Where have the defenders of our sovereignty been hiding since 1972?

Having no time to debate a deal is a valid argument – demanding the power to reject more power is not

make the nation’s laws, were apparently untroubled by the fact that European law has had primacy over UK law since we signed the European Communities Act of 1972.

So let me get this right – it is unacceptable for the power of Parliament to be (temporarily) limited by an elected British government in the interests of a smooth transition, but it is perfectly all right for it to be (permanently) subjugated to the will of the unelected European Commission and the European Court of Justice. The vociferous defenders of parliamentary democracy made much of a government attempt to put an irreversible date on our departure from the EU, which could possibly end up allowing no scope for proper debate. If there were to be a last-minute final deal, then what came to a vote at Westminster would simply amount to “take it or leave it”.

This is true and may constitute legitimate grounds for rejecting a definite exit date in law. But what puzzles me is why these parliamentary purists have been so unworried in the past by the imposition of EU laws that weren’t “take it or leave it”: they were just “take it – or else”.

What does this position amount to? Do the Tory rebels (most, but not all, of whom are avowed Remainers) accept that departure from the EU would result in returning traditional political authority to Parliament? If they do, then what they are demanding is the power to reject being given more power. They are demanding the right to legislate against their own legislative supremacy. This is very confusing. But it has made for a terrific show of passionate, fight to the death, Parliamentary debate.

Like much of the country, Parliament has entered what might be regarded historically as a golden age of democratic engagement. For perhaps the first time in nearly half a century, we are all arguing with each other about a political issue

– or refraining from arguing if the strength of feeling threatens personal and familial relations – in a way that everybody believes to be important. This is not just because it is about EU membership, which until recently was a minority interest, but also because the referendum was an exercise in direct popular participation in government. This awakening is seriously good news and, in itself, it is a testament to this country’s way of doing politics.

In British public life, robust disagreement has usually been seen as an expression of healthy, confident liberty. The civility and remarkable good humour with which it is conducted is a source of wonder to those from more unstable polities – which is why the recent phenomenon of hate-mongering and threats on social media is a national tragedy that must, and will, be addressed. The British electorate is, generally speaking, uncomfortable with smug consensus, which is why it eventually found the Blair-Cameron mutual congratulation repugnant. There is quite a clear sense that the time to worry is when everybody in power – or within reach of power – agrees, not when they noisily disagree. This may look like chaos but it is a peculiarly civilised and, by comparison, benign form of chaos.

What might be lost in this furious Brexit debate is not the power of Parliament, which was given away with barely a squeak in another period of national consensus a generation ago: it is the idea of accountable

at telegraph.co.uk/ opinion government and how that should be regained and protected. There is an absolutely fundamental principle of modern democracy that we must keep hold of in all this, however confused and contradictory the disputes become: the legitimacy of the law – and the authority to create and enforce it – derives from the consent of the people. Any systematic attempt to undermine that rule is a threat to the values that the West has embraced since the Enlightenment.

It is that principle that those who insist that Parliament must have the final say on our exit from the

EU are supposedly defending, but that many (but not all) of them have largely disregarded during our period of membership. This is not simply hypocrisy. There is a very complex historical difficulty here. The modern national experience of a good many European member states gives them serious cause to be suspicious of popular democracy. From the 18th century French mob to the election of Hitler and the territorial aggression of Mussolini, the most powerful member states of the EU have sound reasons to distrust the will of the people. Perhaps they have quietly decided to chuck the whole 250-year experiment in favour of a benign oligarchy: a protectionist trading bloc governed by an administrative class safely removed from the whims of the volatile masses.

But is that what Britons want? The country has woken from its apathetic slumber and discovered that there is something worth fighting over. In the febrile uproar, the opinions of real people are becoming exceptionally well-informed, their observations more astute and their conclusions sharper. If, after all this, they are ignored, there will be hell to pay.

They are demanding the right to legislate against their own legislative supremacy