It’s been a bruising and disappointing few days for all of us, but two nights’ sleep, a lot of conversations and some thought have left me impelled to express an opinion in the Voice. I am setting out my contentions, for which I am grateful to the many people I have discussed them with, below.
The first point is that the proposal to leave the EU is a major constitutional change and that it is just not apposite to make such changes on the basis of a simple majority in a referendum.
That point is reinforced by the fact that this referendum was agreed on the basis that it was an advisory referendum, not a mandatory one. I suspect that had anyone asked the question. “Why was there no threshold for the decision to be acted upon?”, the answer would have been to reiterate that the referendum was advisory and it was for Parliament to consider it.
The second point follows from that. Parliament should consider it. As such the fatalistic acceptance of the result as if it were a final judgement from an all-powerful deity is not an appropriate course of action for our legislative representatives. So this means that people should insist that such consideration takes place. There is a case for the proposition that the invocation of Article 50 without such consideration is illegal.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Welcome aboard
A cross between Biggles, Tintin, the Famous Five and Fitzcarraldo
First Labour by-election gains of the Burnham Premiership
The problem with balancing budgets
Hywel 
Peter Martin 
Jeff 
Peter Hirst 