LUDLOW MP Philip Dunne and his colleague Harriett Baldwin, whose West Worcestershire constituency includes Tenbury, campaigned vigorously to stay in the EU.

However, they now accept the outcome and have joined a Government led by a Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer who along with many other ministers believe that the fundamental planks of economic and foreign policy (Brexit) are wrong.

The voters in Ludlow and south Shropshire and in Tenbury and the Teme Valley are also entitled to ask Philip Dunne and Harriett Baldwin why they have accepted appointments in an administration committed to a foreign and economic policy they believe is wrong. Is it just ambition, kudos and the money?

It is all a rather odd situation but then odd has become the new normal.

While the referendum vote was close – the British people evidently did not send a clear message – there was nevertheless a small majority in favour of leaving the EU.

There were a lot of claims during the campaign that if made in a commercial world would have resulted in an investigation by Trading Standards, the Advertising Standards Authority and perhaps even the Fraud Squad. But politicians being, shall we charitably say, ‘economical’ with the truth is hardly new.

It is also clear that since the poll, many people who voted to leave now regret their decision. But, of course, we cannot have an election re-run just because and every time people realise they have made a mistake.

So are there any grounds to challenge the outcome of the referendum?

The constitutional position is clear: Sovereignty sits with Parliament and a Referendum is only advisory.

However, it would be difficult to morally justify a situation in which MPs did not take the necessary steps for Brexit, even if having been elected to act in the best interests of the country, they have to go through the lobbies for something they believe is hugely damaging to the national interest.

But it is entirely legitimate for those who wanted to stay to campaign for a second referendum or general election to overturn the vote on June 23.

After all does anyone seriously believe that had the vote gone the other way, Nigel Farage and other prominent ‘leavers’ would simply have accepted the outcome and taken up gardening or joined the local bowls club?

For the time being the Government has to get one with making the best of a bad job and try to negotiate the best deal it can.

However, if as it already seems, so-called ‘project fear’ turns out to be ‘project fact’ and a decent, never mind good deal, is not on the cards can the Government legitimately and in conscience continue to march the country towards the gunfire like infantrymen at the Battle of the Somme?

No Government or politician can or should ignore public opinion and if there is a huge groundswell for a rethink this cannot simply be ignored.

This is by no means an improbable outcome and it would be good to know what Philip Dunne and Harriett Baldwin think about how things might develop.

The Referendum took some prominent political scalps, among them former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, who went overnight from measuring up for curtains at Downing Street to the wilderness.

But don’t write him off. If this all ends in tears he will be well placed to say ‘told you,’ come to ‘the rescue’ and in such circumstances his shortcomings as a Chancellor might well be forgotten or at least forgiven.

This is an issue that still has plenty of legs and will have many more strange twists and turns.