It’s not uncommon for elected representatives to make an informed decision that, although unpopular, is in the best interest of the people and the nation. Both these laws were not in line with the vocal “will of the people.” In effect, MPs were saying that even if their constituents hated the idea, it was their duty to do what was best for them, as their representatives in the legislature.

With Brexit, we are seeing this battle playing out again. Brexit is clearly bad for the economy. I don’t think even Brexiteers argue otherwise now. Moving forward with Brexit will lead to job losses, and one estimate suggests it could cost each citizen of this country around £2,000, due to lost trade and currency devaluation. Brexit is quite like smoking. Some people may enjoy it, and may want to do it regardless of the harm it causes, but it is the duty of elected representatives to rise above that and do what is best for us. To do otherwise is populist, and the current crisis in Venezuela shows where populism can lead.

We live in a representative democracy. We elect parliamentarians to represent us. We do not live in a direct democracy where the will of the people is directly enacted. Instead, we delegate to MPs the responsibility to become informed on topics and make decisions on our behalf. These decisions range from economics to health care. We the people do not claim to be experts in macroeconomics or health care policy. We pay MPs to do that for us.

Imagine if constituents asked their MP to vote to repeal the smoking ban. Would Parliament cancel legislation that has saved thousands of lives in order to do the “will of the people”?

When an MP says that he is pursuing legislation that his constituents want him to enact—even if he thinks it will be bad for them—he is not acting in the tradition of democratic legislation, as the seat belt law and the smoking ban show. In effect, he is drifting away from a representative democratic process to one of direct rule and populism. In doing so, he is failing to understand and honor the system he is a part of.

With Brexit, if our system were working, we would be asking Parliament to do what is best for us. If MPs conclude that the reality of Brexit—which is far removed from the superficial campaign promises of the referendum—is actually going to damage the lives of constituents, then parliamentarians should not vote for it. To do otherwise is populism. A populist approach to smoking would likely have never banned it in public spaces. Like I did in the 1970s, children would still come home from school stinking of cigarette smoke from the bus or tube, or even the teacher’s staff room. To put it in context, imagine if constituents asked their MP to vote to repeal the smoking ban. Would Parliament cancel legislation that has saved thousands of lives in order to do the “will of the people”?

With Brexit, it is now clear that the referendum essentially asked MPs to vote for something bad for the people and the nation. It is the responsibility of MPs to explain why it will be bad for them—not just sheepishly harp on about the “will of the people” and follow their lead. Parliament has never been about the direct will of the people in relation to a specific policy, and people like Liam Fox and Jacob Rees-Mogg should be ashamed of using this as their main argument for crashing out of Europe regardless of the harm it does to the country.

Our representative democracy is designed to allow information and knowledge to shape policy over time. To remain steadfastly supportive of a single decision stated on one particular day simply isn’t how our political system works. The referendum itself was a stupid decision, and it’s clear now that David Cameron never expected it to happen, let alone to go against him. The referendum was deeply flawed and riddled with illegality, so it should not be defining the future of this country.

Probably the best way to fix the damage of a referendum so badly designed is to have another that is better designed and based on several years of activity, information, and experience. MPs should not be afraid of explaining to their constituents why they think Brexit is not a good idea now—that would be the truly democratic thing to do. Their refusal to assert their agency and hold a second referendum now that people are more informed is just cowardly.