Re: Thursday's explosive anti-Brexit judgment
"There should have been a clause saying that the result was binding on the Government"
Why? Because Smooth Newt thinks so?
If the Government intended to act without Parliament's approval in the event of a Brexit win, then the Act should have contained a clause giving the Government the legal power to do that.
The Government's counsel probably thinks so too. Paragraph 105 of the judgment says "[The Secretary of State's] counsel makes it clear that he does not contend that the 2015 Referendum Act supplied a statutory power for the Crown to give notice under Article 50."
Biting the hand that feeds IT
