In message , at 15:46:23 on
Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Optimist 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could have repealed the relevant provision of the first one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.

The current argument, as I understand it, is whether or not the PM can
trigger Article 50 which is irrevocable and requires them to be able to
repeal the European Communities Act(s) even if Parliament (if asked)
would say "no". By using the Royal Prerogative.

Article 50 is simply a mechanism to say a country intends to leave.

I don't think you can change your mind.

That decision was taken by the British people after Parliament
overwhelmingly approved a referendum to settle the matter.

Parliament approved an advisory referendum.

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.

Teresa May is re-running the Civil War by saying [her] Royal prerogative
trumps Parliament.
--
Roland Perry