whoosh.
What authority is he referring to?
It's simple fact. The referendum was no more than an expression of wishes. Parliament is under no legal obligation to respect it.
whoosh.
What authority is he referring to?
But nonetheless we have a constitution; do you deny that?

It's simple fact. The referendum was no more than an expression of wishes. Parliament is under no legal obligation to respect it.
Why do you say the referendum is "advisory" and what does that mean?
What authority is the man in the article citing?
That's not going to happen. One or two MPs have got over emotional and the vast majority side with democracy.I'm quoting the article that says the referendum is advisory and not legally binding. Apparently to invoke article 50 a motion has to be put forward to parliament which MPs vote on to decide whether they want to proceed with the process. The article is positing that given the political landscape when it comes to invoking the article, there may not be an appetite for it.
He's simply saying what I & Piskie have just said. That parliament have to agree to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act. If they refuse to do that, which at the moment I admit looks unlikely, then we will remain in the EU.
Format of my choice
It has no format you absolute weapon, as it's largely 'unwritten' and based on convention.
Britain's constitutional basis is almost unique in that it is not contained in one written document as it is in most of Europe, but instead derived from a number of sources written or otherwise such as common law, statutes, and authoritative commentaries. Although this system of governing has worked well for over three hundred years the general feeling is that we are moving into an era of major constitutional reform.
As we have become more and more integrated with Europe there has been an acceptance of legislation emanating from the EU. De facto, those parts of the constitution have become codified in order to establish conformity across the states of the European Union. The battle for ratification of the Maastricht Treaty blew up much discussion over the concept of sovereignty for Britain and although it remained in theory, the creation of pooled sovereignty (Wright) certainly had implications for Britain's constitutional debate. The decision making power of parliament has been moderated and negotiation with other member countries of the EU often becomes principal to new policy. For instance, cabinet's ultimate control over foreign policy and its supremacy in a declaration of war will be severely limited should an EU army be established under agreement with Britain. Moreover, if this were to evolve, there would almost certainly be need for a written document to define the rules and regulations surrounding its implications on foreign policy. Following this, there is the plausible argument that if there is ad hoc creation of documents within the context of Europe, surely Britain should take this opportunity to codify our entire constitution.
Okay, I'll explain. Others were saying there is no UK constitution. With that in mind, what authority is the man talking about, and what is his job description?
How did it get into the country?!No. Afro Caribbean Sugar.
So why did Parliament pass a law to have a referendum?Pedantics.
A referendum is not a legally binding vote. Stop trying to be a smart arse!
The fact that there's various different legal opinions on what needs to happen next post this referendum, with one lawyer referring back to the case of proclamations from 1610, tells you all you need to know about the clarity of our "unwritten" constitution.What authority is the man in the article citing?
Pedantics.
A referendum is not a legally binding vote. Stop trying to be a smart arse!
The fact that there's various different legal opinions on what needs to happen next post this referendum, with one lawyer referring back to the case of proclamations from 1610, tells you all you need to know about the clarity of our "unwritten" constitution.
Carry on searching for the 'win' though.
Pathetic

Experts? I've **** 'em.
So why did Parliament pass a law to have a referendum?
Why didnt the Act make clear it had no validity?
I think it's because, whether the losers are happy or not, Parliament considers it binding.
How did it get into the country?!