Brexiters' reactions to the High Court's ruling that parliament must vote before the government invokes Article 50 give us a clearer idea of what they meant by "taking back control."

Dominic Raab says the ruling is "a plain attempt to block Brexit by people who are out of touch with the country." Nigel Farage speaks of "betrayal" - and just look at some of the comments he attracts. And Suzanne Evans says:

How dare these activist judges attempt to overturn our will? It's a power grab & undermines democracy. Time we had the right to sack them.

"Taking back control", it seems, means that the will of the people - as they interpret it - must not be constrained by the judiciary or parliamentary scrutiny. Evans' demand to sack judges should be seen in the context of opposition to the independent Bank of England and the demand that Remain "traitors" be "silenced". They are totalitarian demands to quash opposition or independent scrutiny.

This runs into several problems. One is that they just aren't true. As Jolyon points out, a parliamentary debate will actually plug a democratic deficit by revealing what Brexit means.

Also, the Brexiters's whines are unBritish. They are alien to our traditions and constitution, which recognise the independence of the judiciary and that it is parliament that is sovereign, not the "will of the people". The High Court's ruling was an assertion of "the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of parliament."

I'd add that the Brexiters are also anti-Thatcherite, as she was opposed to referenda. In 1975 she said:

Our system, which has been copied all over the world, is one of representative Government under which those who have not time to look into every detail of this or that Bill choose people who are honourable and with whose opinions they are in harmony to discuss these matters. That has been our system of Government for many years, representative Government in which the representatives consider and discuss all the points in detail. In a popular vote, the voter expresses an individual opinion. In a representative institution, the representative would be expected to consider the interests of minorities and see how the separate measure fitted into the whole. I believe that if we have a referendum system, minorities would not receive anything like such a fair deal as they have under the existing system.

Which brings us to a paradox. Since Thatcher said that, there's been mounting evidence that voters are ill-informed - not just about the EU but about everything - and irrational: they are prone to more cognitive biases than you can shake a stick at. Yes, there are conditions under which crowds can be wise, but these are only occasionally satisfied.

You'd expect, therefore, to see less respect now for the "will of the people" and a greater valuation of the separation of powers and of forms of rational deliberation which parliament can - albeit only very occasionally - provide. Thatcher's position should therefore be stronger now than it was then.

So why isn't it?

The answer, I fear, lies in a deterioration in the British character. Many of us (and not just Brexiters) have become narcissistic over-entitled fanatics. Like spoiled children, they scream and scream "I want, I want", oblivious to the fact that such wants require rational scrutiny.

This is not an environment in which serious politics is possible.