Well no, I didn't because it's an entirely separate issue. I also don't think that the government using powers that are on the statute books by exception at a time of national emergency is usurping parliamentary authority. Furthermore I don't think any specific body in the country can be said to be sovereign over any other. It's more complex than that with different organs sovereign in different areas.
Either way, you are conflating two issues. My views on the internal constitutional processes of the UK are wholly irrelevant to my view that the UK should have complete control of those processes and not cede powers of either law making or interpretation to the EU.
It isn't a separate issue full stop, they're different aspects of the same thing. We have and have had domestic sovereignty, our national sovereignty is and was still there. The Crown in parliament is still sovereign. The only thing that has changed is our leaving our chosen pooled sovereignty. Still an aspect of sovereignty.
And you assumed it was somehow binding on the EU despite being a framing statement that commits the EU to nothing specific. The difference between you and me is that you were assumed that your interpretation was the only possible one and that I must have missed it, rather than thinking that maybe I saw the same thing as you and just disagree with your interpretation.
What were your search terms to get that well known and unlikely to weight questions pollster, Lord Ashcroft, to come up first? Here's a simple search: LMGTFY and it certainly isn't first there. A quick check of Ashcroft shows it was the unemployed and crinklies wot did it. Not to worry, Lord Ashcroft is advising firms to move to Malta and trade from there....way to go...
This is also wrong. It is possible to separate out these aspects. In this case we held a vote about our national sovereignty. That has literally zero to do with the sovereignty of the British parliament, public, and government relative to each other. It's a question of the sovereignty of the British state Vs the EU. You may conflate the two but that doesn't mean everyone does.
Your attempt to deploy the 'if you didn't disagree with the Henry VIII powers then you don't support sovereignty' argument is a fallacy.
You did but you know as well as I do that it makes no sense as a question because it's not a commitment. Do you have any examples of the EU taking concrete action as a result of agreeing to a loose statement that runs counter to its charter?
I dismissed them because they aren't relevant. The onus is on you to prove relevance. How is a specific trade deal done by a state half our size relevant? What is the relevance of an obiter that states parliament may not have clearly understood the powers it thought it was ceding to the EU?
Nor is being condescending but given that you aren't being polite to me, I don't see why I should have to be back. You can call me what you like. The fact that you can't understand that someone might hold an opposing view despite being at least as well informed as you tells us everything we need to know about you. Your inability to argue except through fallacies, non-sequiturs and insults also makes you look like you aren't even confident in your own argument.
Still on that tired old wibble eh?
I've pointed out before that I'm no longer obese, merely overweight (cracked the sub 30 BMI a while back) & not balding but pretty much bald. The rat tail I've no issues with, though quite what that has to do with Gina miller is something only you must know.
Not surprised really, with you being a gender confused, ineffectual, french fries "engineer".