Giving the people a Final Say on Brexit is the best hope for avoiding a deal that will damage the UK for a generation

A year ago there was hope that some form of soft Brexit could be negotiated, retaining the economic benefits of the EU; but several factors have punctured that optimism

Our society is undergoing a gradual realisation that leaving is a great deal more complicated, costly and messy than its advocates claimed (AFP/Getty)

Big political ideas take time to germinate. The idea that the course of Brexit should now be decided by allowing the people to have the Final Say through a vote, with the option to remain in the EU, was, until very recently, regarded as improbable.

The leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties regarded it (and still do) as a serious heresy. Yet public opinion is inexorably moving in that direction.

The endorsement by previously uncommitted statesmen (such as Sir John Major) and non-political figures (Gary Lineker, for example) has contributed to a momentum that will now be very hard to stop; the more so as the seemingly comfortable option of a “soft” Brexit now looks almost unattainable.

The 2016 referendum was close and many were outraged even then by the blatant dishonesty of some of the Brexit claims: the savings for the NHS which won’t materialise; the flood of Turkish immigrants who were already subject to controls. I did not think this was a sufficient reason for a “second referendum” and said so. And at the 2017 election there was little appetite for re-running the referendum. In my heavily Remain constituency, there were many Remainers who were optimistic that some form of soft Brexit could be negotiated, retaining the economic benefits of the EU, and would have settled for that outcome.

Several factors have punctured that optimism. One is the gradual realisation that leaving is a great deal more complicated, costly and messy than its advocates claimed, much like divorce in the personal world. In particular, it is clear that Theresa May, in her Lancaster House speech, made a grievous error in setting out red lines which would later have to be crossed to get a sensible deal. In particular, she ruled out membership of the customs union, necessary for respecting the Good Friday Agreement to keep open the Irish frontier and to ensure the smooth working of supply chain industries.

The second factor is the realisation that the world has radically changed since 2016. President Trump’s economic nationalism and declaration of trade war makes a nonsense of a buccaneering, free trading “global” Britain and underlines the muscle of the EU in trade negotiations.

The third and crucial factor is that there is no national consensus on any of the major options now on offer. There are those favouring no deal, putting up two fingers to Europe – though enthusiasm varies, depending on how disruptive the no-deal would be. I doubt there are many takers for the Rees-Mogg offer of decades of pain and sacrifice for “freedom”.

Then there are those backing a compromise along the lines of Theresa May’s Chequers plan. But it was shot to pieces by the cabinet even before Monsieur Barnier fired a bullet into the corpse. And there are those of us who believe it is entirely reasonable to seek a confirmatory vote subsequent to the original vote to leave in principle, once we know the outcome of the negotiations.

None of these options yet command a secure majority inside parliament or outside it, and part of the argument for a “People’s Vote” now is the pragmatic one that it is the only way to break the deadlock.

Some on the Labour benches argue for a general election but the Labour Party is just as divided as the Conservatives on Brexit and would face the same negotiating constraints. And in practice, any general election would be fought on a wide range of issues and not resolve the Brexit problems.

There is, in addition, mounting evidence that the referendum was contaminated by Russian state involvement in favour of Brexit, and by cheating. As a football fan, I am familiar with the cry of “we wuz robbed” – and the belief that defeat can be blamed on the “blind referee”. But, in this case, the emerging evidence is sufficiently serious to question the legitimacy of the results.

I do not pretend that having a vote on the final deal will be universally popular. The issue divides families and friendships and there will be resistance to exposing those divisions again. But the alternative, of drifting into a form of Brexit that will leave a growing majority, the next generation, damaged by the outcome, is not attractive either.

There is now a real possibility that a vote on the final deal will happen. Those of us who will be campaigning to stay in the EU, albeit an EU that is reformed and improved, will need to prepare. Victory is not a foregone conclusion. The proponents of leaving will seek to whip up British nationalism. Nor will they necessarily accept the result.

But it is the best hope we now have.

Vince Cable is the leader of the Liberal Democrats and MP for Twickenham