[Forwarded from John Bernard]
The occult reason why the Referendum was held was the activation of a Barons Committee by the Magna Carta Society in 2001 under Article 61.
Every time a criminal Court rules "No case to answer" or a civil Court finds an official Act to be "ultra vires" it is Article 61 being applied.
See this from Halsbury's:
" Halsbury's Laws of England/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS (VOLUME 8(2) (REISSUE))/5. THE EXECUTIVE/(1) LEGAL STATUS AND POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE/(iv) The Royal Prerogative/368. Relations of prerogative to common law and statute.
368. Relations of prerogative to common law and statute.
The prerogative is thus derived from1 and limited by the common law, and the monarch can claim no prerogatives except such as the law allows2. In particular no prerogative may be recognised that is contrary to Magna Carta or any other statute3, or that interferes with the liberties of the subject4.
The courts have jurisdiction, therefore, to inquire into the existence or extent of any alleged prerogative5, it being a maxim of the common law that the King ought to be under no man, but under God and the law, because the law makes the King6. If any prerogative is disputed, the courts must decide the question whether or not it exists in the same way as they decide any other question of law. If a prerogative is clearly established, they must take the same judicial notice of it as they take of any other rule of law7...".
Halsbury's Laws of England/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS (VOLUME 8(2) (REISSUE))/5. THE EXECUTIVE/(1) LEGAL STATUS AND POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE/(v) Constitutional Principles governing the Exercise of the Prerogative and Executive Power/374. Limitation by Magna Carta.
374. Limitation by Magna Carta.
The Crown or its ministers may not punish, imprison or coerce the subject in an arbitrary manner: no freeman may be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any other wise molested1; nor may he be judged2 or condemned3, except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land, nor may justice or right be sold, denied or delayed to any man4.
1 Ie aut aliquo modo destruatur (literally 'destroyed'). See Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 State Tr 1029.
2 Ie nec super eum ibimus.
3 Ie nec super eum mittimus.
4 Magna Carta of Edward I (1297), c 29. For subsequent modifications and repeals see para 1 note 13 ante. As to Magna Carta see para 372 note 2 ante. Similar provision was made by the Petition of Right (1627) ss 3, 8 (repealed so far as relevant by the Justices of the Peace Act 1968, Sch 5): see, however para 375 post...".
The reason why few people know about Magna Carta is that the law of the English Constitution has not been taught in schools since the 1970's. The law of the Constitution was also removed from the examined part of the legal education syllabus.
Then there is the lawyers subterfuge known as "Trite Law":
" To a layperson, trite means ‘hackneyed’, ‘worn-out from over-use’, ‘lacking freshness’ – as in Greetings cards are filled with trite expressions of cloying sentiment.
To a lawyer (or a law student after about 4 weeks into 1L), trite law means any legal principle that is ‘obvious or common knowledge’ (in the words of that unassailable authority, the Wiktionary)...".
A classic example of this is the legal reasoning behind the 2019 UK Supreme Court "Prorogation" Judgement:
" 69. This court is not, therefore, precluded by article 9 or by any wider Parliamentary privilege from considering the validity of the prorogation itself. The logical approach to that question is to start at the beginning, with the advice that led to it. That advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to give it.
This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed,
R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor  UKSC 51, para 119. It led to the Order in Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise unlawful, null and of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too was unlawful, null and of no effect...".
Here is the legal reasoning in Article 61 that that Judgment was based upon:
" And we shall procure nothing from anyone, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another...".