It is absolutely semantics.

The highest Court in the UK has spoken. You can put whatever twist you want to on it as a way of justifying your own position, as Johnson and his bunch are now doing, but there is nowhere else now to go, legally.

The only way to change the law is through Parliament and I doubt very much whether there is much support there for such a change at the moment.

So semantics and enforceable it is.

It isn’t semantics because unlawful and illegal have, as Becky highlighted, have different definitions. Had Johnson committed an illegal act he could go to prison. He didn’t. And once again he was acting on advice from the Attorney General.

Plus, as I've mentioned before, the amusing thing is that referendums would need to be held on things like joining the Euro and signing up to an EU Army. So they'll never happen now.

BTW those who think the EU Army thing is a real and present danger should really do some reading.

For starters, we have a military veto. The EU can't propose laws about security and defence. The fantasy army would also require unanimous approval from all member states. Current operations require cooperation between individual armies from different member states. Nothing new here. The need for greater, more pro-active defence cooperation is hardly cause for concern. In fact it's perfectly reasonable and sound.

Project fear exists on both sides, let's not pretend that isn't the case.

Helpful to know some facts before getting all worked up by the latest tweet posted by our resident twitter propagandist.

Many of them are in their seventies so it's not surprising as they may well be senile

Then Parliament should step up and take full responsibility. It has the right to ignore the result of June 23rd. That damages its credibility with absolute justification for our anger at it but at least it is taking the blame.

It does no such thing. It massively reinforces it's credibility and gives you no justification whatsoever for any anger. I am watching the opening question in Parliament as I write this and Geoffrey Cox, for the government, has said pretty much the same as me.

But to then go back to us with another referendum makes no sense what so ever. Because if it refuses to implement the first, why on earth would a second one have the slightest shred of credibility? In fact, there should be no more referendums full stop.

Total agreement with the last sentence.

However there is the option of a GE. Let the partys declare their positions (and both Labour and the Lib-Dems have dramatically changed their stances) and put themselves to the scrutiny of the electorate in a manner that is binding in terms how the HoC is made up.

I genuinely struggle to understand why anybody would object to that in these circumstances.

If you don't trust the PM and his colleagues to act legally and that they might attempt to force their own views through a backdoor then you need to be circumspect and act with due caution.

We had a referendum on our future in the EU. Parliament has refused to implement it and parties representing a huge part of its members have changed their stance. Defend that at the ballot box. Let us see Parliamentary democracy in action. Let it regain some credibility. Surely that is the most positive option available.

Wrong. Parliament has NOT refused to implement it. It has been unable to agree HOW to implement it. We will have a GE and a new Parliament will then decide whether they can agree. Let's all hope so.

Simple. You wouldn't be voting for either. The UK retains sovereignty and control over whether it participates in such things.