That, I think to be true. Have already culturally appropriated all that is British for the benefit of the European Union within his article, the willingness of Osborne to simply ignore the human rights of the people of Britain to determine their own future is nothing less than a suggestion that the deliberate enslavement of a country for the benefit of another should take place, facilitated by the denial of the expression of free will to the people of Britain.
In that context to describe the attitude as colonial was not enough. That would imply economic exploitation might continue, but Osborne has, I think, gone further. In his article he made clear that he knows a referendum would almost certainly be won now. So his argument was that Westminster should simply refuse one, ensuring as a consequence that the people of Britain will be held against their will, and with their rights ignored. What else is that but the attitude of a slaver?
It is, indeed, a very weak argument against a Brexit referendum, isn’t it?