As an expert on referendums, I know giving the public a final say on Brexit is the only democratic way forward

If I ask an estate agent to sell my house, I still expect to approve the price before the papers are signed

Another vote on Brexit is democratic. The people are entitled to a final say on controversial policies.

This is nothing new.

When the referendum was first discussed at the time of the French Revolution, the philosopher Nicolas de Condorcet said the people should be given a right to say no. The electorate should not negotiate, let alone write the laws, but they should have the final say. That is the essence of democracy.

In fact, anything else would seem odd. We delegate a large number of tasks to specialists. But we always retain the final say. If I ask an estate agent to sell my house, I still expect to approve the price before the papers are signed. Similarly, I entrust my car to the local garage, but, the mechanic would not undertake the work unless or until he has received my go-ahead. It is the same with many professions – doctors, solicitors, you name it.

The same ought to apply in politics. Just as we expect to be consulted before the agent sells our house, or before the doctor goes ahead with an operation, so too should we expect to approve – or disapprove – of the government’s Brexit plan. As in other parts of everyday life, we have the right to have the last word.

Of course, many arguments against another vote are motivated more by opinion polls than democratic principle. This is why it is essential that we restate the principles and the practice of referendums.

It has often happened in referendums that dramatic changes have been approved by a small majority, sometimes on a low turnout, only for a different decision to be arrived at by a bigger majority in a later and higher turnout poll.

In 2016, a very small majority of 51.9 per cent of the British voters voted for Brexit. With turnout taken into account, that means just 37 per cent of eligible voters opted to leave the EU. However one looks at the result, this is not a majority of the electorate and any claims about it being the definitive “will of the people” need to be treated with caution.

Yet, the referendum in 2016 was not unique. In Ireland in 2008, 53 per cent voted against the EU’s Lisbon Treaty on a 53 per cent turnout. The Irish were concerned that they might lose their commissioner. A year later, when the Irish’s demands were met, 67 per cent of the voters supported the Lisbon Treaty on a 59 per cent turnout.

The same was true in Denmark. In 1992, a small majority voted against the Maastricht Treaty (again on a low turnout). This was reversed by an emphatic win on a higher turnout in 1993. The higher turnout and the higher support has added democratic legitimacy to the process. The same will happen here.

To have additional referendums is common international practice. It is almost the norm in Denmark and Ireland. In no case has the process led to sustained civil unrest. The voters in these countries have accepted the results with good grace – if occasionally with a quantum of grumpiness. Voters are more likely to be annoyed at the mess left by the politicians than with the idea that they should have the final say, which seems both normal and democratic to the vast majority.

That another vote is called for is beyond dispute if one believes in the principles of democracy. But is it feasible?

Having lost the argument over the democratic case for a referendum, opponents will claim that it is impossible to organise a vote in such a short time. This view is, at best, based on lack of knowledge about referendums overseas. Other countries have organised within a few weeks of calling them. It took three months for the Danes to organise the referendum in 2015. When Croatia voted to join the EU in 2012, it took them less than two months to organise a referendum. And, then there is the example of Greece – Alexis Tsipras and Syriza were able to organise a referendum on the euro bailout in just over a week. The referendum was controversial but nothing suggests it was anything but free and fair.

And regardless, should there be insufficient time for the process to play out before 29 March 2019, the UK could seek an extension of Article 50. In such circumstances there is little evidence to suggest that an extension would not be granted by the EU27. In fact, all noises from across the Channel suggest it would be welcomed.

If the Greeks can do it, so can we. Given the professionalism and dedication of the British civil service, organising another vote in a matter of months is perfectly possible – and it is the right thing to do.

Professor Matt Qvortrup’s book Government by Referendum is published by Manchester University Press