Leave, the Prime-Minister shall notify the European commission that Britain has decided to leave the EU within 6 months of the referendum date."

This is not self-evident, as there could be other conceivable interpretations of the result, i.e. you might require all four nations to vote leave, or consider the result invalid if the turnout was

Governments leaflet to every household.

Anything less than representing accurately the 2015 EU Referendum Act, is breaking the law.

Actually its not.

Electoral material - such as leaflets - is not subject to same laws as advertising on representation / misrepresentation. It is exempted.

This is why you can't take claims written on the side of buses to court too.

Already looked into that at length from the other side of the coin.

The legal documentation is the only text that ultimately matters when it comes to whether the referendum is advisory or not. It states it was advisory. It does not matter where else it says to the contrary in law.

Politically it would be very difficult to argue the case against the result of the referendum, but it does not means that it is enforceable.

To say it is not advisory is only a political position. In law it is advisory.

You can howl all you like about it, but at the time of the referendum that was the case and you can not change the law retrospectively.

You can make it harder to make it impossible to take as advisory politically, but that it.

The law stands.

Cos that's the difference between law and politics.

It is not somehow EU law which is now no longer valid because we had a vote. It is still British law - even though we still have EU law in the UK until the end of the process of leaving. The vote does not somehow override the rule of law in this country. Law has to be enacted and agree within parliament, because we live in a parliamentary democracy. The will of the people is not recognised in law for a reason. This did not change on 23rd June. Any suggestion it is, is incorrect, and since it challenges the rule of law, is under British Law, regarded as 'extremism'.

Therefore since it is regarded as extremism, I will treat such talk in this way, and regard it as I would anything that came out of the mouths of BNP or Britain First.

Red, "It states it was advisory."

But it didnt. Show me. Vulpe failed, Im sure he/she would like your help.

I see the hot air still continues.

Tivola, "Maybe leave didn't actually win?!" Running through your logic, maybe indeed. However, no one has challenged the legality of the referendum. Interesting concepts though, but sadly, the referendum and the Act that enshrined its legitmacy and subsequent result, was passed in law. Your using the same logic of "ommision" that Vulpe is. Who said more votes is a win? Perhaps this was an episode of pointless?

Chris1234567890

there is nothing in the EU Referendum Bill requiring any action to be taken on the results, i.e. a statement to say if more votes are cast in favour of Leave than X will happen by this date, or if more votes are cast in favour of Remain then Y will happen.

Chris
No, it doesn't say that anything has to happen - that's the whole point.

If it stated in the Act that a leave vote would mean we had to take steps to leave then that would have given the Government the automatic right (and duty) to invoke A50 - that would be their Parliamentary approval and they could just crack on.

Because because it doesn't actually require (or even empower) them to take any action they now need Parliamentary approval.

Reading some of the debate at the time the Bill was going through Parliament it's clear that the Government genuinely thought in the event of a Leave vote they could go ahead and invoke A50, or just choose not to, as they saw fit, but that they would keep their promise and invoke it.

" there is nothing in the EU Referendum Bill requiring any action to be taken on the results, i.e. a statement to say if more votes are cast in favour of Leave than X will happen by this date, or if more votes are cast in favour of Remain then Y will happen."

Except the legally requested decision to stay or remain within the EU. Apart from that, I agree with you. However, we dutifully, did what parliament asked us to do. Decide.

How you extricate yourself then from a contract, becomes terms of the said contract. Our parliament cant decide to rewrite the exit terms of Lisbon......no matter how much everyone is screaming for it. Its not within our legal right to do. Its an EU contract.

edit....clearly I meant remain or leave in last post.

"If it stated in the Act that a leave vote would mean we had to take steps to leave............"

Really? No seriously. Really?

You seem to start off arguing one thing and then reach the opposite conclusion. I'm confused.

Unless the Supreme Court decides differently then it wasn't ever within the Government's power to invoke A50 without Parliament's approval. Therefore any promises it seemed to make to do so aren't valid. If that's the case then nothing can be done about it unless Parliament now gives their approval. Nothing at all.

If the Act had been drafted in such a way as to make withdrawal from the EU mandatory then there wouldn't be an issue.

Really? No seriously. Really?

Yes, really.

You don't express yourself very well. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

@Chris Except the legally requested decision to stay or remain within the EU

Decision? What decision? The bill doesn't mention anything about a decision (just a "question"). The referendum was basically a glorified opinion poll. Govt/Parliament free to ignore it if it wishes.

"Unless the Supreme Court decides differently then it wasn't ever within the Government's power to invoke A50 without Parliament's approval."

Thats absolutely correct. The Miller judgment has indeed done just that. However, the implications of the Miller judgment spread far wider than just a Brexit bun fight. Its correct that it now goes to the Supreme Court.

"If it stated in the Act that a leave vote would mean we had to take steps to leave....."

You would have voted differently if your vote to leave actually meant leaving?