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

It's constitutional, Chris - parliamentary sovereignty trumps everything. That's why referenda in the UK are a) very rare, and b) only advisory. David Cameron made a promise to implement the result - but that is very different from being actually legally binding. He also said that he would trigger A50 on Jun 24th, but he soon backed away from that.

Para 1 (1) of the 2015 EU Referendum Act
A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union.

It then goes on to specify the wording of the 'question' to ensure there is no ambiguity whatsoever.

Arguing that this isnt actually asking for any sort of decision is really stretching it. But I suppose you could try the opinion poll approach..........

Yes, but that's the referendum itself. The Act made it a legal requirement to hold the referendum. But referenda are only advisory.

Many people have tried to explain this to you - as Red said, you can rant all you like about it - but you are wrong.

It's all getting a bit freemen on the land in here, isn't it?

Chris1234567890

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty states: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

See, the key bit there is "its own constitutional requirements". Does the use of royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 come under UK constitutional requirements?

The EU Referendum Act set out that a referendum was to be held, the dates when it was to be held, the exact wording of the question, who could vote etc.

The EU Referendum Act did not give any powers to Parliament to act on the results in any shape or form.

It is a glorified opinion poll.

"It's constitutional, Chris - parliamentary sovereignty trumps everything. " Youd think, hence the testing of the royal prerogative.

In times of war, it is 'accepted' that parliament supports the PMs position. However, to avoid MPs and Parliament actually being able to block any proposed action the PM sees fit to secure the nation, the royal prerogative gives the PM power with backing of the Queen, to act unimpaired. Tony Blair used it.... a lot. Its not just a 'war' type scenario, it covers Police powers, the judiciary etc etc etc. What needs to be understood, is that the royal perogative has also been maintained in its current form, by all parties.

Until now.

See, the key bit there is "its own constitutional requirements".

Yes

Does the use of royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 come under UK constitutional requirements?

Yes it does BUT it can't be used to remove our rights. That would be unconstitutional and the requirements of A50 wouldn't have been met. That's the point.

Chris and the use of the Royal Prerogative has been an issue. The executives tendency to seize power is a major weakness in our constitution. Lots of us have been campaigning for years about this. Hopefully more people will now be aware of the issue.

When tested the law generally supports Parliament - which is a good thing.

Lots of us have been campaigning for years about this

Not the least David Davis, with his Parliamentary Control of the Executive Bill in 1999. You couldn't make it up.

Agreed. Which is why I think an appeal to the Supreme Court is a good thing. Understanding how TM has got in this mess, (a mandate from the people vs the opposing majority view of representative MPs.....she had very little wriggle room, if any), it would be ironic if the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, top trumped the lot of us, which I have to say, is the most likely outcome.

My ire is directed at this belief that the 2015 Act itself allegedly stated it was advisory.. but I think youve heard enough from me on that one.

Chris, section 5 of the House of Commons briefing paper dated 07 June 2015 on the referendum. Entitled types of referendum:

"This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s
continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of
2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to
implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a
vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of
referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the
electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in
its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where
opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not
have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a
referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of
Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should
be held are set out in its constitution.
In contrast, the legislation which provided for the referendum held on
AV in May 2011 would have implemented the new system of voting
without further legislation, provided that the boundary changes also
provided for in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituency Act
2011 were also implemented. In the event, there was a substantial
majority against any change. The 1975 referendum was held after the
re-negotiated terms of the UK’s EC membership had been agreed by all
EC Member States and the terms set out in a command paper and
agreed by both Houses.64"

So exactly what everyone has said, all day, ouch, how much does it suck to be wrong when you are sooo arrogant?

Ah, to be fair Vulpe I think Chris had conceded in the last post.

And that briefing paper doesn't seem to have been widely circulated either - well found!

Doesnt suck at all Vulpe.....simply begs the question, why wasnt this bill reflected in the Act?

www.eureferendum.com/documents/000ahocbriefing.pdf

This is worth reading too.....not widely publicised either. See opening para , process for exit.

For clarity.. this is the Process (refered in the EU briefing) and opening para Im refering too. Issued Feb 2016. Para 2.1 executive summary.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/503908/545388EUSeriessNo2_Accessible.pdf

See opening para , process for exit.

Have you linked to the wrong document?

This one maybe?

x-post

PS Im not being smug......Ive only just found it too....... Thats my evening accounted for!

Yep Tucker, but its formed part of the EU briefing paper which is more important, not just a 'stand alone' in its own right.........

I assume you mean "The Government would have a democratic duty to give effect to the electorate’s decision"?

Note The Government would have a democratic duty. Not Parliament would have a legal duty. Do you see the difference?

First question, which briefing paper is relied on? June 2015 or Feb 2016 ? You would have to assume the latter, or maybe not, do we rely on briefing papers at all? (So many questions, so much time......awaiting the US elections :)

" I assume you mean "The Government would have a democratic duty to give effect to the electorate’s decision"?

Note The Government would have a democratic duty. Not Parliament would have a legal duty. Do you see the difference?"

No, I mean

2.1 The result of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union will
be final.

But that's just a promise from the Government, it doesn't bind Parliament to anything.

Look at it this way: if a party has a manifesto commitment to do something if they get in power then they can be said to have a democratic duty to go through with that commitment. Think the Liberal Democrats and tuition fees.

If events, the strength of opposition parties and their own party rebels prevent them from passing the required legislation and following through on their commitment then they've failed politically and let down that section of the electorate who voted for them based on that policy.

Is that so very different from this situation? They've made a commitment to follow the wishes of the electorate but until/unless they manage to pass the relevant legislation they can't actually follow through.

You remoners are like my ex

Knew leaving was the only solution but just wouldn't let go strung the envatvable out but in the end we sperated

If the MP try to fustrate this or there is a hint of trying to remain through the back door there is likey to be riots or civil in rest I think the remoners ply with this at there peril

Tucker, we're still hinging our argument on whether the Referendum was 'advisory' or binding. Vulpe quite rightly, found a briefing paper from 2015 that makes it very clear, the referendum was to be advisory only, however, the briefing paper here from Feb 2016, makes a very clear statement it will be binding.

I agree with you re manifesto promises. Yes, manifesto promises are not legally binding, (as tested re the Labour Party Lisbon Treaty Referendum case). But is that the same situation as here? No. Parliament did indeed pass an Act of Parliament, and acxording to the Feb 2016 briefing paper here, they were pretty clear way before the event, to all MPs in the house, that this was a binding referendum, not an advisory one as descibed in Vulpes briefing of 2015.

Re constitutional democracy......can we not go round those houses again? Please....... Happy for the Supreme Court to decide.