<html>
<p><img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CukuBusWYAAsvws.jpg" width="1200" height="797"/></p>
<p>As is well known, on 23rd June the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. The British Government had clearly stated that it would implement the result of that referendum vote. But Britain does not have direct democracy. It is governed by 'The Queen In Parliament' - the technical phrase for the executive, legislative and judicial powers (which are not divided as they are in many modern states, in accordance with 18th century ideas of good government). So unless the Act of Parliament states that a referendum result is binding, it isn't. And the Act of Parliament calling this referendum didn't state that.</p>
<p>But there is narrow law, and there is political expediency and reality. The British people voted for Brexit (the common term now given to the process of Britain exiting the EU). And Brexit they will get. While legislators (MPs and Lords) could theoretically ignore the referendum result, in practise they cannot do so. There will be a General Election in 2020, and if lawmakers decided to ignore the will of the people, they would get short shrift in the ballot box. Confidence in politicians, already at a low ebb, would be destroyed.</p>
<p>But what of the lawyers? What of the judges?</p>
<p>Currently the High Court of Justice (pictured above) is hearing a case brought by a motley assortment of 'interested parties'. This case argues, in a technical sense, that the Prime Minister cannot begin the withdrawal process without a vote in Parliament. The argument is that the European Communities Act of 1972 (which took us into what is now the EU) created rights in law, withdrawal from the EU will remove those rights, and only Parliament can remove rights parliament granted. The government case is that this is an international treaty, and negotiating treaties is covered by the Royal Prerogative (executive powers exercised by the Government).</p>
<p>There is an irony here. The 'interested parties' are claiming to speak for the rights of Parliament against the Executive. But in reality they are seeking to muddy the waters and deny the rights of the people, who voted for Brexit. In the long run, for the reasons noted above, they will fail. I suspect most MPs hope they fail. The last thing MPs want is to be forced to vote on this issue. That would make them responsible - and they couldn't blame anyone else for the outcome.</p>
<p>So what do those making this legal case hope to achieve? At most they can delay the inevitable. Possibly they indulge in a fantasy that the referendum result can be overturned, or ignored. But it is a fantasy. Britain will leave the EU. And the most likely outcome is that the Courts will decline to extend their power into proceedings in Parliament. My guess is that the judges involved would rather not have to deal with this either. </p>
<p>The case is being heard by three judges, including the Lord Chief Justice. Whatever the result, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The Government is being represented by a legal team headed by the Attorney General. The 'interested parties' are represented by a legal team headed by Lord Pannick, QC, who's fees cannot be modest. The hearing has lasted five days so far. And so, as is so often the case, the real winners will be the lawyers.</p>
<p><br></p>
</html>