Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Mr Fearnley,

In reply to my question, “Where is your argument now?” you should have answered:

“Here in my scabbard, meditating that
Shall dye your white rose in a bloody red!”

It would have been just as cogent as what you do say, and a great deal more classical.

Your arguments by no means "remain as they were". You previously (14.10 GMT 10/11/16) dismissed my suggestion that the High Court's judgment "placed in Parliament's hands the power to annul the referendum" and based your case on the fact that "from numerous comments from our parliamentarians they appear to be asserting that they do indeed accept the referendum vote as the voice of the people telling them to implement the exit of the UK from the EU".

What exactly that had to do with the question was a bit obscure. Now however that it has been made manifest (as all of us who knew anything about "Britain in Europe" knew all along) that many MPs, maybe even a majority, do not "accept the referendum vote" and will seek to frustrate it if they can, you coolly remark (21.00 GMT 11/11/16)that "Parliament has unfettered sovereignty in our parliamentary democracy."

Well, then, haven't you just boxed the compass, and come round exactly to what I maintained: that the High Court judgment gives parliament the power to annul a decision which by the Referendum Act 2015 parliament itself had remitted to the people?

Your details

Cancel