Report comment

Mr Maloney – I do not think it is the High Court judgment that "gives parliament the power to annul a decision which by the Referendum Act 2015 parliament itself had remitted to the people". Parliament has remained sovereign throughout and has always had, and continues to have, power to pass what laws it sees fit. Had the High Court proceedings not been brought, it would still have been open to Parliament to pass a law that reserves to itself the power to give notice under article 50. Or one that confers power on the Secretary of State to give the notice. Or, like the Irish with the Lisbon treaty, one that provides for a further referendum to be held. Or, indeed, a law that makes any other provision that we can speculate about here.

However, whether Parliament does or does not do any of those things is a political matter – hence my comment about the seeming attitude of most of our parliamentarians. I was expressing a view that I supposed might provide some reassurance to those wanting to leave the EU, but my view could be wrong and your fear about Parliament refusing to take the exit process forward could yet come to pass. I think our parliamentarians would be unwise to take this approach, at least without explaining to the electorate what positive course of action was proposed instead. But the point is that there is nothing in the constitutional framework that binds Parliament to implement an exit from the EU – hence my assertion that, in law, the referendum was only advisory. In saying that, I do not doubt that those wanting to leave the EU would, with justification, feel hugely aggrieved if Parliament did nothing to implement their wishes. However, in constitutional terms, their remedy is to vote out of office the parliamentarians who brought such a situation about, at the next general election. Small comfort I expect, but that is the nature of a parliamentary democracy.