1992 referendum on the UK joining the EU...

Suppose that the UK Parliament legislatively handed over all power  to the EU to make law on Wednesday morning.
That same Parliament could repeal that legislation with new legislation on Wednesday afternoon. How is that possible? If all power to make laws was handed to the EU in the morning, then surely only the EU could pass a law repealing it. It's possible because it was constitutionally impossible for the UK Parliament to hand its law making powers over to anyone in the morning. That is the fundamental rule of the British constitution. If Parliament makes a law, a new parliament or even the same Parliament can repeal it. The UK Parliament never did or could hand sovereignty over to the EU.

This is basic stuff, Doc. As I said, teenage law graduates are expected to be able to understand this. A man of your age shouldn't be struggling with it.

A sovereign is the person who has the final say. If someone has an absolute veto on whether something becomes a law, he or it has the final say and is sovereign. Parliament always had the final say on whether EU regulations applied in the UK. Even though the Parliament in 1972 passed a law which gave supremacy to EU regulations, Parliament retained the final say on whether those regulations held supremacy. EU regulations applied only with the express permission of Parliament, and if Parliament had withdrawn its permission at any time during the last 50 years, EU regulations would not have had supremacy. Parliament was in control at all times. No EU regulation was applied without its consent, nor could any EU regulation have applied without its consent, because Parliament is sovereign.

Not strictly true. Sovereignty was retained, as it could not be given away. In effect however sovereignty was given away as the only recourse to any one piece of legislation was to leave altogether. Parliament was most decidedly not in control at all times as the rules of the club meant they had to accept all legislation produced by the club. There was only one point of consent that counted and that was the 1972 act which effectively tied all future governments to EU law. One supposes that the idea was for EU law to be so embedded into any nation that leaving would be an impossible task. This is very similar to how a parasite works  whereby there may be an advantage to the host body but harm also entails, sometimes there is no advantage.

Why do you seem to be struggling with teh concept then.

I really don't know why you are finding this so hard - to be a member of the EU requires that you cede sovereignty to the EU (which we did in 1972). To regain that sovereignty that was ceded means leaving the EU (which we did with the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020)

FFS this isn't that hard even a foreigner like you should be able to understand it.

Indeed which is why I wonder why you are struggling. Perhaps you are limiting yourself with definitions as opposed to understanding the concept. Everyone, every thing is sovereign it is others that place limits upon that sovereignty always by direct or tacit approval of the sovereign being or group.

I thought there was a judgement at one time where a judge said that teh UK willingly ceded sovereignty. Anyhoo I suppose the  critical question is that once you have a definition of sovereignty (which seems to be missing) then a simple question should address the problem. If any action of the EU contravened this definition in any way then the UK was not sovereign.