Parliament should make final decision on Brexit, barristers say

More than 1,000 barristers have signed a letter to the prime minister urging him to allow parliament to decide whether the UK should leave the European Union.

The letter describes the referendum result as only advisory because it was based on “misrepresentations of fact and promises that could not be delivered”.

The barristers argue that there must be a free vote in parliament before article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon treaty can be triggered – paving the way for the UK’s withdrawal.

The initiative has been coordinated by prominent barristers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland including more than 100 QCs, among them Professor Sir Geoffrey Nice, a former war crimes prosecutor.

The letter states: “The referendum did not set a threshold necessary to leave the EU, commonly adopted in polls of national importance, eg, 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 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.”

Aidan O’Neill QC, an expert in constitutional and EU law and one of the signatories, said: “The Brexit referendum has made clear that the UK is not a united nation state, but a divided state of nations. It has given no mandate or guidance as to what our nations’ future relationship might be with Europe, and with each other.

“If the UK is to survive the result of this vote, a consensus needs to be built up about the way forward. Fully informed discussions and deliberations within and between our parliaments is the only proper constitutional way to achieve this. Precipitate or unilateral action by the UK government to trigger article 50 will simply further divide us.”

Continue at the guardian http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/11/brexit-parliament-should-make-ultimate-decision-on-whether-to-leave-eu-barristers-say

Fully predictable. I could hear this carve up of nobbled options in the sound of the political banter a few days after the result.

It only remained for a bunch of lawyers to draw it up like this.

do you guys think that really the uk want out , the people and are they ignorant to what they are voting for .   ?
just a question from an ignorant.
  Do you guys think that its real or is it just a marketing thing.

also why didn't irand and scotland and the gibratalenos  didn't get to vote ?

Scotland DID vote, and bloody nearly ruined the English vote.

A survey/study was done since that showed the areas that were more in favor of staying in the EU were areas that were getting the most money spent on them from either Brussels or London.

I'm still for OUT but I've noticed some negative effects of the vote. There's a nastiness rising. It's as if people have been given permission to be twats. Totally not got the point at all.

Scotland DID vote, and bloody nearly ruined the English vote. wrote:

Sorry as i said i was asking out of ignorance.

What are are some of the negative effects of staying out that you have mentioned .

We're still bloody well in the EU and it's looking less likely we'll ever get out.

The negative effect I've seen is the noggin-heads are getting worse instead of better. I'm not a football fan and I've never been to a big match or traveled to away games etc but the atmosphere is feeling more like I imagine that would feel.

Tonz wrote:



What are are some of the negative effects of staying out that you have mentioned .

The negatives are more than EU grants, the real danger is big multi-national manufacturers moving out, esp in areas that really need them like the big Nissan plant near Sunderland in the NE & the Siemens wind turbine plant in Hull that was set to turn the penniless backwater city into a boom town, there are potentially massive implications for poorer areas, but most people can't see beyond "immigrants".

There is the whole "globalist" agenda, but most people won't even be aware of what that is anyway

why would the big multi nationals want to move out ?

They sell most of their product into the EU market.