Report comment

Martin Maloney: "The judgment is concerned solely with the question of whether parliament has the right to overrule the referendum result altogether." Really? Although I voted to remain, this is not how I read the judgment. I read it as whether Parliament can be bypassed in effectively repealing laws that Parliament passed. It was a constitutional law question, albeit in the context of a particular situation.

For my own part, as someone who voted 'Remain', I hope and expect that Brexit, in broad terms as voted by a majority, can be effected as speedily and cleanly as possible. I have zero interest in impeding the process: this is a divisive issue and has the potential to cause mayhem, especially if it is drawn out and muddled by disputes and differences. Now we have voted 'go', I hope this can be achieved as efficiently and positively as possible. But I still think (constitutionally) that Parliament must be involved (subject to what the SC decides). But I sincerely hope that Parliament will not attempt to reverse the referendum decision, unless clearly mandated to do so by a majority (e.g. through a general election). We have had quite enough brou-ha-ha, thank you, and I would welcome a bit of stability (as would my pension fund)!