Fine in principle, it is just that it has not explained what that is.
As David Davis told Parliament recently there was a clear, overwhelming and unarguable mandate for Brexit in the referendum. As one commentator pointed out, this sentence contains three lies in six words. For 'clear' let us use 'wafer thin'. For overwhelming, let us remind ourselves that about a third of the country voted to leave the EU and for 'unarguable' let us remind ourselves that the vote was 'advisory'.
There are three possible positions for Remainers to take: to accept, to squirm or to refuse to accept. The bullying cosh of 'democracy' has forced most Remainers into one of the first two groups. I am firmly in the third which people enjoy referring to as being 'in denial'.
For a Remainer to Accept the Result seems a complete cop-out. Democracy is not some magic fairy dust which has clear and unambiguous rules. It is the will of the people. Our chosen method is representative democracy. To judge each issue in isolation is naive and simplistic. Every decision has knock-on consequences which need to be balanced and we delegate this to people called MPs.
No one has written the rules down of our system of democracy. We have written constitution and so our system of governance has to be based on precedent and goodwill. (I note, in passing that the British Constitution A level has recently been deleted from the curriculum).
No one could objectively call our country a model of democracy, despite our belief that we created the system and have the mother of parliaments. A simple mention of the words 'House of Lords' and 'Proportional Representation' should suffice to show how far we are from a true 'democracy', if such a thing is actually achievable. We are hardly progressive. A natural British conservativism has prevented any meaningful change since women's suffrage.
The second option is To Squirm. It is encouraging that, at last, Parliament is beginning to demand to be involved. It will have to contend with the whips of course, and the machinations of a government which seems to think that a parliamentary rubber stamp will suffice. WS Gilbert would love the idea.
Even the Telegraph's sketch writer, Michael Deacon, seems to be questioning the government's approach, however, rightly suggesting that the government seems to think that they have a free hand to do whatever they want. An earlier piece, again very surprisingly from the Telegraph, showed that migration was an economic benefit to the country and that migrants were not actually taking jobs away from 'British people'.
For The Times, the incomparable Matthew Parris has had his Damascus moment, opining that we are facing the biggest crisis since Suez. For those who do not remember this (and Matthew was close to this as a boy), this was the moment when the UK finally showed that it was no longer capable of 'gunboat diplomacy'. The end of empire followed. Now we are about to show that we no longer understand international trade. Truly the end of any chance of 'Greatness': a horrid concept, much loved by Brexiteers.
People like Keir Starmer and Nick Clegg seem to understand the parliamentary game and are leading the charge. It is a far more astute political - note the lower case 'p' - game than some. 'OK, so you have a plan. Tell us what it is before you do anything irrevocable. Just explain to us how it is going to work and we will judge it on its merits. If Parliament approves it then think how much stronger your position will be in any negotiations.'
I like their style. It is not surprising that this sends the government into a tailspin. 'Oh dear me no. That would be to betray our negotiating position.' This response conveniently hides the fact that the three blind mice cannot agree amongst themselves, let alone other members of the cabinet. Allow the public and media to judge us on what we are seeking to achieve. Oh dear me no. There will be no running commentary.
My response is one word much-favoured by Brexiteers: 'Democracy'.
Finally, there is the Refuse to Accept or denial group. This is the purists option.This is the silent group that needs to be placated in any compromise deal. I suspect that long-time Europhile Ken Clarke is in this group.
The arguments here are that the referendum did not produce David Davis' clear, overwhelming and unarguable mandate. It was a single, advisory vote which told us almost nothing about the mix of reasons why people voted as they did. It told us what people wanted to do - leave the EU - but gave no information about why. In many ways it was a selfish, single issue vote without context.
It was a question on a single issue with neither side setting out no a clear economic and social manifesto in advance It told us what we did not like but not why, nor what alternative we preferred.
Before we went to war with Iraq, we were given many 'facts' and invited to make up our minds. Many of us said 'Not in my Name' but the government of the day went ahead anyway.
The debacle was followed by the hugely expensive Chilcott review. This concluded that the decision had been based on lies and there have even been calls for Tony Blair to be prosecuted.
Let's wind the clock forward. If Brexit produces the economic effects predicted by the 'experts' then will we be looking back with another Chilcott review and wondering how we ever took the decision to leave the EU after a campaign of lies? Nick Clegg refers to the comments by the main culprits as 'mendacious'.
With each day that goes past, another lie is exposed, another 'commitment' withdrawn or 'clarified'. All we are left with is the conclusion that we should leave the EU: a conclusion whose foundations have faded away.
This week, a Tory councillor suggested that anyone in the last two groups - the Squirmers and Deniers - should be charged with treason. If that does not give you some flavour of the Tory mindset and love of freedom of speech, I don't know what does.
In the absence of any sort of plan, the government seem to be doing nothing but sit with their hands over their ears to avoid hearing the messages coming out of the EU and the leaders of the other 27 countries. It is saying that 'metropolitan elites' with their 'sneering' and 'logical arguments' should be told to shut up. And it is doing nothing to persuade people like me to join the first group.
Truly a new take on the fable of the three wise monkeys.
