David Cameron made it clear (or ‘very clear’ to use his mantra) before the referendum that the outcome would be regarded as advisory and not binding (hence, the absence of any safeguard requiring, for example, the active support of a majority of the electorate). Advice can be accepted or rejected. If it is rejected, there is no question of ‘reneging’ on anyone since no commitment or promise was involved.
You have suggested before that ‘civil unrest’ could result from ‘reneging’ on the Leave voters. Quite apart from the fact that ‘reneging’ is an irrelevant concept in this context (see my previous paragraph), you should ask yourself why the change in mood (compared with the – binding – 1975 referendum) did not result in civil unrest in June 2016.
The Electoral Commission’s findings are that the referendum process was deeply flawed: the Leave campaign engaged in criminal data-gathering activities; it overspent massively; it appears to have been part-financed by Putin (who, I am sure you will agree, is the only person likely to benefit from Brexit); and it was based largely on a pack of lies peddled by your colleagues Johnson (even his ministerial resignation letter contained a lie) and Gove.
On the basis of these incontrovertible facts, do you agree that the outcome of the referendum cannot seriously be regarded as representing ‘the will of the people’?
If so, do you accept that the only way to test what the people think of any deal that Mrs May might, by a fluke, cobble together with the EU is to have another vote – a ‘People’s Vote’? If not, why not?
Chair, Cheltenham for Europe