Report comment

Thanks, Mr Fearnley, but your point 4 simply confirmed my own view that the referendum could not have been made more binding. However, other commenters, including Mr Appleby, have repeatedly argued as if there was some constitutional significance in its lack of "bindingness" - and it was to them that my challenge was directed. I do take issue though with your assumption that because the vote could not have been made more binding, therefore it must be "purely advisory". That seems to me a non-sequitur. The Act could certainly have included a provision that the vote was to be treated as "advisory" had that been Parliament's intention.