Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
AS THE FALLOUT from the UK’s decision to leave the EU continues to reverberate across the world, Remain supporters are desperately asking: can a Brexit be averted?
Theories are abounding that Britain’s parliament, a future prime minister or even a second referendum could annul the Brexit vote.
Prime Minister David Cameron ruled such a move out in a parliamentary debate yesterday, telling MPs: “This house shouldn’t block the will of the British people”.
But that didn’t stop some MPs from posing the question and the issue is being widely debated among voters who are still hoping to avert Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.
1. Is there anything to be said for saying another mass?
As some Leave voters publicly voiced their ‘Bregret’ at voting for a Brexit, there were calls for a second referendum to be held.
A petition calling for a new referendum had garnered more than 3.8 million signatures by yesterday.
The New York Times even cited Ireland’s twice-held referendums on the Nice Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty as a possible means for the UK to hold another referendum.
However, a ComRes poll on Sunday found that just 1% of British people who voted to leave are unhappy with their decision.
And analysts have ruled out any new vote right now.
“There is a very powerful principle in British democracy that one vote is enough,” said Tony Travers, a professor at the London School of Economics.
“It would be very unwise to hold another referendum, it’s not going to happen,” he said.
However, a general election could change things.
University of Edinburgh professor Neil Walker said “a fundamental difference of course” could be triggered “if a Brexit government collapsed overnight”.
Top Brexit campaigner Boris Johnson himself earlier this year was widely interpreted as saying that the referendum might not necessarily mean Britain was out.
He said that only by voting to leave would the country “get the change we need” in the EU.
Johnson later retracted the statement and said: “Out is out”.
2. Parliament could still vote on it
According to some lawyers and MPs, parliament must still vote on a bill to allow the UK to leave the EU.
David Lammy of the Labour party said the referendum was “an advisory, non-binding referendum”.
“We do not have to do this,” Lammy said. “We can stop this madness and bring this nightmare to an end through a vote in parliament. Our sovereign parliament needs to now vote on whether we should exit the EU.”
Leading lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC was also of the opinion that “it’s not over yet”.
“Laws which passed last year to set up the referendum said nothing about the result being binding or having any legal force,” he said.
Before Brexit can be triggered, parliament must repeal the 1972 European Communities Act by which it voted to take us into the European Union, and MPs have every right – and indeed a duty if they think it best for Britain – to vote to stay.
3. Don’t trigger Article 50
The referendum is not legally binding and the process of leaving does not begin until the prime minister officially invokes Article 50 of the EU’s governing treaty. So in theory, the future prime minister could opt not to push the big red button on a Brexit.
A senior European diplomat said over the weekend that their personal view was that London “will never” invoke Article 50.
Cameron has already delayed the process by refusing to invoke the article himself.
He said that formally starting EU withdrawal talks will be a matter for his replacement as prime minister, but none of the victorious Brexit campaign leaders appear in any rush to start what will no doubt be lengthy, complex and painful negotiations.
Johnson – one of his most likely successors – said that changes “will not come in any great rush” while Cameron’s other possible successor, Theresa May, opposes leaving the union.
Chancellor George Osborne has said that only the UK can trigger Article 50.
We should only do that when there is a clear view about what new arrangements we are seeking with our European neighbours.
However, a prime minister who refuses to invoke Article 50 will be going against the expressed wishes of the 17.4 million Britons who voted to leave.
European leaders have also been quick to call for Article 50 to be invoked quickly.
Martin Schultz, the president of the European Parliament, told German newspaper Bild am Sonntag: “We expect the British government to deliver now.”
“The summit on Tuesday is the appropriate moment to do so,” he said.
French President Francois Hollande also said Britain should “not waste time”.
But German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she was not in favour of pushing for a speedy withdrawal.
“It shouldn’t take forever, that’s right, but I would not fight for a short timeframe,” she said.
4. Scottish veto
Last April, the House of Lords said any decision to exit the EU would have to be approved by the parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
While Wales supported a Brexit and Northern Ireland’s leading party, the DUP, supported the Leave campaign, Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon has suggested her parliament could withhold consent.
Sturgeon told the BBC over the weekend that she would “of course” ask Scottish MPs to refuse to give their legislative consent in light of Scotland’s 62% vote to remain in the EU.
However, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, insisted the Edinburgh parliament does not have the authority to block Brexit.
“I suspect that the UK government will take a very different view on that and we’ll have to see where that discussion ends up,” Davidson said.
Additional reporting - © AFP 2016
Legal fees are incredibly high for very little, €120 for a solr to stand up on free legal aid to say we plea guilty Judge to a public order charge, it should be 3 chances of free legal aid after that u sail your own boat, enough of the molly coddling of thugs by the state
True, but the cost of legal services itself badly needs to be addressed – this profession has been protected for far far too long.
Think of the exorbitant costs of the tribunals and how much more benefit society would have gained if the same money had been invested in health or education.
Don’t get me wrong, I think accountability is important and it is right and proper that tribunals take place, but the cartel that is the legal profession has milked this to the last.
@Dave Bowery A solicitor doesn’t just meet a free legal aid client on the day of court, stand up for 30 seconds and collect their fee. What about the consultation before hand in the solicitors office? That has to be factored in. Go to an accountant and ask them how much they charge per hour. Professional services are high in general, not just solicitor fees
Colin, as someone that has been in court for being pissed (not one of my finer moments) I can tell that is exactly what they do.
*you
Agree totally dave every day that these indviduals are allowed to police themselves is another blow for democracy the levels of corruption which takes place in the courts is truly frightening and every one of us at some point get burned by them , this level of criminality in this country has to stop but i fear this goverment is not part of the solution but part of the problem .
Pay them what they pay nurses. Sound fair?
What is wrong with Irish democracy when politicians, have to get outside help to explain the obvious!
Root and branch reforms are badly needed.
If people do not believe corruption exists at african levels in our courts go to the high court on monday 14 court case no 201039sp.
The politicians want things as they are, that’s why they have never reformed or just look like they’ve changed something and take pittance cuts in their pay. They all may jump up and down in front of you, but in the Dail bar they wink and nod at each other. This country is a Basket case, If you want real reforms? Then have a revolution, otherwise nothing will change and thank the Troika for pointing at the obvious!
One thing that always amazed me as I drove up into Dublin as was made to make room for the flashing blue lights of a convoy of a prison escort was why couldn’t the judge drive to the prison to hold court instead of the prisoner being transported to Dublin at large expense?
Most court hearings will not result in a custodial sentence.
That’s what Cloverhill iis for.
I’m not 100% on this, but if I’m not mistaken the state spent half a billion on lawyers in 2011. Half a billion! WTF?
With reports this week of a cut of a 1,000 guards for a year to save ?25 million you would have to wonder what kind of a basket case country we live in.
The elite always look after themselves.
Solicitors,bankers,politicians and developers are the golden circle of this country,there not going to upset the apple cart to much with each other
And doctors. This country is a haven for the rich.
Just so you know, not every doctor in the hospital is a consultant. There are non consultant hospital doctors. Who earn a lot less and work long unpaid hours.
Ah but of course, that is jealousy of the cozy nine to five guys or those on the dole.
Are you a dr? All drs are paid extortionate salaries. Consultants pay is just mental altogether. They should bring salaries way down for drs and consultants. That way we can pay for better services for our sick people.
And how is it jealousy if someone has a 9 to 5 job if drs hours are much longer. Surely drs should be the jealous ones as there hours are soooo much longer.
There’s probably a reason you didn’t become a doctor, it’s because you have to be intelligent and work hard, the financial rewards are representative to there skill sets
Lowering yourself to insults you silly individual. I chose not to be a doctor. Good money but hours are terrible and no social life.
Bad wording by myself, It wasn’t meant as an insult. It’s the same reason I am not a doctor, if it was easy to become one, there wouldn’t be a shortage of doctors. I don’t agree with sentiments that doctors are over paid, the complexities of surgery and work that goes into becoming a doctor deserves the financial reward. The same goes to the frontline doctors in a&e, gp’s and nurses. they are well paid but not over paid. We take our health system for granted far to often.
@Phil If you work hard for something and invest for it, it is normal that you seek the financial reward that comes with it. If you wish to remain in your own job forever and not want to better yourself, then you deserve your circumstances. And you say yes the doctor work hours are long and lacking social lives. Does that mean you agree that long work hours should go unpaid? Just because we work for the government it doesn’t mean we should not be entitled to labour rights. But I guess since you want to lynch all doctors, why not chain their legs and make them work for free, you’d like that for sure
…you are wrong: check out http://www.solvemylegal.com where ordinary solicitors are quite happy to provide transparency on legal fees .. first of its kind in Ireland
One thing is for sure. Leaving aside the excessively high hourly rates for lawyers, now being severely driven down by the Taxing Masters of the High Court, the still archaic procedures of the Courts and of Tribunals have been the largest variable in the grossly excessive level of legal costs charged to people, businesses and to the tax payer of Ireland.
I would defend however the ordinary Joe Bloggs solicitor and barrister who do not work in the big law firms or in the upper ranks of the Law Library. The fruits of the practice of law are not evenly spread and the vast majority of lawyers now struggle, just like most of the rest of us, to survive. As with the rest of society solicitors firms are going out of practice because they can’t meet insurance and other overhead and reduced dead for services. Barristers are leaving the Law Library for the commercial sector and this is as it should be. No sector in society should be immune from market forces.
I will cause controversy with this observation but very few lawyers in private practice, likely none at all, have the pensions and other benefits enjoyed by the upper echelons of the public sector and trades union. Getting a judicial appointment is now the real plum.
As for the State tendering for legal services, most law firms are quoting below cost just to get the work and in he hope that it will lead to more work.
The gravy train is well and truly over for lawyers, except for the delicious clover of NAMA work, but that is a special skill and only the top legal talent in the country can do such rarified work. The rest scrabble to survive and in doing so are pretty much the same as most of the rest of us.
I will shed no tears though. Lawyers only have themselves to blame for the perceptions which have arisen and in all areas of life an entire occupation or profession will be judged by the standards of the fat cats at the top. That’s just life and many have lived well.
In fact, some lawyers lived so well in the past that they got deeply immersed in big property deals which have gone very badly wrong. Many are trying to hold on so as to avail of the new Personal Insolvency Bill when it is enacted. Bankruptcy looms for many of the former semi fat cats because they made so really bad investments.
Speaking personally, I’d welcome reform, what people mightn’t be aware of is that the current system places serious restraints on trade for practitioners into the bargain. And, as you say, it’s only very few who are making huge money from the law, the average solicitor/barrister is struggling to get by, just like everyone else.
“Getting a judicial appointment is now the real plum.”
Disagree on this, a moderately successful senior counsel or solicitor could make a lot more money.
@ voodoo, the reason for the attractiveness of the judicial appointment is not the current salary but the exceptional future benefits. That’s why barristers and some solicitors will sacrifice short term income for the pension benefits they could not possible fund out of current income.
It’s always commented on how many Td’s were teachers. However did ye notice how many are lawyers? And even more importantly its a very high percentage of ministers. Cozy cartel
That of course has nothing to do with the fact that a reasonable level of legal expertise would be helpful as a TD. That is if you want your TD’s to exercise their true legislative function?
I see no mention of the fact that we have fewer judges per head of population than almost any other country in the EU, leading to long, drawn-out proceedings, leading in turn to escalating legal costs.
No mention either of the fact that we are ranked 63rd in the world for enforceability of contracts: that’s disgraceful. We badly need better enforcement of court orders which ensure compliance with contracts; you would see a huge drop off in legal fees as a result. That will probably require some sort of cure for our society’s deeply ingrained infantilism, though.
“… notably the prohibition of the ‘solicitor’s lien’ (by which solicitors may hold a client’s file pending payment of fee).”
A moronic suggestion, it amounts to a licence to not pay for services rendered. Too many people in this country want something for nothing as is without making it worse.
Monopolies do not need to change in times of recession, unlike most other economic goods or services.
Its beyond a joke the stranglehold Kings Inns has on the profession. Its a throwback to a bygone era. That’s where the problem lies.
The entire legal system revolves around money.
In the hillbilly (sorry, District) Court, a donation to some charity is enough to have all charges , particularly those for motoring offences, dismissed. The judge makes him/herself part to a lie!
high legal costs are an economic barrier to justice. We have a public funded court system that can in practice, only be accessed through very privately controlled interest groups.
Rubbish. Simply not true. The courts are full of ordinary people being represented by lawyers who often aren’t being paid. Sick and tired of the constant lies from know-nothings eaten alive with bitterness and jealousy.
Lawyers fees are likely to double after the recent change to inheritance arrangements by the Law Society of Ireland. Why isn’t the Minister having the final say on this? The Law Society appear to have introduced this before the new reform bill was passed… This in effect risks undermining competitiveness measures under the new reform bill.
What are you on about? What do the Law Society have to do with amending either the Succession Act or the practice and procedure of the Probate Offices?
What needs to be done is inform people there are other ways of handling things. i.e. Mediation with the new bill coming in this year hopefully more people will realise that you don’t need to go through the financial hardship and stress of going through the courts. With most things Mediation can help and is far less expensive, once the mediation is completed legal council can get the agreement made into a court order where appropriate so everyone is reasonably happy with the outcome not just legal council!
Disclaimer I run an online or teleconferencing Mediation service
Lochlann
http://www.helplink.ie
have your say