So who has been represented in the debates in Parliament? Whose democratic will has been defended by May, Rees-Mogg etc etc.?
Since the 23rd June 2016 one refrain has been repeated so often noone seems to properly question it.
"We have to defend the will of the People". It is repeated in different forms, mostly be Leave Politicians and Campaigners to argue any suggestion of a Soft Brexit or a Second Referendum or a delay or revocation of Article 50 would be denying those who voted leave their democratic will. We are led to believe that is unquestionable.
If only life was that simple. It is not. Every politician uttering any version of that is making a wholly unjustified assumption or presumption that the leave voters he refers to voted for one set of reasons and that he or she represents that set of reasons and is making the case for them. There is actually no logical grounds for them to make that case at all.
To illustrate this point I would like to pen portrait six voters in the 2016 Referendum. Two voted Leave, two voted Remain and two did not vote. I think it serves to point out what nonsense we keep hearing and why one section of voters is simply ignored.
Voter A voted leave. Their rationale was they thought Immigration was the cause of all our economic ills, that the EU had stolen the UK's ability to make laws and the UK would be better and easily survive outside the EU. Voter A would still vote leave today.
Voter B voted leave. They were convinced by the promise of £350m per week for the NHS, that argument alone was enough for them. They cared not about immigration or Customs Unions or Single Markets. Voter A would now vote remain, they realise now that the promise was a lie and that the ramifications of leaving the EU were not explained to them. They feel conned and want the chance to vote again to correct their mistake.
Voter C voted to remain. They had all the information they required to make the decision, they used independent news sources like the University of Liverpools videos and knew how complex the Good Friday Agreement would make literally any Brexit to be achieved. They would still vote remain today
Voter D voted remain. Their instincts were to vote to leave but they realised the consequences would affect the lives of their Children rather than themselves so asked their children which way to vote. The response was to vote remain. So that is how they voted. They would still vote remain on that basis.
Voter E did not vote. They intended to but they listened to the arguments from the Official and Unnofficial Leave campaigns as well as the Official Remain campaign. They saw through the lies on both sides and did not consider they had enough facts and good arguments to make a final decision. So they did not vote. Now they realise all the arguments for and against and would firmly vote to remain if given a second chance. They feel betrayed though by two sets of Politicians on both sides lying during the campaign and no or insufficient independent analysis and debate.
Voter F did not vote. They intended to vote remain but were convinced by the Media and everything they heard that the result would be a foregone conclusion for the remain side. They thus thought their vote would not matter. They now regret their decision and would vote remain if offered the chance again.
There are clearly other voter types of all three groups. You can add those in the comments.
So who has been represented in the debates in Parliament? Whose democratic will has been defended by May, Rees-Mogg etc etc.? Voter A for sure, Voter B has been ignored along with Voter E and Voter F Parliament has no interest in the undecided, which is odd because prior to every election that is exactly who they target,
Are the views of Voters C and D represented, possibly by those politicians who have a party mandate for remain or who consider their views above those of their constituency voters and/or members.
Why is the media ignoring this, to me, obvious debate with important relevance to the Brexit debate. It does provide though important justification for a second referendum or even revoking Article 50 (the Government can always re-invoke it at a later date this time with a proper set of plans.