4 ms·

Obviously things are not that black and white. Parliament voted overwhelmingly to hand this decision to the people in the form of a referendum.

enkid 10y ago
They voted to let people have a voice in it, not make the decision.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Yes, the key word here is "non-binding".
- skocznymroczny 10y ago
  Unless the result was for staying in the EU, then it would be "the nation has decided".
  - nicktelford 10y ago
    Staying in the EU requires no changes to UK law. Leaving requires the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act; an Act of Parliament can only be repealed by parliament (unless the referendum was made legally binding, which it was not).
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Well, that's the question, isn't it? During the debates on what was then the referendum bill, one MP after another, up to and including the level of government ministers, stood up and quite unambiguously supported the right of the people to make the decision. There was little if any hedging at that time. You can read the transcripts in Hansard, and you'll be hard pressed to find any MP who actually said what you just wrote, or anything like it. In the official government leaflet, sent to all households at considerable expense and amid considerable controversy, the explanation was also quite unambiguous. There was nothing in there about just giving the government a hint either. The legal difficulty seems to be that the enabling legislation for the referendum was poorly drafted and what was written didn't actually reflect what was being said during the parliamentary debates. Put another way, it's not clear that MPs were actually voting on what they thought they were voting on. I'm a little surprised that Pepper v Hart didn't seem to come up during the resulting confusion, but given the profound constitutional implications, the lack of explicit provision in the enabling legislation for what should happen after the referendum seems to be the main reason for the Supreme Court's majority decision today.
Arnt 10y ago
Right. If you ask a question, you have to take the answer seriously. In a democracy, the voters' vote matters even if the result does not please the government in power.
- cperciva 10y ago
  It was explicitly a non-binding referendum. You can't change the question after people vote.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    If it had been explicitly a non-binding referendum, we wouldn't be in this mess. The problem was that the actual wording of the law that was passed wasn't explicit either way.
  - Arnt 10y ago
    You can change it before they vote, by telling the voters that this election is a serious matter and their vote matters greatly. In that case the law doesn't force you, but your own statements require you to. Would you say that the British political parties told the voters that the brexit referendum would decide the nation's future? Or did they say "we'd like to hear your advice and then we'll consider the matter"?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- philh 10y ago
  But also, we have established procedures for how things are done and who has the power to do what. We haven't given the government the power to trigger article 50, so it would be undemocratic for them to simply take it.

enkid 10y ago

They voted to let people have a voice in it, not make the decision.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Yes, the key word here is "non-binding".
skocznymroczny 10y ago
Unless the result was for staying in the EU, then it would be "the nation has decided".
- nicktelford 10y ago
  Staying in the EU requires no changes to UK law. Leaving requires the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act; an Act of Parliament can only be repealed by parliament (unless the referendum was made legally binding, which it was not).
Silhouette 10y ago
Well, that's the question, isn't it? During the debates on what was then the referendum bill, one MP after another, up to and including the level of government ministers, stood up and quite unambiguously supported the right of the people to make the decision. There was little if any hedging at that time. You can read the transcripts in Hansard, and you'll be hard pressed to find any MP who actually said what you just wrote, or anything like it. In the official government leaflet, sent to all households at considerable expense and amid considerable controversy, the explanation was also quite unambiguous. There was nothing in there about just giving the government a hint either. The legal difficulty seems to be that the enabling legislation for the referendum was poorly drafted and what was written didn't actually reflect what was being said during the parliamentary debates. Put another way, it's not clear that MPs were actually voting on what they thought they were voting on. I'm a little surprised that Pepper v Hart didn't seem to come up during the resulting confusion, but given the profound constitutional implications, the lack of explicit provision in the enabling legislation for what should happen after the referendum seems to be the main reason for the Supreme Court's majority decision today.

Arnt 10y ago

Right. If you ask a question, you have to take the answer seriously. In a democracy, the voters' vote matters even if the result does not please the government in power.

cperciva 10y ago
It was explicitly a non-binding referendum. You can't change the question after people vote.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  If it had been explicitly a non-binding referendum, we wouldn't be in this mess. The problem was that the actual wording of the law that was passed wasn't explicit either way.
- Arnt 10y ago
  You can change it before they vote, by telling the voters that this election is a serious matter and their vote matters greatly. In that case the law doesn't force you, but your own statements require you to. Would you say that the British political parties told the voters that the brexit referendum would decide the nation's future? Or did they say "we'd like to hear your advice and then we'll consider the matter"?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
philh 10y ago
But also, we have established procedures for how things are done and who has the power to do what. We haven't given the government the power to trigger article 50, so it would be undemocratic for them to simply take it.