Brexit, we’re regularly reminded, is the will of the people. We had a referendum and the result was clear. Question the wisdom of the decision and you show yourself to be anti-democratic and out of touch, a member of a cosseted, globalist elite that fails to understand the concerns of ordinary folk.

Never mind that 48% of voters represents rather a large “elite” by any normal measure. Nor that the people most enthusiastically pushing this line – among them Nigel Farage, Rupert Murdoch and several senior politicians – are themselves both privileged and powerful. The attack lands, in part, because it contains a kernel of truth. Prominent remainers sometimes have spoken about leave voters in sneering, snobbish terms. There really is an unwillingness among some affluent, metropolitan Europhiles to acknowledge that material factors contributed to the result. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that showing contempt for mass democracy could have lasting social and political repercussions – potentially fuelling more extreme rightwing populism.

Government refuses to release details of studies into economic impact of Brexit Read more

As time goes on, though, it’s becoming harder for the leave camp to maintain its “voice of the people” posture. The current struggle over 58 secret studies into the economic impact of leaving the EU – which the government is refusing to release to the public despite repeated requests – seems to demonstrate the shallowness of its pro-democracy stance. True democracy requires the electorate to have access to relevant information. If you’re handed a piece of paper and told to tick a box without knowledge of what each option represented, can you be said to have cast a meaningful vote?

The EU referendum wasn’t quite this ludicrous. Both campaigns have been accused of lying or exaggerating on certain points, but they did offer voters some sort of argument. Information was also available from numerous independent sources with varying focuses and biases. Still, the sheer complexity of the issue meant it was always going to be something of a shot in the dark. No country has ever actually tried to leave the EU before. Even the experts were uncertain about the likely consequences of such a move.

That’s why the government commissioned those 58 studies: to try to understand the journey we’re embarking on. To plan ahead and mitigate damage as much as possible, and to guide negotiations about the precise nature of the exit deal. It correctly recognises that a referendum based on limited information was simply the start of a long and complicated process. The leave vote was a signal to begin that process, but didn’t provide much information about what should happen after that.

Q&A What is a hard Brexit? Show Hide A hard Brexit would take Britain out of the EU’s single market and customs union and ends its obligations to respect the four freedoms, make big EU budget payments and accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ: what Brexiters mean by “taking back control” of Britain’s borders, laws and money. It would mean a return of trade tariffs, depending on what (if any) FTA was agreed. See our full Brexit phrasebook.

It’s a funny notion of democracy, then, that says that public involvement in Brexit should already be over and done with. That one binary vote is the only say we should be allowed. Most of us are familiar with the terms “hard Brexit” and “soft Brexit”. Those following more closely will also have working knowledge of what “EEA-minus”, “EEA-plus” and “WTO rules” involve. Even these sorts of categories are something of a simplification. The real options are myriad. Fifty-two per cent of people might have voted to leave the EU, but none of us were offered the chance to specify our preferred version of the deal.

If democracy is genuinely to be respected, there needs to be a public debate. Every one of us has a stake in the future of this country. Every one of us deserves a voice in a process that will shape the rest of our lives. To enable that, the 58 government studies on the predicted economic impact of Brexit need to be made public. Farmers and other small business owners need to know how different deals will affect the viability of their businesses. We need to know how different options will affect pensions and the NHS. Which is likely to preserve the most jobs?

Prominent Brexiteers don’t want the public to have access to this information, because they’re worried we’ll make decisions they dislike. Is there anything more elitist than that?

• Abi Wilkinson is a freelance journalist based in London