Report comment

A lot of heat has been generated, as you say, Anon 11.17am, but I think a little light as well. The good Messieurs Bindman have encouraged us all to enter into a debate on these momentous issues – so here goes for a brief summary of the preceding “conversation”.

FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REFERENDUM DECISION

Referendums are by implication binding, else what is the point of referring the question to the people at all? And this is particularly true under the British system where a referendum is an exceptional event, requiring specific primary legislation after mature deliberation and debate. No British referendum has ever been described as “advisory”; nor has the result ever been treated as mere “advice” but has invariably been implemented by the government of the day. There is no need to describe a referendum in the enabling legislation as “binding” because it is self-evident. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was no exception to the rule, because in that case parliament had already legislated proportional representation, though making its implementation conditional on the ratification of the people. No one has been able to show how the 23rd June referendum could have been made more binding than it actually is. At all events, the legislation could not have made it binding upon parliament because parliament cannot bind itself. Hence the use of the prerogative to implement the people’s will becomes a logical necessity of parliament’s decision (by an overwhelming majority) to pass the European Union Referendum Act 2015. Moreover, any attempt by a disaffected faction to frustrate the referendum result risks social and political consequences of a far graver nature than anything threatened from “Brexit”.

AGAINST THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REFERENDUM DECISION

(1) The more violent Remaindermen say bluntly that the people are stupid, got the decision wrong, and should be overruled by hook or by crook.

(2) The more moderate or more subtle ones profess respect for the referendum decision but insist that parliament must have the final say on the terms of our exit – and perhaps even on the question of whether we exit at all.

(3) This, they argue, is the constitutionally correct approach because the referendum was only “advisory” and did not “bind” parliament – although, when challenged, they are quite unable to suggest how the referendum could have been made more binding than it was.

(4) The moderates evade the problem that there is not, never has been, and maybe never will be a parliamentary majority for leaving the EU on any terms, and that consequently to remit the ultimate decision to parliament is tantamount to overruling the referendum result, precisely as the extremists wish.

(5) They profess an almost superstitious reverence for “parliamentary sovereignty” and express acute concern that this will be eroded by the use of the prerogative to implement the referendum result, yet they are supremely indifferent to the real destruction of parliament’s powers in vast areas of legislation as a result of our EU membership.

I have always thought that, with some exceptions, the enthusiasts for “ever-closer union” were motivated by no principle other than materialist self-interest or power worship, and that, having no solid or positive basis from which to confront the exponents of the nation state, they were forced to employ sophistry or angry abuse, according to individual temperament. Overall, the above postings seem to me to lend support to that (possibly jaundiced) view.