Your argument about democracy is based on the views of an unelected legislator, belonging to the party that less than two years ago demonstrated the biggest nationwide drop in popularity in modern British political history, in large part due to a loss of credibility after going back on a manifesto pledge once in power? I'm not sure he's any more qualified to comment on this subject than you or me. If anything, the reverse is true.
In any case, the two typical arguments in favour of representation over delegation or direct influence now seem rather weak to me.
The original practical arguments for relying on representatives rather than direct engagement expired somewhere around the time we moved beyond messengers on horseback as our primary means of long-distance communication. It's the 21st century. There is no reason, given modern technology, that we couldn't have much wider direct participation in many more decisions.
The other common argument is the presumed advantage of having specialists who can consider government and political matters full time as opposed to the average citizen who has other responsibilities as well. To those who would make such an argument, I remind you that the people you're advocating delegating to were probably the worst in the entire country when it came to making questionable claims, misrepresenting the evidence, and ultimately misleading people. And I would remind you that every part of that statement is just as true for both sides of the official campaigns, which were as about disgraceful as each other IMNSHO.
We had a campaign lasting several months during which anyone who wanted to inform themselves about the issues before voting had plenty of information, much of it coming from more informed and reliable sources than the politicians, available to help guide their decision. I see no rational argument that an MP is somehow more qualified to make a judgement on this issue than an average citizen under those circumstances. If nothing else, those MPs are elected by the same people voting in the referendum, but typically with much lower turnout and based on their policies across a wide range of issues. I don't see how anyone can logically argue that the people are competent enough to elect an MP with such broad and long-lasting powers in their own best interest, and yet not qualified to make a much more focused decision on one specific issue in their own best interest.
In any case, the two typical arguments in favour of representation over delegation or direct influence now seem rather weak to me.
The original practical arguments for relying on representatives rather than direct engagement expired somewhere around the time we moved beyond messengers on horseback as our primary means of long-distance communication. It's the 21st century. There is no reason, given modern technology, that we couldn't have much wider direct participation in many more decisions.
The other common argument is the presumed advantage of having specialists who can consider government and political matters full time as opposed to the average citizen who has other responsibilities as well. To those who would make such an argument, I remind you that the people you're advocating delegating to were probably the worst in the entire country when it came to making questionable claims, misrepresenting the evidence, and ultimately misleading people. And I would remind you that every part of that statement is just as true for both sides of the official campaigns, which were as about disgraceful as each other IMNSHO.
We had a campaign lasting several months during which anyone who wanted to inform themselves about the issues before voting had plenty of information, much of it coming from more informed and reliable sources than the politicians, available to help guide their decision. I see no rational argument that an MP is somehow more qualified to make a judgement on this issue than an average citizen under those circumstances. If nothing else, those MPs are elected by the same people voting in the referendum, but typically with much lower turnout and based on their policies across a wide range of issues. I don't see how anyone can logically argue that the people are competent enough to elect an MP with such broad and long-lasting powers in their own best interest, and yet not qualified to make a much more focused decision on one specific issue in their own best interest.