The Mandated Advisory Referendum. That doesn’t matter anyway
Manchester For Europe·Tuesday, 26 February 2019
On the 21st February 2019, the Court of Appeal sat down to hear the case of [Sue] Wilson and others versus the Prime Minister. Lord Justices Hickinbottom and Haddon-Cave presided over a tortuous series of opening statements before suddenly being presented with a surprise from James Eadie QC, representing Theresa May.
Without challenge, Eadie conceded that the referendum had met the threshold for illegality. Furthermore, had the referendum been binding, which it was not, on both the government and parliament, it would have a statutory, legal mechanism by which it would be annulled.
As it stands, as an advisory referendum, it does not have that force of law. Which was his defence. Meaning that the referendum could have said No, and Parliament could have instructed Theresa May to do it anyway. But the problems do not stop there.
James Eadie QC contended that although the referendum was in effect, illegal, it was not binding and so Theresa May, empowered by Parliament, as permitted by the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, notified the European Union of the UK’s intent to leave the European Union, as per Article 50(2) of the Treaty on the European Union. Setting in motion all the events and actions that have led up to this day, from one of the shortest pieces of legislation in the UK statute book.
The Prime Minister went ahead with this farce and she must have had legal opinion before this even came to court.
The UK is not a banana republic and should not be treated as such.
Please contact your MP now.