Report comment

Two points really:

The European Referendum Act 2015 could have contained provisions making it binding if Parliament desired it. The European Union Act 2011 does contain provisions (at section 6) for binding referenda on the expansion of the EU. (It's quite good and contains lots of useful 'what next' scenarios which are unfortunately missing from the woeful 2015 Act).

No sane Government would exit the EU by exercising Article 50 - it simply puts the UK in too weak a bargaining position by implicitly defaulting to WTO standards after two years unless a deal is reach in that ludicrously short timescale - it also automatically repeals a colossal amount of law (hence the judgment), so puts the Government into constitutional soup. U can see why Brussels wants to force us down that route but I cannot understand why Theresa May's legal team have accepted it. We should simply commence negotiations now and only serve Article 50 once we know what Brexit is. This handily avoids a constitutional crisis and the whole thing can revert back to the backroom where it belongs. Thoughts on why we have not done this welcome.