Taking precedent
Sir: In his excellent piece on the Supreme Court Article 50 ruling (‘Brexit in the balance’, 3 December), Joshua Rozenberg says that the 2015 European Referendum Act was not drafted with sufficient precision. But surely the whole basis of having an unwritten constitution is that the law is therefore interpreted on the basis of precedent — i.e. what is not stated.
Jeremy Wright should keep the government’s case simple. Parliament’s own sovereignty is derived from the people. The European Referendum Act of 2015 was passed by both Houses of Parliament, clearly giving a mandate from Parliament. Our legal system works on precedent. None of the other four national referendums (Northern Ireland, 1975 EU Referendum, AV and Scotland — along with various regional referendums) have been considered to be ‘non-binding’. Nobody ever suggested that the permission of Parliament was required for them to be enacted. Or that the government could not use the Royal Prerogative.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in