THREAD: I don't agree @Femi_Sorry. Pandora's Box may have been opened anyway, infecting GB with populism, but it's past time we tell the truth. It was PM's & Parliament's job to stop Brexit. After advisory ref, PM weighs result together w all relevant factors to decide policy.

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @Femi_Sorry view original on Twitter

Then policy is put to Parliament to scrutinize & legislate if nec. May cheated, claimed ref was the decision. Normally it would be natural for a ref result to be accepted, because normally a ref asks about a change for the good. If the ppl reject the change, it's status quo ante.

It is flawed thinking. *Legally advisory but politically binding* is meaningless. The legal status of the Act trumps the political promise. Ref was perverse because one of the options was against the interests of UK. It's not normal to ask the public *Do you want to self-harm?* Process following the advisory ref is alluded to in briefing paper 07212. Mercer QC understood it directly I raised the issue at the conference. The Exec decision is based on considering the result together with all other relevant factors. They have latitude on weight accorded.

Either @abcpoppins is right about #A50Challenge or we have a profound constitutional crisis, b/c it will be determined that Parliament can be tricked by a sleight of hand into giving the PM power to bypass a legally required process, in effect giving the PM power to break the law

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @abcpoppins view original on Twitter

The decision process required by #A50 is simply that which separates democracy from dictatorship. Executive decides on policy within its party political perception of national interest, based on evidence, impact analysis, etc. parliament scrutinizes, then legislates if required.

THREAD: May & Corbyn have perpetuated a lie, so successfully that even Remain politicians fall in line: The people decided to leave the EU in the 23 June referendum,

*Referendum was a decision* was exposed as untrue in the Miller case, but the lie persists. #A50Challenge

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @A50Challenge view original on Twitter

So why do they persist with a lie? B/c the ref was advisory. Brexit was supposed to be May's policy decision, then for Parliament's scrutiny. But Brexit is a stupid policy. May didn't want to own it or have Parliament scrutinize it. Easier to bypass this procedure w *ppl decided*

Starmer: "With Labour having consented to the plebiscite it would be intellectually dishonest to say “Now it’s gone the way I don’t want, I’m not going to accept the result.”

What is dishonest is to legislate for advisory ref w/out safeguards & assessment a mandate would require Then to deceive the electorate, telling them it is their decision - a mandate - when the law says it is not their decision, but advisory.

Then, though you're a barrister, to contradict what the law says & confirms in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Ooops, @DLidington, that's not what you told the House on 16 June 2015, during debate on the EU Referendum Bill. THREAD

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @pestononsunday view original on Twitter

You replied to Alex Salmond that the referendum was advisory, so nothing followed from it, and therefore a safeguard, such as Amendment 16 which he wanted, made no sense.

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @RosChappell view original on Twitter

THREAD: Thank you Vernon Bogdanor for stating what many of us on twitter have said but virtually no politician dare admit

There is no such thing as *Soft* Brexit. The Hard vs Soft debate is a ruse, a disingenuous attempt to *respect the result* without destroying the country As if just leaving the seats in the European Parliament is what *leave the EU* meant in the referendum, The debate (if it can be dignified as a debate) was not about a building. It was about the rights & obligations, the costs & benefits, of EU membership.