All that is completely irrelevant, Teribus. The LibDems, in demanding a referendum on the deals we make, are not putting any other conditions on whether they will vote for Article 50. They are quite properly saying that that the people should have the chance to revisit the question once the exit terms are known. You argue that a blunt-instrument yes/no question should be the final arbiter. I argue that the referendum was undemocratic in so many ways that it's hard to know where to start - forced on the government by UKIP and a bunch of unreconstructed right-wing backwoodsmen on the Tory backbenches, asked a question that almost everybody in the country was unqualified to answer, lied to about how binding it was, lied to about how quickly it was going to be implemented, lied to about the money, lied to about the single market and people movement and, not least, a referendum which was skewed towards our leaving by dint of the winning post having been set way too far back. Now we're being told that it was undemocratic for someone to make the government abide by laws that were fought for over centuries, and that judges who assert the rule of law are enemies of the people, etc. Finally, we are told that we can't know the government's negotiating plans, which must be kept secret from us because "we mustn't show our hand." Well that's the biggest lie of all. The people who "we mustn't show our hand" to are not the ones in Brussels, who already know full well what cards we hold, but the people in this country, who might make life inconvenient for the government once they see the fudges, compromises and back-pedalling that they'll have to make. We are fully entitled in a democracy to see exactly what is going on. After that, we should be fully entitled to be asked whether we think it's good enough for us or not.