Thread by @Hairyloon

Let us begin with why the referendum should not be treated as advisory: the leaflet that Cameron sent to everybody.
Think about that a moment...
If we accept that, then that means that the PM can overrule Parliament through printing a simple pamphlet.
1/

"But the pamphlet made it absolutely clear", I hear you say, "and that was the basis upon which everybody voted."
That is true only for the people who do not understand the fundamental principles of representative democracy. Everyone who does knew it could only be advisory.
2/

Turning to the question of another referendum and the oft repeated refrain of "Keep voting until you get it right".
It is not the electorate that got it wrong: parliament messed up & messed up badly. They took all the lessons from the Scottish Referendum & cast them out.
3/

They did not set out an adequate time frame, and they did this because, they argued, the debates had already been done many times over.
In other words, because everybody already had their pre-conceived notions based mainly upon 40 years of misinformation from the newspapers.
4/

They decided against having any safeguards, such as to consider the Irish and Scottish problems, and they made that decision specifically because the referendum was advisory.
Check Hansard: the point comes up more than once.
5/

As to "Political maths", that translates quite simply to "Putting party before country" and is frankly inexcusable.
6/

I've got work to do. Your turn @A50Challenge #FBPE

Now then, where were we?
Can we perhaps lay to rest the spurious talk of "Overturning" the referendum result?
It is advice: how do you overturn advice?
Either you consider the advice or you ignore it, and ignoring the nature of the advice is just another form of ignorance.
7/

A typical response, once the advisory nature is proven, is that "Parliament have considered the advice and accepted it."
Which would be fine if they had done, but they have not: they treated advice as instruction and discussed only whether they had grounds to disobey orders.
8/

We come then to the question of the balance of power between the "Establishment elites" and the "Common People".
The question of whether or not we leave the EU is largely irrelevant when set against that one.
Brexit is quite simply a test of that fundamental measure.
9/

Simply a test, but not a simple test, not by any means.
It was not the case that "The Elites" said Remain and "The People" said to Leave...

++???!?++ Out of Cheese Error... ++??% Normal Service will be resumed.
9.1/

The question of who are "The Establishment" and who are "The People" is one that I shall put aside, and look instead at the balance of power between the government, parliament and the electorate, since these are readily identifiable.
10/

Sorry about that. The balance of power, the interpretation of the referendum, and whatever else had become a tangled knot and I could not pick out a clear thread.
Also getting out of my depth: moving from what I know to what I only think I know.
9.2/

The principle of democracy is that power is derived from the people.
It is held in trust by their elected representatives and wielded by the government who are held to account by the elected representatives.
Sovereignty is about who decides what to do with the power.
11/

Ultimately, sovereignty must rest with the people, but how is such a wide and disparate collective to make any decision, let alone good ones, except by a parliament of representatives?
By necessity then, sovereign supremacy must rest in the Elected House.
12/

Brexit is like "Find the Lady" played with sovereign supremacy.
Are you watching?
Round and round she goes...
So, the government hand sovereignty to the electorate and the electorate have a vote.
Where is the sovereignty now?
13/

10.1/ There is also the little question of how much power resides in the Whip's office: it seems likely that there is a good deal too much.

"Obviously it is back with parliament: the government gave it to the people and the people passed it back when they voted."
Are you sure about that?
The stakes here are very high: we are playing for the United Kingdom, and the obvious card is the card he wants you to choose.
14/

If Sovereignty is defined by who makes the decisions, then it should be simple enough to determine where it now rests: simply look at who is making the decisions.
Clearly that is the government. We had to take them to court to even get a look in.
15/

It might be right that the government makes the decisions, provided that parliament is free to scrutinise and adjust those decisions where it feels it necessary.
It is clear that they are not free. Any that even suggest dissent are subjected to death threats & hate campaigns.
16/

The question we perhaps ought to be asking is of the extent to which the government is encouraging these campaigns: whether just tacitly through joining the instigators at dinner parties or explicitly through some unholy alliance...
Or perhaps it doesn't matter?
End/

The interesting point about the referendum being advisory is that that fact does not in any way suggest that we should remain in the EU, only that parliament still needs to think carefully about what is best for the country.
2.01/

Yet Brexiteers fight tooth and nail against that fact, irrespective of the evidence which is completely incontrovertible.
Why would they do this, unless they believe that the balance of the evidence would show a very clear case for remaining in the EU?
2.02/