“Countries with actual written constitutions generally don’t allow for major and irrevocable changes on the basis of such a small margin.”

Ahem …

Unfortunately Article 50 is silent on that, and only the CJEU can give a definitive answer on the interpretation of Article 50.

That aside, some people seem to be behaving as if a supermajority had voted for Brexit in a binding referendum, rather than only 52% in an expressly non-binding referendum. Countries with actual written constitutions generally don’t allow for major and irrevocable changes on the basis of such a small margin.

But the terms under which we leave the EU are very important, and on that the referendum provides no clarity. For example, do the majority want a Norwegian style relationship with single market access and free movement, or do they want to slam the borders shut whatever the consequences.

The Labour Party has agreed to not block the Brexit vote in general, however, they have said that they will be fighting to maintain freedom of goods and capital. The EU has been pretty clear that all four freedoms go hand in hand. If Labour doesn’t feel that May’s government is capable of negotiating Brexit to maintain freedom of good and capital it could quite possibly lead to a vote of non-confidence. Just sayin’.

Thanks, Aaron. I agree with you that it seems unlikely that Parliament would refuse to pass a Brexit bill.

Thanks, Peter. I agree with all of this except I think that the mandate, right or wrong, was pretty clear—leave the EU. Maybe no one thought through how to make that work, but that’s different than saying there was no clear decision.

But even following this logic, the mandate from the people is anything but clear, since people who voted to leave did so for different reasons and not everyone can have the Brexit they thought they were voting for.

In your original opinion you said that the most surprising thing about the referendum is that there was a referendum. I think you’re right. It has been ill thought out, and no one had a forward plan should the leave vote prevail – no one except Cameron, whose immediate response was to resign. Sarah is right when she says the whole thing is embarrassing, and I will not be at all surprised if one way or another article 50 is never invoked.

Thanks Sarah. The latest report I’ve seen suggests that the Labor Party will not block a Brexit bill and will not call for a general election. So who knows, but perhaps Miller isn’t as big a deal as it might seem!

To Sarah’s thought above regarding the political firestorm that will result from Commons rejecting Brexit, I’m not so sure that will come to pass (although, Sarah may very well be spot on!). Given the significant number of people who voted Leave and then exclaimed “holy shite, I just wanted to send a message—I didn’t think we’d actually do it!”, retribution may not be as prevalent as the conventional wisdom might indicate. Moreover, strong buyer’s remorse may minimize the revolt.

The JR decision was consistent with the general Parliamentary sentiment towards prerogative powers and May’s government will lose more parliamentary support if they appeal it. I find it incredibly ironic (moronic?) that the people complaining about the outcome fail to see the acknowledge the idea behind prerogative powers in the first place.

I foresee a good possibility of a vote of non-confidence coming about through all this leading to an early election with promises of “In” or “Out” at the root of election platforms which will just move the whole issue from a direct referendum vote to a constituency vote. What a mess!

The whole thing is getting embarrassing. The UK won’t press the button unless they know they can have their cake and eat it too (keep three of the four freedoms) and the EU won’t negotiate until they push the button; which quite frankly they shouldn’t.