Report comment

I voted remain. Leave won the vote.

Whatever happens at the end of this, we will leave. The majority of people have voted for more money for the NHS and more control of our borders (notice how the first bit has been conveniently forgotten?) and it would be hard to ignore that.

However, it clearly has to go back to parliament. The error in the Defence is that 'the decision' which leads to the prerogative powers being exercised is the non-binding vote. It is not in the people's power to do so, unless parliament gives the referendum this power (which it didn't). It is clear that 'the decision' is to overturn the previous act of parliament and to grant powers to negotiate. This power is parliament's. The fact that the Act is silent means that the power to pass laws remains with parliament.

To hold the opposite view you have to argue that parliament is not sovereign, and that either the people can organise a vote to overturn statutes of that the decision is May's to make alone. If the latter is true, could you accept her deciding to remain, without discussing it in parliament or holding a vote? Clearly not, and that reflects the absurdity of the position now argued.

I think there is merit in parliament discussing the issue, but at the end they will vote to leave. If an area voted to leave then its MP will carry that vote. We might see some abstentions from some saying 'I cannot disobey my constituents but I cannot vote for a recession' etc but ultimately the vote will carry.

What does need to happen is to make sure it is done right. If a later Prime Minister wanted to go back into Europe then he could challenge the validity of this and take us straight back in. That's not in anyone's interest to have that uncertainty.