Just where does the BBC get its journos? Wherever perhaps they should consider recruiting elsewhere.
Clive Coleman provides us with some genius journalism…that is no doubt intended to ‘encourage’ the Remain protestors to step up their protests in their attempt to overturn democracy.
No bias in that headline then. Coleman seems a tad disappointed that Brexit seems unstoppable…
While lawyers may raise arguments, it seems impossible to see a legal challenge stopping the great democratic juggernaut now chuntering towards the EU’s departure gate.
There are times when politics simply outstrips the law.
This feels like one of them.
So his conclusion is that the law can stop it but that politics trumps it. But erm, read his article and that’s just not true…the conclusion is really that the law cannot stop Brexit despite Coleman trying his best to engineer his piece to suggest it can.
For instance he asks if Article 50 can be stopped as it needs the assent of Parliament before it is invoked…
Article 50 says any EU member state can leave “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”.
That phrase has given lawyers pause for thought as to what is lawful under our constitution.
In a piece co-authored by three legal experts, for the UK Constitutional Law Association, it is argued that under our constitutional settlement, the prime minister cannot issue a notification under Article 50 without being given authority to do so by an act of Parliament.
The Article 50 process would cut across and emasculate the 1972 act, and so, the argument goes, the prime minister needs the backing of a new act of Parliament to give him or her the constitutional authority to push the Leave button.
He also promotes this campaign which most people will never have heard of…
There is also an attempt to crowd-fund legal advice on the issue: “Should Parliament decide?”
The Crowd Justice website says a legal challenge could be “the most important public law case in living memory”.
If it was decided that a prime minister acting alone under prerogative powers lacked the constitutional authority to trigger Article 50, an act of Parliament would need to be passed giving him or her that authority.
What Coleman and these lawyers seem to forget is that the referendum wasn’t done on the whim of the PM it was authorised by Parliament in the European Union Referendum Act 2015 and as such must authorise any Out vote would enable the government to trigger Article 50. Not a great deal of point in having a referendum unless you are able to act upon it one way or the other. Curious that Coleman makes no mention of the referendum Act.
Coelman then goes on to contradict himself by saying the PM could trigger Article 50 himself without legislation…
Consider also that Article 50 arguably does not need legislation and can be triggered by a prime minister using prerogative powers.
In other words, the two-year period could run its course without any agreement and thus any legislation by the UK Parliament.
Ironically he does mention Parliament voting for a referendum but in the context of the much desired 2nd one…
The sovereignty of Parliament is a cornerstone of our constitution, so it is possible it could pass a law calling a second referendum.
Note that bit about ‘The sovereignty of Parliament is a cornerstone of our constitution‘…LOL…..not whilst we’re in the EU and all our laws subject to its approval. Funny how ‘sovereignty’ is suddenly important to a no nation, no borders Beeboid when it counts in their favour.
He has a little bit of wishful thinking at the end..
However, although constitutionally possible, this is politically unthinkable.
It would take something akin to a revolution and full-blown constitutional crisis for it to happen.
If the petition grew to show a clear majority of the electorate now favoured Remain, that might be tantamount to the revolution and might possibly trigger the unthinkable.
But four million is a long way off that.
Get signing that petition Remainers…..go for it!!! Vive La Revolution!