First legal attempt to prevent Brexit

[DallasDad]

I suspect Camerons successor will invoke article 50 legally or otherwise and in a few years time we will have another Chilcot type enquiry to work out if he ... I mean she, should have done so off her own bat.

Otoh this whole sorry situation could drag on in the courts for potentially ever, there is after all a tad under 50% of the country to support its festering messyness.

[Paddy]

Letter to the PM

More than 1,000 barristers have written to the Prime Minister to say that parliament must pass a law for the Brexit process to begin.

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.

The reasons for this include the following: 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 parliamentary vote must not be similarly affected. The referendum did not set a threshold necessary to leave the EU, commonly adopted in polls of national importance, e.g. 60% of those voting or 40% of the electorate.

This is presumably because the result was only advisory. The outcome of the exit process will affect a generation of people who were not old enough to vote in the referendum.

The positions of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar require special consideration, since their populations did not vote to leave the EU.

The referendum did not concern the negotiating position of the UK following the triggering of Article 50, nor the possibility that no agreement could be reached within the stipulated two year period for negotiation, nor the emerging reality that the Article 50 negotiations will concern only the manner of exit from the EU and not future economic relationships.

All of these matters need to be fully explored and understood prior to the Parliamentary vote. The Parliamentary vote should take place with a greater understanding as to the economic consequences of Brexit, as businesses and investors in the UK start to react to the outcome of the referendum.

For all of these reasons, it is proposed that the Government establishes, as a matter of urgency, a Royal Commission or an equivalent independent body to receive evidence and report, within a short, fixed timescale, on the benefits, costs and risks of triggering Article 50 to the UK as a whole, and to all of its constituent populations.

The Parliamentary vote should not take place until the Commission has reported. In view of the extremely serious constitutional, economic and legal importance of the vote either way, we believe that there should be a free vote in Parliament.

Yours sincerely

PHILIP KOLVIN QC

And 1053 others

[original PM]

More than 1,000 barristers have written to the Prime Minister to jump on the gravy train which is the post referendum brexit court challenges.

FTFY

The result of the referendum are not legally binding however if you start to say that some people voted the wrong way because they were a bit confused then surely you could then throw that accusation at every single election result.

For the sake of sanity we have to acknowledge this is one of the 'failings' of democracy but we cannot change it.

As Churchill said ""Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

[VectraMan]

As Churchill said ""Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

That's an interesting phrase because if democracy is a form of government then a referendum isn't democracy, because it doesn't involve the government. In a way a referendum is an admission that democracy doesn't work.

I think our newly unelected PM would be wise to get Parliament on side anyway. I don't think either Tory or Labour MPs would vote en masse against the wishes of the people, even if the SNP and LibDems do, so it shouldn't be too hard to win.

[Paddy]

That's an interesting phrase because if democracy is a form of government then a referendum isn't democracy, because it doesn't involve the government. In a way a referendum is an admission that democracy doesn't work.

I think our newly unelected PM would be wise to get Parliament on side anyway. I don't think either Tory or Labour MPs would vote en masse against the wishes of the people, even if the SNP and LibDems do, so it shouldn't be too hard to win.

So one day in the future, we have a referendum to impliment sharia law. Would you want the government to abide by the result?

[LondonManc]

Oh I would love to sue Johnson.

After seeing Tony Blair sued off course.

Wasn't she in Brookside? Bit harsh just because she's a scouser.

[LondonManc]

More than 1,000 barristers have written to the Prime Minister to say that parliament must pass a law for the Brexit process to begin.

Perhaps if the government had put together a proper fact sheet rather than warning about World War 3 and the four horsemen making an appearance then we wouldn't be where we are.

[Mordac]

Oh I would love to sue Johnson.

After seeing Tony Blair sued off course.

What has Sue Johnson ever done to you?

[Mordac]

So one day in the future, we have a referendum to impliment sharia law. Would you want the government to abide by the result?

If there was ever even the slightest hint of a vote in favour of sharia law, I'd be so far away from the UK I wouldn't give a flying wotsit about who implemented what.

[GB9]

So one day in the future, we have a referendum to impliment sharia law. Would you want the government to abide by the result?

If that's what the majority want, them yes. Or would all that said no be a better standard of person?