“POWER to the people,” declared one MP gleefully as he made an enthusiastic Wolfie Smith salute.

The happy spectacle came as MPs seized control of the parliamentary agenda and the political classes continued to battle their way through the tortuous never-ending Brexit process.

Today, there will be yet another episode of the political reality show.

Theresa May will seek to get round MPs rejecting her deal for a third time by splitting the process in two; first the Withdrawal Agreement bit about the divorce process and then, later, the Political Declaration bit about the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

It is a somewhat crude attempt to buy time as the EU’s offer was for Parliament to pass the Withdrawal Agreement this week to get the May 22 extension. Once/if that is done, then the Government would come back to pass part two in a third meaningful vote. Good luck.

However, the level of opposition outrage at the Prime Minister’s latest political contortion from the likes of Labour and the SNP, not to mention the Tories’ supposed parliamentary partners, the DUP, suggests it could well fail.

A number of indignant MPs accused the Tory Government of skulduggery and suggested its move could even prove to be illegal. But the stentorian Attorney General Geoffrey Cox assured MPs that Mrs May’s strategy was “perfectly reasonable and… perfectly lawful".

Perhaps Julian Lewis, the senior Conservative backbencher, spoke for many when he said MPs had been left "in tears" at the prospect of "yet again" being asked to vote on the same proposals when they had "twice taken the difficult decision to vote against a three-line whip".

If the Government fails today, then the focus will return to Parliament’s attempt to find a centre of Brexit gravity on Monday with another look at the alternatives.

The customs union is favourite but, given Mrs May is staunchly opposed to it as it goes against the Tory manifesto, then we could end up in another Brexican stand-off between Government and Parliament.

Such is the level of daily confusion and uncertainty swilling around the corridors of Westminster, MPs have become accustomed to living day by day, trying to comprehend the ins and outs of the latest development and not knowing quite how events will unfold tomorrow.

Today, a large pro-Brexit demonstration is expected outside the House of Commons.

The word “betrayal” will be on many protesters’ lips given that March 29 was supposed to be “independence day”. But now, of course, Brexit could happen on April 12 or May 22 or at some point in the distant future; or not at all.

Sadly, the Brexit process has coarsened the political debate, fuelled often by the rages and rants on social media.

The people have spoken, voters insist, so why cannot politicians just get on with it and implement their will? Simples, as Mrs May, might say.

But, of course, the torment that ministers and MPs are going through on a daily basis underlines how this is far from a straightforward exercise.

The 2016 vote produced a clear proposition: the UK should leave the EU. Liam Fox, the International Trade Secretary, has argued how Parliament transferred its sovereignty to the people on EU membership and so should now comply with their instruction.

But the reality is in a representative democracy sovereignty always lies with Parliament.

Edmund Burke, the 18th century philosopher, famously argued that those elected were trustees not delegates.

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only but his judgement and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

The way our democracy works is that it flows through Parliament. Even if there is a referendum, the decision has to be processed by MPs and peers.

If for whatever reason they cannot, the only option, ultimately, is to put it back to the people for another decision; which will once again have to be processed by Parliament. Hopefully, successfully the second time round.

If voters do not like what MPs do or say, they have the power, every five years in a general election, to kick them out and elect someone they think will do and say what they want.

Mr Burke was, to say the least, highly sceptical about the merits of democracy. As fate would have it after he expounded his controversial beliefs on what representative government meant in 1774, voters - however few of them there were at the time - exercised their right and kicked him out. QED.