EVER since the June 2016 referendum vote in Britain on membership of the European Union, there has been a battle over the terms of departure. The government, and right-wing press, are averse to there being any kind of scrutiny over the process by either the courts or Parliament. Judges who ruled that Parliament should approve the triggering of Article 50 (the technical start of negotiations over exit terms) were dubbed “enemies of the people” by the Daily Mail, a term that has since been taken up by Donald Trump.

But the referendum posed a very general question—“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”—without setting out the manner of departure. Britain could have remained a member of the single market and customs union while being outside the EU (as was suggested by some members of the Leave campaign); the Conservative manifesto of 2015 (to which the government owes its legitimacy) talked about expanding the single market, not leaving it.

There seems to be an assumption that only the government can know what the public actually wants—what might be called “the ouija-board theory of democracy” in which Theresa May, like a medium, is uniquely able to contact the spirits. And the spirits seem to be telling Mrs May—miraculously—what the hardline Brexiters in the Conservative party want her to do.

This is a very odd view of democracy on many grounds. Members of Parliament who voted against the triggering of Article 50 were criticised, even though they represented constituencies that voted Remain. Apparently they must bow to the majority will of those who are not their constituents—an idea that rather undermines the whole idea of a parliamentary opposition. How dare opposition MPs vote against anything the government proposes; the latter won the election.

The latest spat concerns a House of Lords vote to insist the Commons gets a meaningful vote on the final deal. The government wants to reverse this vote in the Commons. As one wag on Twitter put it:

So now the Commons can ‘take back control’ by voting not to give itself a vote

The logic, apparently, is that it would “undermine the government’s negotiating position” if the deal faced parliamentary scrutiny. It is an argument that would appeal to authoritarian leaders everywhere. But it is not democratic. Nor is it sensible. The leave campaign was based on a whole series of promises about the rosy prospects that faced a post-EU Britain including the idea that the EU would be eager to offer the country a good deal. It is surely right that Parliament should scrutinise whether those promises have been met. Otherwise, it is a bit like a dodgy car salesman saying “You know I said that car had no rust and a working gearbox? Turns out it doesn’t. Too late now.”

The extra irony is that Mrs May is an unelected prime minister; she was not the leader the Conservatives offered as prime minister in 2015. The British system does allow for prime ministers to change leaders mid-term. But the leader owes his or her authority to their ability to command a parliamentary majority; which makes the determination not to put an issue to the test of a parliamentary vote all the more alarming.

The referendum provides the legitimacy, Brexiters might say. But a general referendum cannot answer specific questions. Even if we had more polls and asked the public more questions, their answers might not add up—voting for lower taxes and more spending, for example. That is why we have elected representatives. They make those choices, select between priorities, and we vote them back, or chuck them out, later. You cannot run an economy any other way.

And that brings up a final point: what about a second referendum either over the EU or in Scotland, which voted Remain? In 2014, the Scots were told that independence risked them being chucked out of the EU. Now they find that being out of the union has landed them in that spot. The economic case for independence has deteriorated since 2014 (thanks to lower oil prices) but the political case is surely stronger. Indeed the Leave campaign arguments can be used by the nationalists; taking back control from a remote government without legitimacy (the Conservatives have one seat out of 59 in Scotland); the fact that Mrs May is ignoring all the concerns of the Scottish administration over the access of their businesses to the single market. Indeed, with Northern Ireland now lacking a unionist majority after its recent elections, the United Kingdom could be heading for a break-up; another irony after a vote supposedly driven by patriotism.

Apparently, another referendum on either the EU or Scotland would be insulting the voters but this seems a very odd argument; the voters can always express exactly the same opinion again. The idea that voters can never change their minds was dubbed the “Brezhnev doctrine” by Lord Turner yesterday. But, why ask them when Mrs May has a channel to know their feelings every time she holds hands round the cabinet table?