ray hutstone wrote:Please explain how interpretation can somehow alter the fact that the laws of this country can only be changed by Parliament.
I know it's cricket season, but that's an underarmer. I for one wasn't addressing a general claim about changing the law; my comments were specific to the referendum and Briefing Paper 07212.
But while we're on the subject of facts and interpretations, and not to muddy already murky waters too much, it is a
fact that the Supreme Court judgment (in the Miller case) was that a withdrawal Act was required for A50. It is also a
fact that the majority judgment was arrived at through the
interpretation of the relevant legal evidence by the eleven judges. It is also a
fact that there were three dissenters, whose
interpretation was different to that of the other eight. I don't believe that makes the minority three
wrong any more than it makes the majority eight
right; but it does suggest that fact and interpretation do enjoy the kind of dynamic and raunchy marriage that would make a missionary blush.