Rumbling along in the background is a crowd funded legal challenge for a judicial review of the legal process of Brexit with particular reference to the constitutional "decision" to leave the EU. This is essentially the Wolchover argument that there has been no actual decision taken although Mrs May was granted permission to notify the EU we intend to leave under Article 50 this should have followed a "decision" in accordance with our "constitutional requirements".
The referendum was advisory and parliament was told "the people" had made the decision but there is no constitutional basis for the people to make any such decision in law.
Hence the challenge, which has been dismissed once but is now scheduled for a verbal hearing at the high court in London on 12th June this year.
A lawyer, David Allen Green has proposed a legal argument against the challenge and the legal team behind it have now responded. Read it HERE.
Essentially, they say there has been no decision taken in accordance with our constitutional requirements. Hence the Article 50 letter is null and void because it notified the EU of a "decision" that has not been taken. And the government, when asked under a FOI request were unable to point out where or indeed when, the legally binding decision to leave was taken. So, the challengers say:
Let the Courts answer the question “Where is the decision? ” And once they have identified it, whatever it may consist of, let them answer the question “Has this decision been taken in accordance with our constitutional requirements, or not ?”
It seems reasonable to me.
