|
All the vote gave was "Leave the EU", it did not give Politicians a road map of how to do it, thus it's open to interpretation.
Lots of complex issues of a constitutional nature have to be sorted out with Brexit (devolution being one). Parliament can nix the referendum result any time it likes, it's not legally binding (that is the constitutional fact, never mind the will of the people phrase). So If I were you, I'd reserve the anger for the Lords. Yes May is trying to cram the Lords with as many new Tory Peers as she can, but in reality I doubt the Withdrawal bill will have an easy ride in the Lords (especially if Tory peers rebel against the Government, which some are minded to do).
If anything Brexit has the potential to break the political system and maybe even push the constitution to breaking point as well. I'm of the view the Government will try everything it can to avoid using the Parliament Acts to push through the Withdrawal Bill. As there is a debate amongst Constitutional experts as to the 1949 Parliament Act actually being valid. If it's not any law made using that act would be void. It's not been tested in the courts and I'm pretty sure if the Withdrawal bill were to be forced through Parliament under the auspices of the 1949 Parliament Act then it would likely end up before the Supreme Court. We have no idea how the Judges would rule in that scenario, if plaintiffs were to be given the go ahead to challenge the possible use of the Parliament Acts to force through a Withdrawal bill. I don't think the Government would be foolish enough to try using the Parliament Acts in this instance. So It's merely a hypothetical scenario and not one worth getting worked up about. |
|