A no-deal Brexit would be bad for Britain – and a disaster for cities like Liverpool. That's why we need a Final Say

This is not about asking the same question over and over again, it’s about offering a chance to approve how the country will be governed after 2019 – a discussion that never took place during the referendum campaign

If you had made the case, just a few years ago, that Britain should leave the single market, with no substitute arrangements in place, jeopardising 40 per cent of our trade and millions of jobs, you would have been thought delusional.

Yet here we are, just months away from leaving the European Union, with no proper arrangements in place and a prime minister who has now instructed officials to start planning for a no-deal Brexit. We are truly through the looking glass.

Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at risk – and we know the effects will be disproportionate. Even leaked excerpts from the Brexit department’s own research shows the further you are away from Greater London, the harder the impact.

Ministers have done nothing to prepare us for the shocks to come, refusing to publish its economic risk analysis so as to allow for a nuanced conversation about the impact on cities such as Liverpool.

The most optimistic assessment, assuming we have retained access to the single market, sees the UK take a 2 per cent hit to GDP over the next 15 years, rising to 8 per cent with a no-deal Brexit.

The risk is that we become a low-regulation haven for neoliberal hardliners, with the social and environmental protections currently guaranteed by EU law, jettisoned.

The city of Liverpool voted by a clear majority – 58 per cent – to remain in the EU back in June 2016, primarily because people in this city recognised the tangible merits of EU membership. Europe helped us come back from the brink, providing the basis for Liverpool’s renaissance in recent years, including, of course, our year as European Capital of Culture in 2008.

Yet, papers released under the 30-year rule showed the Thatcher government seriously wanted to write us off. “Managed decline” it was called. EU funding helped us to bounce back and catalysed many of the dramatic changes we’ve seen over the past few years.

The risk is that Brexit reverses so much of our good work. After suffering a decade of austerity – with the loss of two-thirds of our government funding – we simply cannot take the extra shock of a hard Brexit.

This should worry Brexiteers. If places like Liverpool are negatively affected, then their project will have utterly failed, with the inflated claims made about how we will benefit outside the EU reduced to dust. So it’s actually in their interests to hold a second vote on the terms of our departure.

A poll for The Independent shows growing support for a second referendum, up four points in a month to 44 per cent, with just over a quarter of voters opposed to one. Nearly two to one.

The public deserves a chance to see what it is buying. So much water has passed under the bridge since the country narrowly voted for Brexit in June 2016, that the case for a second, confirmatory ballot is becoming deafening.

This is not about asking the same question over and over again; it’s about offering a chance to approve how the country will be governed after 2019 – a discussion that never took place during the disingenuous referendum campaign.

Asking people whether they’re in favour of whatever last-effort deal ministers manage to negotiate is undoubtedly reasonable.

If, after hearing the arguments the British public still votes to leave, then I have no argument with that. It is the public’s choice. As a democrat I would accept their decision. But if the facts change – and they have – we should have the opportunity to change our minds.

Joe Anderson is the mayor of Liverpool