UK government may have been in contempt of Parliament by not publishing Brexit legal advice, Commons Speaker rules

Can’t wait to see what they’ve been trying to hide!

What a breath of fresh air Theresa May is in focussing on the important issues and carrying our the will of the people according to the referendum. Leave or Remain? We choose Leave as a nation not "Leave with a good plan", not "Show us a good plan and we'll support it", not "You've got 2 years or you Tories are out!" None of these. Just Remain or Leave. So she has delivered a plan which surely ends the UK membership of the EU. There! Like a true friend of the country she has recognised the long history of democracy (through thick and thin over centuries) and long history supporting elected leaders.

Her main tenet is that the country is a United Kingdom, united by democratic process. The referendum this time around (41 years since the previous) had a surprisingly high turnout of 72.2% which makes the outcome more statistically significant (bigger sample) than for example the 1975 referendum with a turnout of only 64.6%. In 1975 35.4% of the electorate did not vote at all to remain or leave - it is more difficult to see the result as statistically sound but of the people who voted in 1975 67.2% voted to remain. Not much of a problem for democracy in this outcome and maybe people did not vote given the majority opinion.

But when things get tough you need a person like Theresa May to separate the wheat from the chaff. UK gets to 2016 and decides on another referendum. The turnout is a whopping 72.2% - still 27.8% did not choose to vote. However the Vote 'looks' close 51.9% to 48.1%. But a statistician would not say that this was close. The issue becomes one of allocating the non-voting people. is it reasonable to say 50/50? Or is it not more reasonable to side with the higher percentage more strongly, say 60%/40%. I think so because in this case the non-voters have more clearly sent a signal that Leave or Remain does not matter, they were indifferent. And if they were indifferent then there is no case to argue that the result was really close - we don't know. In a democracy all we can do , all the PM could do (after becoming PM) was implement the outcome of LEAVE the EU.

The People's Vote, the referendum turnout, the numbers, the general election all demanded the leader to push forward with LEAVE - no ifs no buts.

It might be different if there was a general consensus emerging about not leaving and following a different strategy. Democracy does not work by consensus but by numbers - I hate your position but I would defend your right to it with my life. Neither does a consensus exist. A consensus against a leader's position is not democracy - it is mutiny. Neville Chamberlain tried to get a better plan from Hitler but failed and the People's Vote? Check out the history.

AnniLi you can lie and string numbers all you want

You're rightfully on ignore

Stay ignored.

The assumption is that there is anything of value to be revealed. I would suggest it's probably nothing more than side points and possibly some contentious matters to do with post exit bargaining positions. Putting these later points into the public domain will not be in the 'national interest' as is would weaken any negotiation if one's whole hand is shown. Not exactly what any poker player world do to optimise a chance of a win.