Report comment

The referendum question was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?" There has been much heated discussion over voters' reasons for voting as they did, but the referendum asked nothing about reasons for a voter's decision. This is relevant because of the huge amount of hot air expended on the possible 'terms' of Brexit. The referendum question did not refer to terms at all, and was unqualified in any way.

I am no constitutional lawyer, but it doesn't seem to me that the referendum can be legally binding, in the sense that Parliament must follow it. There is precedent, of a sort, in election manifesto promises (for which voters may vote) and their non implementation or even overt abandonment. Such actions may have consequences, but that does not mean they are illegal.

If the referendum result is binding on Parliament and the Government (in a way which other promises voted for are not), then the precise terms of Brexit are irrelevant, given the simple referendum question. Notice should be served as soon as possible under Article 50, and the UK withdraws from the EU irrespective of whether any alternative treaties or arrangements can be made with either the EU or the rest of the world before the withdrawal takes effect.

It would be unwise - political suicide even - to ignore the referendum result, but given the starkness of the question, and the slow realisation of the detailed complications which arise from the Brexit vote, there is surely some political wiggle room for negotiations of some sort over the terms of exit and alternative arrangements with non EU states (as well as the EU). If the Government gets this wrong in the electorate's eyes, doubtless it will be punished in the polls and the polling booths, as is traditional (and constitutional). It is in this political context that the reason why people voted as they did becomes important: if the Government's negotiations over the terms of exit (whether with the EU or otherwise) find favour with the electorate, they will probably not be punished electorally.

There is some little wiggle room even if the referendum is legally binding, but it is surely limited to a question of timing - 'within a reasonable time.' However, given the simple question, a 'reasonable time' is possibly only a few days or weeks, not the three months already elapsed, nor the six-plus months the Government has suggested.

It will be interesting to see the Supreme Court's judgment on this issue (I assume that it will whizz up to the SC pretty quickly), and their reasoning.