Was't it my point that leaving the EU is a complex scenario where strong leaders need their eye on the ball, not swatting away 'mosquitos
Theresa May herself won't be in the detail of Brexit because a lot of it is quite technical. E.g. Laws about pharmaceuticals, banking, agriculture etc etc. So a strong leader would only provide an overview.
Furthermore she will have a Tory slant on matters plus an eye on the press and maintaining "face" and public image. All of this will mean there is a risk that decisions made will not be in the best interest of the UK. They may be short term ie with an eye on the next election.
So, every piece of legislation should be put to the vote? You said you understand how massive that task would be yet don't have a solution
I think that the government should have a vote on the straight forward switch. Or, if there isn't a straight forward "switch" then it should go before Parliament to check what is going on. We need accountability.
When the very biased judges found against May, it was simple to go through the hoop that was set
Judges aren't politically biased. They judge based on points of law. I don't even think it was a 100% agreement by all judges - it was a majority decision. Unless you're suggesting that there is something wrong with our judicial system?
If the hoop was simple, why not just go through it? Surely better to demonstrate that you respect our democratic institutions than try and circumvent.
I meant, if the package negotiated by May is rejected in some public vote, we would be left with the hardest Brexit of all. There can't be 2 different 'packages' agreed and the public chooses their favourite. Now that Article 50 has been set in motion, the vote would be a 'do you like it or lump it'
I am not suggesting that the public has a vote on what Brexit looks like. I'm suggesting that Parliament has a say in checking and challenging that the direction is appropriate. This is going to change the course of our country for generations to come.