Mrs May calls the remainiacs’ bluff

Right on, John, right on.

I hope for its own sake the Supreme Court decides that Parliament cannot override the will of the British people, as expressed on 23 June. For the Supreme Court to decide the opposite would be a travesty — equivalent to agreeing that the tail can wag the dog — and would forever discredit the UK’s highest court. The President and Vice-President of the Supreme Court should have excluded themselves from hearing the Divisional Court appeal based on the principle that judges must not only be unbiased but must be seen by the general public to be unbiased — as expressed by Chief Lord Justice Hewart in the early 1900s and followed by such cases as In Re Pinochet (1999). If in fact the opinions of the two justices are included in the coming judgment, the outcome will to me represent a lasting stain on the British judicial system.

It would be interesting to know how each of the judges voted…..
Firstly in the referendum…..and
Secondly in reaching the verdict of the appeal.
What are the odds on these votes being identical……?

I think it’s inadvisable to refer to those who do not yet agree with us as ‘Remainiacs’. Abuse reflects the abuser, not the abused.

I have sent the following to the Telegraph and The Times, on different days, without success.

In law, the government has the right to invoke Article 50 without referring again to Parliament. The government’s prerogative is ‘a part of sovereignty which Parliament chose to leave in [the Government’s] hands’ (per Lord Reid in Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, 100). So when Parliament chooses to leave powers over treaties with the government, this is no affront to Parliamentary sovereignty. The government keeps the power to start the process of leaving the EU.

Treaty-making powers reside with the government in other common law jurisdictions like Canada, Australia and New Zealand: withdrawal from treaties is entirely a matter for the executive. Even in the USA, where treaty ratification is subject to Senate approval by a two-thirds majority, the power to withdraw from treaties vests exclusively in the executive.

In 1972, the government used the prerogative to sign the Treaty of Accession whereby we joined the EEC. Nobody complained then that the government exceeded its powers. The European Communities Act provided for changes to EU law effected by using prerogative powers to take automatic effect in domestic law. On that basis, since 1972 EU rights and obligations have been added to, amended and taken away through using prerogative powers and those changes have, with no further legislation, been effective in domestic law.

As Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said on 9 June 2015 in opening the second reading debate (Hansard) on the Referendum Bill, “This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017 … whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people.”

When the House of Commons voted through the European Union Referendum Act of 2015, by 544 votes to 53, it gave the British people the power to decide whether or not we leave the EU. Only the Scottish National Party’s MPs voted against. The House of Lords voted through the Act.

The Act itself did not say that it was advisory. Ministers never said that it was advisory. Both campaigns said it was not advisory. On the contrary, they repeatedly said that the referendum would allow the British people to decide. And imagine if the Stay camp had won, and if the government had then said ‘we have listened to the debates and we have now decided that leaving the EU is the right thing to do, your vote was only advisory’.

The referendum question was, ‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’ The question was not, “Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” Parliament decided to let the people decide. Nothing in the Act or in its legislative history suggested that Parliament intended that the government should only start to implement a decision to ‘leave’ if given further primary legislative authority to do so. It did not promise to hold an advisory poll, with Parliament left to take the final decision.

The government leaflet distributed to all households stated on the page headed ‘A once in a generation decision’: “The referendum on Thursday 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union. This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.” It did not say “it is your chance to advise on whether we should remain, the actual decision being taken by Parliament.” The Britain Stronger in Europe leaflet said, “On 23rd June, you will get to vote in the EU referendum, and decide whether Britain remains in or leaves Europe.” Both official campaigns were asked if the result was binding, both confirmed that it was.

[…] vocal and extremely prominent remainiacs who are clearly unhappy about this, but we believe that our analysis that Parliament will not obstruct the will of the people will prove correct. A recent poll confirms […]