A leading legal expert has confirmed that the June 2016 Brexit referendum is NOT LEGALLY BINDING as the voting paper included the word ‘SHOULD’ instead of ‘MUST.’

In a shocking press conference this evening, a senior lawyer for the pressure group Britons Against Brexit said that the choice of wording meant that the outcome of the vote is legally only a recommendation that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union. 

Percy Qusi QC added: ‘Because of the way that the referendum voting paper was worded, the legal outcome is that 52% of the electorate feel that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union.’

‘As we are all aware, saying that someone ‘should’ do something is a world apart from saying that someone ‘must’ do something, and so it would appear that parliament will have the final say after all.’

On the referendum paper, it is clear that the word ‘should’ has been used to indicate that the conditional tense is active.

‘As an example, my mother used to say that I ‘should’ eat more vegetables to stay healthy, but at the end of the day it was my choice. If she had decided to say that I ‘must’ eat more vegetables then it would have been mandatory to do so.’

‘It is my opinion that any use of the conditional tense in politics such as ‘would, could or should’ is dangerous and legally unacceptable. Imagine two men on a building site looking at a photo of Holly Willoughby and saying ‘would you?’ Obviously it is a hypothetical situation as the chances of her sleeping with either of them are highly remote. 

‘Therefore, it is my opinion that the referendum would have only been legally binding with the question: Must the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union.

‘I have prepared a document to be interjected into the current Supreme Court proceedings at once – it will almost certainly mean that the panel rules against the government.’