By Gabriel Princewill-
The recent court victory compelling the government to consult MP’s before invoking Article 50 was based on the fact that the EU referendum was ‘advisory’.
This means the essence of the referendum was to provide a recommendation on the route the country wants the government to take. The referendum was never binding in essence., and this affirmation by the High Court means the advisory referendum can
effectively stop Article 50 from being invoked to commence the Brexit outcome of last June’s referendum which received the widest turn out ina political vote throughout British history.
Nigel Farage
Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, was forced to admit this fact when he clashed on Sunday, during Andrew Marr’s live TV show- The
Andrew Marr show. Farage clashed with the lead claimant- Gina Miller, who single-handedly led a legal challenge to the Government on the issue.
Miller, a very intelligent investment manager, and philanthropist mounted the high court challenge that led to the ruling against Theresa May’s right to trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament. Known for his direct assertiveness, Mr
Farage challenged Ms Miller saying:
“I just want to ask her – what part of the word ‘leave’ don’t you understand?”to clear up the lack of “legal certainty” over how the process of Brexit should be begun.
Ms Miller explained that her challenge was aimed to clear up the lack of “legal certainty” over how the process of Brexit should be undertaken. Mr Farage proceeded to accuse Ms Miller of giving ”all those in Parliament who interpret the referendum not to necessarily mean we should leave the single market, ”the chance, effectively, to overturn the Prime Minister’s wish and mandate her”.
“If that happens, you will have stirred up, I think, the biggest political upset we’ve ever seen,” Farage stated.
Ms Miller cooly insisted the UK has a representative democracy which ensures politicians have to debate issues, adding that if Parliament had wanted to give away its sovereignty over the choice to trigger Article 50 and leave the EU, “the Referendum Act would not have said it was advisory”.
“The politicians lied all the way through because they didn’t say that [it was advisory],” she said.
“Ah. Well… I take the advisory point,” Mr Farage said.
He said: “I would now wish to see [ a]constitutional change to make referendums binding and that would end this argument and
there’d be no need for this case,” to which Ms Miller responded “absolutely”.
Advisory
The implication here is that whilst the referendum informs on the path the people want the country to take, it was merely ‘prescriptive’, not ‘instructive’. This is precisely what advisory meant. The latter inference means that when all the practical pros and cons of Brexit are soberly evaluated, the government is entitled not to implement the outcome of the
referendum.
This insight is nothing new to those who truly understood the referendum, yet this concept was never clearly conveyed to the British public. The information was out there, but never explained. Most Brexiters would not have turned out to vote if they
understood this, begging the question as to why the government never explained this.
The answer is short and simple. Former U.K prime minister,David Cameron, intended to stand by the decision of the referendum vote, and did that by resigning when he lost the referendum. David Cameron has since then never thrown the advisory card in an attempt to
derail the referendum from being implemented, but a number of Mp’s have been moaning ever since.
Pursuit Of Brexit
Current prime minister, Theresa May, has been strident in her pursuit for Brexit, confidently projecting her ”Brexit means Brexit” rhetoric, resonating her decisive time table to honor the wishes of the British public. Well done, to the prime Minister, she is an honorable woman! Theresa May has actually been following through with Brexit. She has been proactively pushing the Brexit agenda.The bad news is that Brexit cannot be autonomously implemented without consultation with Parliament.
This isn’t cheating the public, it is simply adhering to the law, which is supreme. The practical complexity here is that the British people turned out to vote with the expectation that the outcome of the majority vote will be honored. Their wishes should be implemented unless good reasons are provided to suggest otherwise. The parliamentary debate cannot be avoided, and boy, will that be interesting.
Ruling at the Supreme Court
Theresa May declared her intention to challenge the high court ruling at the Supreme Court, and has declared her confidence that they will be victorious. The U.k Prime minister has even called the bullish European president, Jean-Claude Juncker, to tell him that her time table on Brexit will not change.
However, unless the lawyers for the government are up against an incompetent lawyer in defense of Ms Miller, the eye of media.com can in advance announce that Supreme Court will not overturn the high court’s decision. Advisory means advisory, there is no alternative way to interpret it. Ms Miller can represent herself in that case and win hands down!
Some of the mainstream press has criticized the court, referring to them as ” the enemy of the people”, but they are unarguably wrong. Their prejudice is based on a fear that the historic Brexit they looked forward to may now be scuppered. However, the issue should be thoroughly and carefully debated, with the spirit of the referendum implemented, unless strong and compelling reasons to delay, prevent, or modify the path of Brexit are heard
Brexit must be thoroughly and carefully debated, with the spirit of the referendum implemented, In the absence of strong and compelling reasons to delay, prevent, or modify the terms of Brexit, Brexit will be followed.There will be Mp’s who believe they can present those arguments, but we shall see.
All ideas and predispositions to overlook the underlying advisory connotation of the referendum, are either dictatorial or an attempt to avoid or shy away from the intense debate that will surely follow a parliamentary debate on the issue.
Examination Of Brexit
Ultimately, we will all be privy to the arguments raised, and will cross that bridge when we get there.
Mr. Farage warned of disturbances on the streets if Parliament attempts to thwart Brexit, an is planning a 100,000 protest March to the Supreme Court. However, Mr. Farage, whatever anybody has against him, is intelligent. He is strongly euro
skeptic, but he is not stupid. He has conceded the referendum was advisory, and must respect that absolute fact. The important thing now should be to prepare and exhaust the issues that a parliamentary debate will throw up, and see how they go.