The government IS now considering a People’s Vote
- Credit: PA
A report in a national newspaper claims that the government is now exploring the option of a fresh Brexit referendum.
Despite claims from the prime minister that there will be no People's Vote, the Sunday Times reveals that civil servants have been 'war-gaming' a fresh vote because they fear Theresa May will struggle to get agreement on Brexit in the Commons.
The newspaper reports that individuals in the Department for Exiting the European Union have role-played key characters in the Brexit debate including Theresa May and David Lidington, her de facto deputy, and the PM's backbench opponents Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg.
A source told the newspaper: 'Civil servants have to prepare for every eventuality and with the prime minister's ability to command the support of parliament looking shakier by the day, it is their job to make contigency plans for every possibility, however remote, including a second referendum.'
A Downing Street spokesman responded to the report by again ruling out a People's Vote or second referendum.
You may also want to watch:
They said: 'The prime minister has been clear. There will be no second referendum. We had a people's vote in 2016.'
Best for Britain champion Layla Moran MP said the government should reveal what the results were of their 'war-gaming'.
'For all the governments spin the truth has finally been revealed, the government are planning for a people's vote and have had civil servants acting it all out. The results of this wargame should be released to the public.
'Over half a million people came out on the streets for a people's vote. The government can and must listen to them.'
Become a Supporter
The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. We believe our voice is important - both in representing the pro-EU perspective and also to help rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.