Cheshirechappie":lt4zbdtd said:
custard":lt4zbdtd said:
Indeed point one of Article 50 states that, "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements", and our "constitutional requirements" are crystal clear, sovereignty in this matter rests with parliament and not with the referendum. That appears to be the key fact, the way this country works is that we all vote for representatives to parliament who then vote on our behalf, and a referendum doesn't actually body swerve around that requirement.
So it looks as though the referendum itself doesn't have any actual legal weight, it was if you like an opinion poll, a testing of the water, an opportunity for the people to express their thoughts. But to have the weight of law it's now up to MPs to factor the referendum vote alongside other evidence and their individual consciences regarding what is in the best interest of the UK and then vote accordingly, and then it's for the Lords to accept or reject that vote. So if an MP believed the referendum vote was corrupted by inaccurate campaign promises, or that they thought many people had subsequently changed their minds, or they thought the referendum result was plain wrong for the UK, then they would be perfectly entitled to risk the wrath of their constituency voters and vote remain.
As Geoffrey Robertson QC says, backed up incidentally in a letter to The Times this morning from Charles Flint QC, another leading constitutional lawyer, "this has a long way to run yet".
However - against that - is that a very clear majority (small, but nonetheless clear) instructed Parliament that the will of the people was to leave the EU.
For Parliament to ignore the will of the people would be pretty well impossible, despite what constitutional lawyers may or may not say. A referendum is a means for the government to seek instruction from the people - it's now got its instruction.
The challenge for politicians is now to find an acceptable compromise that satisfies the instruction from the majority, as far as possible pacifies the large minority that voted for the status quo (including the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland), and extracts the UK from the EU with minimal damage to the economic positions of both. From news reports so far, it does seem that the saner heads in both London and on the continent are looking for ways to do just that.
I think it's unlikely, but it's far from impossible or even improbable.
There are plenty of examples where MP's vote against the general run of public opinion, the death penalty is one (every poll I've ever seen shows a majority of British voters are pro hanging), the question of Northern Ireland during the troubles was another (again, all the polls were crystal clear, hand Northern Ireland back to Eire and bring the troops home). And in the eyes of the law a referendum is nothing more than a big opinion poll.
The second thing is that every politician is told they have to balance three frequently conflicted positions when they vote; their conscience, their constituency, and their party. No mention on this list of a referendum result or the
national will, and I don't see how it trumps the other three.
I haven't done the parliamentary maths but you could have a situation where many Labour MP's say the position of my party was remain, so that's how I'll vote. We already know that's the instruction that will be handed down by the Lib Dem whips (or the "recommendation" in an open vote). Then there's all the Scottish and Northern Ireland MP's, presumably they'll also vote remain. And what about MP's from say London or Brighton or central Manchester constituencies, which were in favour of remain? Every chance they'll vote remain too. Then you've got MP's who are facing retirement, deselection, or a simple wipe out in the next election; we know that about two thirds of parliamentary MP's were in favour of remain going into this, so what's to stop them exiting their parliamentary careers on a principled high by voting their conscience?
And that's just the Commons. Beyond that there's the Lords to consider, where Lib Dems are rather more numerous and where they've already demonstrated in the last year their willingness to go against a democratically supported vote from the Commons.
Furthermore, all these factors will have a real bearing on the exit negotiations, watering it down and down, rowing back from promise after promise, in order to head off any risk of a parliamentary revolt.
Like I say, on balance it's unlikely that the referendum will be disregarded. But it's far from impossible and there's absolutely no legal reason why it has to be upheld.
