Referendum on Proposed Brexit Deal is a ‘Legal Necessity’

Referendum on Proposed Brexit Deal is a ‘Legal Necessity’

Holding a referendum on the details of any proposed ‘Brexit’ deal is a legal necessity according to Southport Lib Dem Councillor Tony Dawson.

He says: “The people of Britain voted narrowly but clearly in the 2016 advisory referendum. In a nutshell, people generally felt that Tony Blair’s completely unregulated open door policy to Eastern European immigration created a level of population change in this country which was too big a cultural shock to the British system. They were promised a whole load of other dishonest rubbish, too, but that happens in most elections and we have to live with the results of that.”

“It seems quite reasonable that, following this advice from the people, the government should try to obtain a positive ‘deal’ to leave the EU. But, given that the actual best deal available could not have been known at referendum time (an is still not known by anyone), it is not just reasonable but it is absolutely necessary for Parliament to check with the British people whether or not we are content to leave the EU and take the consequences of the best deal we can get.”

Outside of the political arguments, there is actually a little-known legal REQUIREMENT for the government to hold a final referendum on their Brexit proposals. The reasons for this are hidden away in the European Union Act which Parliament passed in 2011. This bit of law promises that (a) no government is able to amend or replace EU treaties without an Act of Parliament, and (b) no law which would increase Brussels’ power over the UK can be passed without a referendum.

Under the divorce agreement between the UK and EU, there is proposed to be an “implementation period” of Brexit running from 29th March, 2019 until at least December 2020. During that period, the UK will remain subject to all the rules of the European Union, such as free movement and the Single Market. But during those two years, the UK would have no ‘seat at the table’ to decide any of the rules and laws we will have to comply with.

So, by any analysis, this ‘transition period’ will involve Britain granting greater powers to the EU for a considerable time. Putting aside the political argument, there appears to be a legal requirement to hold a referendum on such a substantial and lengthy transfer of powers. The prospect of a transition in which GREATER powers are granted to the EU and the UK Parliament’s powers reduced was certainly not part of any Brexit campaign – yet no sensible person thinks that Britain leaving the EU without a substantial transition period is a ‘starter’.

Some try to say that that the 2011 law was superseded by the 2016 referendum. However, the government took no steps to repeal the 2011 law when it put through the legislation establishing the 2016 advisory referendum.

Former Conservative Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC MP says:

“It is entirely legitimate that this matter should be examined in court. Parliament provided for a referendum mechanism in the 2011 Act to ensure the public should be consulted on any significant EU treaty change. The terms of our departure and of transition are going to have major implications on our constitutional framework as and when they come into force.”

Of course, the 2011 Act can be repealed by Parliament—but, until that happens, says Cllr Dawson, “it remains a law like any other. That means that legally a referendum on the ‘final Brexit deal’ absolutely has to happen.One has to remember, however, that the Government is quite happy to act illegally when it can get away with it. And Parliament is sometimes a cowardly pussycat which runs away from making the government obey the law. So, maybe nothing will happen.”