The problem is that Brexit is quite a complex issue with varying degrees of thoughts - I’d imagine it would be hard to canvas opinion of a constituency of 100,000 people as to whether they back a people’s vote, a no deal, May’s deal, a softer Brexit, a harder Brexit, etc.
At this stage, sure it would be impossible to get a true consensus but they've had over two years to get there. I dont think it's unreasonable to ask MP's to have a far better grap on what their constituents think after all that time. If they made regular contact with their consitiuants it wouldn't be such a big ask.
Most sensible people know your country will be worse off after leaving
They’ve not had two years because the consensus is changing constantly. You could argue that since May cancelled the vote and the vote of no confidence, many people have changed their opinions of what they want to happen.
Its no more open to abuse then the system as it currently is were MP's can ignore their consitiuants. I 100% agree that more accountability is needed or the system will always be as unworkable and crooked as it currently is.
It's changing constantly because our MP's have run around like headless chickens for two years and let that clown May and the Tories cock everything up as badly as possible rather then finding out how their consitiuants felt as early on as possible then representing those wishes and fighting for them.
What do you want them to do? It’s changing constantly because the leadership is an absolute shambles. There are plenty of very, very good MPs in the house who have no meaningful say on what happens with this unless it comes down to a vote.
Why shouldn’t MP’s be allowed to ignore their constituents? The system they are voted into allows them to make decisions on their behalf. It also allows constituents to vote somebody else in if they feel they are not being represented properly. MP’s generally are representative in the respect that if a constituency votes Tory, you get a Tory MP who votes with Tories in the house and the same with Labour and others. Brexit is different, though, and if I represented a small depleted northern town which voted leave in the referendum, but my belief was that their lives would be affected by leaving the EU, then I wouldn’t be voting with leave in parliament.
The hard Brexiteers have started to change their tune now, though. They've moved on from "everything will be fantastic" to "there may be some short term difficulties, but in the longer term we will be sound". I get the impression they are now lining up the "stabbed in the back" excuse. It will end up being the fault of civil servants, Remainers etc. if/when it goes belly up. I thought the EU leaders were correct when they turned down May's request for a more conciliatory/legally binding wording on the Irish back-stop, saying the Brexiteers would just pocket it and move on to complain about something else. I still don't think May understands that the likes of Rees-Mogg and DUP will not compromise. To them a no deal is a good outcome. No amount of evidence (even after the fact of our leaving) would make them want anything different. The only option for her , I think, is to do a deal with Labour MP's who wish to remain, possibly with them having to go against the Labour whip to do so but by offering them a referendum in return on Remain/May's deal.
I agree with you that the commons makes many poor decisions and that the Lords generally, in my view as well, make better decisions, but that’s politics. In terms of MPs serving their constituencies I do actually believe that there are loads of good and effective members. You’ve also got a group of careerists who couldn’t care less, and they’re the ones who mainly get media coverage and put an outwardly image of MPs being awful.