THE referendum held in June, 2016, asking whether the UK should stay in the European Union or not, produced a result of about 52 per cent leave ­and 48 per cent remain.

This was the start of the biggest political debate in the country for many, many years, possibly ever.

People who are normally not interested in politics find themselves arguing and debating in pubs and clubs, shops and bus stops as is only right for a decision of this magnitude.

The biggest talking point as I see it is should there be a second referendum or not.

Those in favour of a re-run arguing that at the time of the original vote, the full facts and consequences were not fully understood.

Those against saying, it’s not best out of three, there can’t be a neverendum referendum.

What has been forgotten — or maybe never understood at the time — is that before the prime minister triggered Artical 50 on March 29, 2017, to start the leave process, the government were twice taken to court.

First the High Court and then on appeal to the Supreme Court. This came about because the government was proposing to use the royal prerogative which is an ancient right of kings going back to 1610 to by-pass parliament.

Gina Millar privately challenged the British Government, arguing that only Parliament can take away rights Parliament has granted.

The courts agreed and the process had to go before Parliament.

What may be less well known is that Theresa May knew that the Leave campaign had broken the law regarding spending limits.

Charlie Mullins, the founder of Pimlico Plumbers, who funded the first court challenge against article 50, said: “The Vote Leave campaign, the official group fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, has been found guilty of breaking electoral law during the 2016 referendum campaign, and the government is actively blocking legal claims that this means Theresa May illegally triggered the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

“Article 50 was triggered as a result of a huge fraud against the people of the UK, so it cannot possibly be legally or morally right. This is nothing but a shoddy and deceitful disgrace.”

The next step is for a High Court judge to decide how to proceed.

Personally, I’m left with the feeling that before we voted two years ago, we didn’t know the half of it.

Eric Hyland

Harwood