The problem is not whether a direct democracy can work in a written constitution which describes how all the bits fit together - it can - or whether an evolved, indirect democracy like ours can work - it can - but how you get both approaches to fit together without any arbitration system to say which has priority when. And it is not good enough for either approach to declare 'we do'.

But in the light of crucial defining decisions being taken in the next few days, or being shirked, I would suggest a debate on the merits of direct or indirect democracy is perhaps not the main issue of importance.