Opinion

Yes, there should be a second Brexit referendum

brexit protest
(Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)
Read in app
  • Several polls have shown that a majority of British people now want a second EU referendum.
  • A majority of people now believe that voting to leave was "wrong."
  • The country now has a more concrete idea of what Brexit actually means — economically, politically and in terms of the future of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  • Britain deserves a second referendum before March 2019. 


LONDON — In the last couple of months, a great divide has opened up between the government and its people. A slim majority of Brits now support staying in the EU and holding a second referendum, according to two recent opinion polls. But even as Britain increasingly favours an historic U-turn that might allow us to rejoin Europe, Theresa May's government has pressed harder toward Brexit.

The government was forced by petition to stage a debate on December 11 on whether there should be a referendum on the EU exit deal. It is worth quoting in the government's official position in detail, because it shows how fundamentalist the government's stance has become. It says: 

"There must be no attempts to remain inside the European Union, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum." 

What's interesting about that statement is its absolutism: There was a vote in June 2016, May's government says, and that was the end of democracy on the matter. At no point — for any reason, even after two years of further research and debate, even if such a vote were requested — should Britain be allowed to think again on this massive change to the basis of our constitution and our economy. 

While the government has become more religiously orthodox on Brexit, the people have given the issue more thought. A majority — in four straight polls — now think Britain was "wrong" to vote to leave, according to YouGov's poll:

Brexit poll yougov
Pantheon Macroeconomics

Here is the Survation tracking poll on whether there should be a referendum vote on the exit deal. There is a 50% - 34% split in favour of a new vote:

second brexit referendum
Survation

The usual suspects — Labour deputy leader Tom Watson and Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable — are now openly suggesting a new vote could be held.

brexit bus nhs
Jack Taylor / Stringer

A new Brexit referendum would be justified. Eighteen months after the first vote, we have a more concrete idea of what leaving the EU actually involves: Reduced economic growth, a weaker pound, higher inflation, and reduced trade links to our biggest import-export partners.

We now know that Brexit potentially threatens the fragile peace that Britain spent years creating in Northern Ireland. Brexit might trigger a new Scottish independence referendum. These are not trivial issues — they are core constitutional matters describing what "Great Britain" actually is, and Brexit could alter the map if we ignore them.

And then there are the lies.

Brexit will not free up £350 million per week that we can now spend on the NHS, as promised by the Leave campaign. And when former UKIP leader Nigel Farage promised that we could stay in the EEA the day after Brexit, and continue trading with Europe from there, that turned out not to be true as well. All that comes before we get to the bottom of pro-Brexit Russian interference. 

So the British have very good reason to rethink this Brexit thing, and a majority of people want it to happen. 

They should get their way.

Read next

Jim is the former editor-in-chief of Insider's news division.Previously he was the founding editor of Business Insider UK.He has also been managing editor at Adweek, an advertising columnist at CBS Interactive, and a Knight-Bagehot Fellow at Columbia Business School. His work has appeared in Slate, Salon, The Independent, MTV, The Nation and AOL.His investigative journalism changed the law in the US First Circuit Court of Appeals (U.S. v. Kravetz), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (North Jersey Media v. Ashcroft), New Jersey (In Re El-Atriss), and New York State (Mosallem v. Berenson).The US Supreme Court cited his work on the death penalty in the concurrence to Baze v. Rees, on the issue of whether lethal injection is cruel or unusual.He won the Neal award for business journalism in 2005 for a series investigating bribes and kickbacks in the advertising business.Here's a selection of his past stories:   • The alleged betrayal in these photos, texts, and emails cost Snapchat $158 million   • Inside the conspiracy that forced Dov Charney out of American Apparel   • The Evolution of Ev: The creator of Twitter, Blogger, and Medium has a plan to fix the mess he made of the internet   • THE "KNOCK-IN SHORT": Nigel Farage and the massive bet against the pound on the night of the Brexit vote   • eBay worked with the FBI to put its top affiliate marketer in prison   • How Dunkin Donuts ended up hiring a psychotic credit card thief as director of communications   • BEJEWELED: The definitive, illustrated history of the most underrated game ever   • The CEO of Publicis told us how he stared down a furious internal rebellion to bet the future of his $11 billion company on artificial intelligence   • FBX: The billion-dollar Facebook business that never happened   • The €150 million check-kiting scam that bankrupted Leo Burnett in Greece   • My Polaroids of the September 11 attacks led me into America's secret court system for terrorist suspects   • YouTube deleted 130 rap videos to help police fight street gangs responsible for thousands of stabbingsDisclosure: I own shares of Twitter (TWTR).