Report comment

re David Crawford comment on: 5 November 2016 10:21 GMT

"Surely, Anon 8.56, it works the other way, the Referendum Act 2015 should have said, if Thursday's HC decision is correct, "and if the result of the referendum is to leave then HofP must pass a bill authorising PM to activate Art.50".

If my humble draft were incorporated in the Act the HC decision would surely have upheld it. Your version is rather like an agreement to agree. You can't bind Parliament to pass future unseen legislation.

"The triggering of Art. 50 is purely procedural and to be taken when the PM deems it appropriate to do so. David Cameron said he would do it immediately and no one at the time said he was wrong."

What Mr Cameron may or may not have said is not law. My earlier proposal @ 8.56 precisely reflects the procedural nature of Art 50. by enabling it to be implemented immediately if wanted. That was in reply to the suggestion that the referendum was not advisory and had as much force as was constitutionally possible.

Anyway thanks for your comments on the gutter press - on that we can agree.