On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:28:30 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
14:52:00 on Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Robin remarked:
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could have repealed the relevant provision of the first one

The legal action currently in play is exactly that: does it require a
successor Parliament (such as we have) to repeal the various European
Union Acts, or can bit be done under the skirts of the Royal Prerogative
apparently held by the PM-du-jour.

No-one, as far as I know, says parliament can't - the argument is about
whether *only* Parliament can.

But triggering Article 50 would NOT repeal the European Communities Act - that requires legislation.
Article 50 is simply a mechanism to say a country intends to leave. That decision was taken by the
British people after Parliament overwhelmingly approved a referendum to settle the matter.

The argument of the Remain side is quite bizarre. They seem to be squaring up to defy the people
which could lead to civil war.