Letter: Referendum Party's Dicey quotation
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The Referendum Party's attempt to give its case academic respectability is spurious.
It quotes extensively from Dicey's introduction to The Study of the Law of the Constitution, 8th edition, London 1920. But it fails to point out that the introduction expresses Dicey's personal views. The idea of a referendum is not mentioned in the main text.
And it only appears in the introduction to the 8th edition when Dicey - like the Referendum Party - thought a referendum might get support for his views on an issue (Home Rule) on which he was unlikely to win otherwise. There is no mention of a referendum anywhere in editions 1-7 or editions after the 8th when the distinguished editor - after consultation - decided it was inappropriate to include it even in the introduction. How can one have any faith in a party that uses such deceptive tactics?
SIR TERENCE HIGGINS MP
(Worthing, Con)
House of Commons
London SW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments