On 08/11/2016 12:05, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
On 07/11/2016 13:35, tim... wrote:
So why are they desperately pushing ahead with Brexit despite it being
because it's what the people voted for

But it was a non-binding advisory vote.

If the government had intended it to be binding on them, they could have
written one line into the referendum Act to say so. Which would have
also saved them an embarrassing defeat in the High Court (and, I
predict, a repeat in the Supreme Court).


Under our unwritten constitution, the conventional view is that no
Parliament can bind its successors. So, even if such the referendum Act
had included such a provision, another Act after the referendum could
have repealed the relevant provision of the first one (and if necessary
further provisions enacted to annul any penalties or other consequences
stemming from it and from its repeal).

(NB this is related to but somewhat separate from the question of the
legislative supremacy of Parliament given that Parliament would only be
taking away what Parliament had given - not taking away some fundamental
right stemming from common law.)

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid