The parliamentary move against democracy is gathering strength. The notion that parliament might vote down the results of the referendum is being backed by some serious, intelligent politicians (and Labour’s Chris Bryant). My old boss Patience Wheatcroft is leading the attempt in the Lords, hoping to stall it until such times as another referendum could be called. Even David Lammy, who I also admire, is leading similar attempts in the Commons involving a petition (Rod Liddle, in response, has started a petition to have Lammy removed as MP. It now has 6,300 signatures). Bryant explains (in a tweet) that he’s out to defend parliamentary sovereignty. 'Our membership was by act of parliament and it needs an act of parliament to undo it.'

This is logical, and raises an interesting point. Did Bryant, or any of his friends, propose a vote on the Scottish independence referendum if that had gone the wrong way? Did he say, then, that the final say should go to MPs? After all, the Union was created by an Act of Parliament in 1707. Or what about overturning the result of the 1999 referendum that granted devolution to Wales?

In other words: is their concern about parliamentary integrity? Or just a concern that democracy has gone too far, and the wrong way? There are a few countries where the government does ignore the results of a mass referendum, and parliament does consider overturning it. I like to think that Britain is not one of them.