Hey guys! I just read an article in the Independent about something called the Referendum locks of the EUA (Eurorean Act of 2011)
This blog of mine needs a lot of explanation up front. First and foremost, I am not a lawyer, in fact I hate lawyering (Yes, I know there is no such word but there should be). I find it very confusing at best and ALWAYS try to distill the message down into a form my brain can accept. That said, you will appreciate that the content of this blog needs far more corroborating than your average article, and I wouldn't take my interpretation on face value let alone recommend anyone else does.
Next comes the source, the EUA 2011. Very respectable. Next comes the person mounting a challenge. The stance has drawn support from Dominic Grieve, the former Conservative Attorney General, who said: “This raises an important constitutional issue. Also very respectable.
Explanation, as I see it: Basically built into the treaty in 2011 (signed by David Cameron) was something called a referendum lock. Quite why and who put it there is still undetermined, but right now it creates a major headache. As I understand it, this means that a referendum needs to be held to confirm any parliamentary decision that impacts the relationship of UK with the EU. To begin, the question arises why nobody brought this up before, especially David Cameron. It could simply be an omission, or possibly those who did know about it, just shut up hoping nobody would notice. Then again, it could be said that Cameron knew, and when he lost the referendum decided to b*gg*r off before he had to explain why the entire exercise was a waste of time.
Now to the interpretation. It could be argued that the referendum was exactly that (a referendum of the people confirming a parliamentary decision or the people expressing their opinion on the EU) except for two little facts. The first is that it could be argued that the whole procedure was done back to front. That is, first the government would have to propose a withdrawal, layout how the relationship would change, which by necessity would mean having to define up front what kind of deal was being sought. If that was the case then all those that, it is said, voted leave just to spite the government for austerity, would actually have had to vote 'Stay' if their objective was to be met.
The second important fact is what is happening now. The very fact that the entire country is split down the middle about what kind of Brexit is to be sought, and nobody voted to be poorer, makes it truly necessary to move to a second referendum to confirm that which the government is proposing (or will propose in October when it actually knows what it wants, or more accurately comes up with something it could get through parliament) . As I have said many, many times before ... as things stand now, it is impossible for any government to put together any Brexit deal and be voted on by parliament, and be certain that is what the people want. Hell, the only way to get the House of Lords to agree these days is to have Teresa May threaten to disband them.
What is really in question here is the sovereignty of parliament. Who really is in charge? The government, parliament or the people?
Meanwhile, since you’re here perhaps you might consider signing the petition for the return of the final Brexit vote to the people. 3 Choices:
Accept whatever deal is available and Leave the EU
Reject the deal and leave the EU anyway (Hardest Brexit)
Accept the cost is too great and stay in the EU.
If there is no decisive winner (50%+) then you eliminate the lowest and repeat.
Ask yourselves, do you really trust a politician to take what is almost certainly the most important decision of your life for you?
SIGN THE PETITION FOR THE FINAL DECISION TO BE YOURS. Tell your friends. Tell your family. Tell your fellow students. This sale is only on until