Quote Originally Posted by animallittle3 View Post
Not binding legally it may be but it was never dressed up as that right from the time the referendum was announced

Everyone knew the result wouldn't be treated as advisory even remainer and architect Cameron knew that .

The word advisory only appeared when the electorate provided the wrong result .

I think that anyone that knows how parliament works knew that parliament has to have the final say. This is why May was so opposed to Miller's legal challenge that parliament must retain the final say. As that is how our democracy works.

The political parties (bar lib dems) have genuinely tried to implement the result as they had committed to it, but the problem is no one can agree how to leave. As the end point must be agreed by parliament, there you go.

It does protect us though in that if the Lib Dems won a minority government, the same parliament can, and will stop them imposing Revoke.

A deal is the only way, but there has to be compromise and common ground to squeeze to a commons majority. I would suggest the WA plus some standards protection guarantees in the future trade negotiations is likely the only way to get it through without recourse to referendum. I can't see a referendum/election getting the majority needed to get a clear outcome in the commons, unless there is some way of attaching a legal clause that over rides the parliamentary agreement. No idea if that is possible though. I'm just a hair head!