Thank you for contacting me about Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. Let me begin by making it clear that, although I campaigned hard, both locally and nationally for Britain to remain in the EU, I accept the democratic decision of the British people.
Turnout for the 2016 people’s referendum was larger than at any election since 1992. No Prime Minister or party in British history has ever received as many votes as the vote to leave did. So the Government has a duty to deliver the referendum result and achieve the best possible result for the whole country. It is doing so, and I do not believe anyone could do it better than our Prime Minister.
I was disappointed by the outcome, and I think it is unfortunate that I was not joined in that campaigning by the constituents now getting in touch to tell me how strongly they feel on the subject.
The 2016 ballot paper presented voters with an unambiguous choice to remain in the EU or to leave. The consequences of either decision were communicated by campaign groups on both sides through a variety of print, audio-visual and digital media. The Government also sent a document to every household in the country on the benefits of staying in the EU. We explained that this was a once in a lifetime vote, not like a General Election, where the country can change its mind a few years later.
But the voters did not agree with us, and we lost. So, I agree with the Prime Minister when she said,
‘In the summer of 2016, millions came out to have their say. In many cases for the first time in decades, they trusted that their vote would count; that after years of feeling ignored by politics, their voices would be heard. To ask the question all over again would be a gross betrayal of our democracy – and a betrayal of that trust.’
If, as campaigners are suggesting, neither side could be believed, and the public was ‘misled’, what makes them so sure that the electors would have any faith in more information and views presented to them in a further campaign.
Nor am I convinced that any such second vote would be as clear cut as campaigners are suggesting. For instance, two pro-Europe groups commissioned an analysis on a by-constituency basis, which does not show any change at all in Derbyshire Dales.