The correct answer is that a -1 change is likely just noise in polling, not a statistically significant change.

But if there's a sustained decline, I'd guess it would be the softening of a leadership bounce.

But he's not allowed to implement it

I mean the CCC balanced pathway is pretty clear.

10. The freedoms we take for granted – political, economic, sexual, individual - were won through a combination of extraordinary struggle and extraordinary luck. There’s nothing “natural” or inevitable about them. They are in fact highly anomalous. And we won’t know what we’ve lost till it’s gone.

I don't think that's about parliamentary sovereignty though, it's about *British* parliamentary sovereignty.

As long as the interests of parliament and the public align, parliament can act. And parliament can choose to act where they don't align, but that's inherently not in their interest

But that's exactly the same as here. Parliament didn't want to, because of the consequences. But had there been demand for Westminster legislation from the population, whether British or Canadian or Australian, Parliament might had wanted to act on that demand. & if it had wanted to, it could

I think the population don't believe the politicians will use it to serve the public. But they do believe politicians will use it to serve their own interests..

Because they didn't *want* to, is surely the response?!

I mean, MPs would get a kicking (probably). So they adjust behaviour accordingly. Saying they choose not to do something isn't the same as saying they can't do something.

I'd submit that most (all?) politicians agree that if there *were* a parliamentary majority for reversing Brexit, they'd do it (EU opposition notwithstanding). But there's a distinction between thinking Brexit was bad and wanting to take the political hot of reversing it, so a majority is a way off.

(Also because id left my key card inside my hotel room, so had to be fairly compos mentis to sort that out, but that's a me problem)