The text below is to be found on Wikipedia and concerns the sovereignty of Parliament. It is important because it could be true that a vote in both houses of Parliament could constitutionally overturn Brexit. I am no lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer, but it would seem that only Parliament created and passed the law that acceded to the EU, and only a vote by both houses can now dissolve those treaties.
“It was the view of A. V. Dicey, writing in the early twentieth century, that parliament had “the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”.
“There are at least three suggested sources for this sovereignty. The first is sovereignty by Act of Parliament itself. John Salmond commented that “no statute can confer this power on Parliament for this would be to assume and act on the very power that is to be conferred.” An alternative is to see sovereignty conferred by way of the repeated and unchallenged use of sovereignty through the promulgation of laws by Parliament. The second possible source are the courts, that in enforcing all Acts of Parliament without exception, they have conferred sovereignty upon parliament. The third alternative is the complex relationship between all parts of government, and their historical development. This is then assumed to be continuous and the basis for the future. However, if sovereignty was built up over time, “freezing” it at the current time seems to run contrary to that.
“A group of individuals cannot hold sovereignty, only the institution of parliament; determining what does and does not constitute an Act of Parliament is important. This is considered a “manner and form” requirement. In the absence of a written constitution, it is a matter for the common law to make this determination. ”
One law firm is apparently challenging the finality of the referendum. Were Parliament, with a Prime Minister that supported Remain in charge, to decide to ignore the vote, it would be within its constitutional right to do so . The reaction of the public is quite another matter.
Acting on behalf of an anonymous group of clients, solicitors at Mishcon de Reya have been in contact with government lawyers to seek assurances over the process, and plan to pursue it through the courts if they are not satisfied. The law firm has retained the services of senior constitutional barristers, including Lord Pannick QC and Rhodri Thompson QC.
Their initiative relies upon the ambiguous wording of article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which sets out how states could leave the EU. The first clause declares: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”
One of the grounds of a likely challenge to the referendum is that it is merely advisory and the royal prerogative cannot be used to undermine parliamentary statute.
According to Mishcon de Reya, the decision to trigger article 50 rests with the representatives of the people under the UK constitution. The firm has been in correspondence with the government since 27 June “to seek assurances that the government will uphold the UK constitution and protect the sovereignty of parliament in invoking article 50”. (Part of an articles in The Guardian)
I think the constitution is very clear: Parliament is sovereign, and the referendum was advisory, not binding. So technically speaking, Parliament doesn’t have to pass Article 50.
But it would be a mistake to go against the will of the people. Mostly because its immoral to go against the result of any referendum in my view. But also because of the chaos it would unleash. UKIP would emerge as an almighty force, fuelled by its would-be correct view that the establishment are ignoring the will of the people. Far right groups would be even more popular than they are now. What little trust there is in our democracy would quite rightly disappear.
The best we can hope for now is a Norway-style deal: inside the single market, with the free movement of labour. We would have most the benefits of EU membership and perhaps wouldn’t have to pay as much money. But we wouldn’t have the influence on the EU we do now. The result is that Germany will dominate the EU even more than it does now. That isn’t necessarily bad, but it is generally UK foreign policy not to allow any continental European power to become disproportionately influential. As a general rule, you shouldn’t allow any one group too much power. And if Germany makes a mistake, it drags the rest of Europe with it.