It is BREXIT (1) - The overall vote was to leave the EU

The United Kingdom referendum on EU membership resulted in a LEAVE vote of 17,410,742 (51.9%) and a Remain vote of 16,141,241 (48.1%) - see Electoral Commission and Telegraph for full details.  The turnout was 72.2%

Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted overwhelmingly for the UK to Remain in the EU.  The implications of this will become apparent over the next few weeks. Even though the question put to voters was whether the UNITED KINGDOM should remain or leave, there can be no doubt that voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland would have been voting for what they perceived to be in the best interests of those nations.

The Prime Minister will resign in the early autumn- Prime Minister's Statement 24th June.  That does not automatically result in a General Election.  In law, the government is Her Majesty's Government and, formally, HM The Queen appoints the Prime Minister though in doing so she will act within constitutional conventions.

The formal process of leaving under the Treaty on European Union Article 50 will not begin until a new Prime Minister is in place.  Mr Cameron said -

Ellie Butler

On 28th October 2013, Ellie Butler (age 6) was murdered by her father Ben Butler - BBC News 22nd June 2016.

On 21st June, Ellie's parents - Ben Butler and Jennie Gray - were sentenced at the Central Criminal Court - see the Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Wilkie.   Ben Butler was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and the judge fixed his minimum term at 23 years (less days on remand).  He also received 5 years for Child Cruelty.  Those sentences will run concurrently.  Jennie Gray was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for Child Cruelty and 24 months for Perverting the Course of Justice.  Her sentences are consecutive.

UK and the EU (12) - Final post of this series

On Thursday 23rd June, the United Kingdom will make its decision in the EU Referendum: Remain or Leave.  This series of 12 posts and an earlier post (Brexit ~ referendum ~ a few points) are my attempt to present factual information to assist with what is undoubtedly a most difficult decision about the future of our nation.

I spent a considerable amount of midnight oil writing a longer piece setting out my view and the reasons for it.  It was an interesting exercise but it also led me to the conclusion that it is not the role of a law blog to seek to persuade anyone to vote one way or the other.  I have therefore settled for setting down the links to the main official information issued by government and Parliament as well as links to the earlier posts in this series.

Above all, cast your vote.  As Abraham Lincoln said - "Elections belong to the people. It's their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.”

For my own part, principally because of the likely economic impact of Brexit, I will vote to remain.  The EU is far from perfect but the issue before us is very complex and a vote to leave will have massive economic and political consequences.  For instance, the EU is highly unlikely to be willing to offer the UK the same access to the single market that it enjoys as a full member.  That could result in profound and adverse impact on business in the UK and future trading arrangements may take years to establish.  There are also likely to be serious consequences in other areas such as the fight against terrorism and crime with an international dimension.  In the event of a Leave vote, much will depend on future negotiations as to what kind of arrangement is achievable.  Politically, depending on the outcome, it could call into question the very future of the United Kingdom as a "Union" of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.  Regarding Ireland, would a customs border between Northern Ireland (out of EU) and the Republic of Ireland (in the EU) be acceptable?  Almost certainly not!  Given the common trading arrangements across this border, the imposition border controls will have the potential to destabilise the Northern Ireland "peace process" based on the 1998 "Good Friday Agreement."  [See BBC News August 2019].

The referendum has some serious flaws.  For example, there is no requirement in the EU (Referendum) Act 2015 for there to be a pro-Brexit majority in each of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - (i.e. the constituent parts of the UK). Thus, a simple majority will decide the issue and the result - either way - could be very close and that would lead to serious division in the UK.

There are further likely problems with the Article 50 process by which the UK will leave - if that is the decision.  Article 50 is not, in my view, well-drafted and has never been tested.  Just one such question is whether a notification of leaving can be unilaterally withdrawn.  Better understanding of this process is certainly required before committing the UK to it.

The question on the ballot paper seeks to reduce this entire complex question to a simple binary "in or out" vote and places no controls over how Ministers might go about withdrawing the UK from the EU.  There are no questions about the form that leaving might take.  Will there be an agreement for the future relationship and, if so, what form will it take.  What would be the consequences if such an agreement is not reached?

A further question exists as to the role of Parliament in the event of a leave vote.  The referendum outcome cannot be binding in law because the Referendum Act does not even try to make it so.  Action by Parliament to implement the outcome therefore seems to be necessary and that raises deep questions about whether Parliament should act independently and make its own decision or merely rubber stamp a referendum leave vote.  Referendums cut across both the sovereignty of Parliament and UK's tradition of representative democracy.


The main official information:

The Baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill ~ Reference under Judicial Committee Act 1833 s.4

Updated 20th June:

On Monday 20th June, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will give its advice to Her Majesty in the Pringle Baronetcy reference - see Judicial Committee website.  On the 10th of November 2014, HM The Queen made a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 so as to obtain the Opinion of the Committee as to which of the Applicant (Norman Murray Pringle) or Respondent (Simon Robert Pringle) should be entered on the Official Roll of the Baronetage in respect of the Baronetcy of Stichill.

Previous post 14th October 2015.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has advised Her Majesty that Norman Murray should be enrolled as the Baronet - Judgment (PDF) and Press summary (PDF)

Inquests - legal aid for families

An amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill aimed at getting parity of representation for families at inquests failed in the House of Commons on 13th June.

At the end of the debate Mr Andy Burnham MP said - "It is disappointing that the Government were not even able to accept the principle that we should have equal funding. It would have been a step forward if they had been able to do so. I understand that they are asking Bishop James Jones to look at these matters, but of course, this issue goes much broader than Hillsborough. It is about fairness in our criminal justice system, and I believe that the Government are missing an opportunity by not acting on it quickly. Quite frankly, it is obscene for police forces to continue to spend large amounts of money on hiring aggressive lawyers to challenge families in the way that they do at inquests. This scandal should not be allowed to continue, and we in the Opposition will continue to fight against it until there is real change.​"

The full debate is HERE and the voting for individual members is HERE.   The new clause 63 (now defeated) is set out below.  It would have made funding for legal representation dependent on a recommendation by the Police and Crime Commissioner for the Police Force under investigation.  This would hardly have been seen as satisfactory.

UK and the EU (11) - The event horizon approaches - What if it is Brexit

Event Horizon

Suppose that the outcome of the EU Referendum is Leave.  The UK will then start its journey along Brexit Road - a road without any detailed road map.  This post takes a somewhat speculative look at some of the matters that might arise along the way.  First of all, a couple of points of law:

1.   The referendum result does NOT bind the UK government or Parliament in law.  There is nothing in this Referendum Act (or elsewhere) to require - as a matter of law - the government or Parliament to either do anything at all or to do any particular thing.  For further discussion on this point see the article by David Allen Green in the Financial Times (£) - Can the UK government legally disregard a vote for Brexit?

2.   The Treaty on European Union (TEU) Article 50  sets out the ground rules for withdrawal.  Art 50(1) - "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

So, what are the constitutional requirements in the UK?  Since this referendum result will not, in domestic law, bind the government or Parliament it would seem that Parliament ought to somehow endorse the result.  Unless that is done there may not actually be a "Decision" for the purposes of Article 50.

The formal process set out in Article 50 does not begin until the British government gives notice to the European Council.  The notice would trigger everything including the 2 year (possibly extendable) timescale as set out in the Article - see Art 50(3).  Precisely what constitutes "notice to the European Council" seems not to be specified but it probably requires a formal communique of some sort from the British government to the European Council President.

Lord Judge ~ Ceding power to the Executive

Most members of the public would be surprised to learn that Parliament frequently hands to Ministers massive powers to make legislation.  The outcome is an enormous volume of material and that is, in itself, a cause for concern.  Whilst Parliament exercises some controls over this "Ministerial legislation" it is more often than not quite minimal.  Even more concern arises from the insertion of Henry VIII provisions into many Acts of Parliament.  Here is a brief look at the issue.

Henry VIII clauses:

The Childcare Act 2016 is, by any standards, a very short Act with a mere 8 sections.  The Act requires the Secretary of State to secure free of charge childcare for qualifying children of working parents for, or for a period equivalent to, 30 hours in each of 38 weeks in any year.  

To enable the Minister to do this he is given extensive powers to make "Regulations" and those regulations may, amongst other things, amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or under an Act (whenever passed or made).