EU referendum result is not legally binding

[PurpleDuck]

This has cheered me up a little bit (I found it in my FB feed):

From the guardians comments section:

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

[Dave1879]

Currently at 2.4 million signatures I wonder where it will end?

Probably at 16,141,241- sorry but people will have to accept this FINAL result.
GB HAS to get United - if you're not willing to - then you better pack your bags!

[quasimodo]

The wording of the petition.

"EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum

We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum."

A request for a retrospective rule change for the referendum which has just passed and which would result in its nullity.Even if it gets 18 million signatures its chances of success are 0.

The dice is now cast and I for one look forward to the many opportunities this will present after we have negotiated the short term turbulence.It is intellectual snobbery to keep blaming the proletariat for acting in their own interests since the bourgeoisie have done likewise and always do.Amazing to see the complaints about them being to thick to know what they are doing.

As one of the great liberal thinkers Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his Social Contract asserted

"Every man having been born free and master of himself, no one else may under any pretext whatever subject him without his consent. To assert that the son of a slave is born a slave is to assert that he is not born a man.”

As one of the great Enlightenment thinkers he also asserted,

“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they.”

[ToadMum]

The wording of the petition.

"EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum

We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum."

A request for a retrospective rule change for the referendum which has just passed and which would result in its nullity.Even if it gets 18 million signatures its chances of success are 0

Quite. I looked at the petition hoping that it would be based on the instigator having found some long-forgotten but never repealed statute on the subject, but no. They might as well have said, it wasn't legal because my Aunt Freda's butcher told her it was going to rain, so she didn't go out to vote, or whatever.

[Stroller]

Quasi, I realise that you're replying to the posts about the petition, but the point about the referendum itself in the original post on this thread still stands.

Parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament can make its own decision and because of the words chosen/excluded when this referendum was drafted, Parliament's decision CAN override this referendum result.

[JaneEyre]

This has cheered me up a little bit (I found it in my FB feed):

From the guardians comments section:

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

Thanks for sharing, PD!

[JaneEyre]

Quasi, I realise that you're replying to the posts about the petition, but the point about the referendum itself in the original post on this thread still stands.

Parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament can make its own decision and because of the words chosen/excluded when this referendum was drafted, Parliament's decision CAN override this referendum result.

Last paragraph of the article subattached:

The brutal truth is that if the Scottish people — or the people of Northern Ireland — wish to be part of the EU, then they must leave the UK. Their hands will now therefore be forced, since however flexible the British constitution might be, the harsh reality is that the UK, and only the UK, is a State in international law — meaning that its constituent nations cannot be Member States of the EU unless they first acquire statehood themselves by exiting the UK. These are very early days, and events will move quickly and unpredictably. The break up of the United Kingdom, just like the UK’s formal departure from the EU, will not happen today or tomorrow. But just as the latter is now a certainty, the former must now be a distinct possibility, if not a probability. For that reason, if no other, the legal and constitutional implications of the Brexit vote cannot easily be exaggerated.

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/0 ... -what-now/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'Public Law for Everyone' is written by Mark Elliott. Mark is Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge, a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge, and Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution.

[Stroller]

That paragraph does not trump the point about parliamentary sovereignty. I'm not saying parliament will override the result of the referendum, I'm saying they can. It's a choice. Still.

[ToadMum]

That paragraph does not trump the point about parliamentary sovereignty. I'm not saying parliament will override the result of the referendum, I'm saying they can. It's a choice. Still.

In light of that possibility, it's a pity that David Cameron was so quick to announce his resignation? Which is not necessarily a reflection of my views on him, just that it makes it look like either your point hadn't occurred to him as a possibility (??), or, that it had and had been discounted (also ??, really, but like the attempt to impose retrospective rules re the turnout / majority, since it wasn't made clear upfront, is it an 'honour thing'?)

[LostInTheShuffle]

Perhaps there is a reason why referendums are generally not binding on Parliament, which is to provide flexibility in situations such as Brexit when 1) the outcome is very close (in the words of Nigel Farage, "In a 52-48 referendum, this would be unfinished business by a long way"), 2) the electorate may not have full information or may not realize the full implications of their votes, 3) etc.

I would urge MPs to vote with their conscience and in the best interest of the UK and not just blindly follow the result of a referendum which is advisory and whose consequences are so far-reaching, beyond what most people - including Leave campaigners - have anticipated.

Having said that, I feel that it would be proper for a general election to be called if Parliament does not give effect to the 23rd June EU referendum result. Perhaps that is a better solution than a new EU referendum (although I would still urge people to support the petition in order to make known the scale of concern about the UK exiting the EU - by the way, it has just reached 3 million signatures).