Like it or not, only parliament, not a referendum, can decide the final Brexit compromise next year

I AM not British and do not have a vote here, but I do have a degree in government from Harvard and I do keep up with the news.

The Brexit referendum was “won” by the Leave campaign, with little more than a photo-finish, helped, quite possibly, by funding overspends, misleading NHS claims, Cambridge Analytica and whatever else may emerge. The referendum has come to be seen as decisive both in its victory and in forming a legislative and even constitutional position.

This was the first mistake. Britain is established as a constitutional monarchy with full authority vested by the monarch in parliament. This means, in fact, the House of Commons, tempered and advised by the House of Lords.

Britain is not — and never has been — a functioning democracy. Any claim that the referendum was a democratic choice, or that dismissing its results flaunts democracy, misunderstands this very basic tenet of the British constitution.

No change of law, or re-allocation of authority, can be valid without the approval of parliament and the assent of the monarch. This is not what the referendum had the authority to achieve.

What the voters expressed was a desire for greater autonomy from the EU, more independent authority for decisions and treaty negations, but with as many of the trade advantages it might be able to keep.

The prospects for a clean divide are bedevilled by post-colonial/imperial heritage. Brexit will be how Britain pays for its colonial/imperial inheritance.

Whatever happens in 2019 will inevitably be a compromise; call it a “fudge”. This compromise should not be decided by the whim of a “democratic” referendum, but only by the authority of parliament — like it or not.

DUNCAN DWINELL By email