We were told there was a hard Brexit; we were told there was a soft Brexit; but at least no politician was so dishonest as to delude the people of the British Isles that there was an easy Brexit. This is probably the only consensus left about the ill-thought-out, ill-prepared, and nowhere near ready to be implemented fiasco of the UK seemingly leaving the EU. There might be an exception to this consensus on the very right of the Conservative Party and the remains of UKIP, where there is strong opposition to any deal that would retain some aspects of EU membership. For the rest, it is beginning to dawn that, not only is there no easy Brexit, but also that any departure from the EU is going to be costly and painful. Worse, instead of healing the rifts in British society over the issue of Europe, Brexit has deepened the schism over it. Last week, this brought about 700,000 worried citizens from up and down the country on to the streets of London to demand a second referendum. The beautiful sunny day played its part in enticing people to join forces and express their will, even demand, to have the last say, if and when there is a deal. The official line of the organizers was that they are not asking for a second round of the “Remain” versus “Leave” referendum, but the right to pass verdict on what will have an enormous impact on every single UK citizen. There is an obvious logic in the demand for a second referendum, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, in the 2016 referendum voters didn’t have even the faintest idea of what leaving the EU would look like, what it would entail, or what trade-offs it would necessitate. A second referendum on an agreed deal, leaving without a deal or remaining would be about something concrete: On what awaits the country under each possible scenario. Moreover, the Leave campaign’s narrow margin of victory in June 2016 suggested that Britain was thoroughly divided on the issue, almost right down the middle. Since then, the divisions have only deepened. This is not to suggest that the results were not legitimate in any shape or form; nevertheless, for the outcome of that referendum’s decision to be legitimate, it needs to be put back to the people. In 2016, people voted on an abstract idea of leaving, with no precedent to guide them. But this time, one would hope, they will make a more educated decision based on the specific details of how life will look in the aftermath of leaving the EU, with or without any kind of deal. If neither is attractive, a third option should be presented of remaining in the EU. This would make the decision way more valid than the previous one. The claim that the demand made by the hundreds of thousands who marched through the streets of London, and everyone else in agreement with them, is undemocratic, or that they are bad losers, holds no water. Asking for the opinion of the people is never undemocratic. It must be at least as democratic as it is for the government or Parliament to decide on their behalf. Admittedly, the overwhelmingly majority of the marchers were most probably Remainers. However, they are not asking for anything less democratic than those who wanted the original referendum in the first place. And, in that case, if Brexit is such a wonderful idea, why should those who support it be so afraid of asking the people for their opinion now, two years down the line, after the concept has evolved and slowly clarified? The demand for the final decision to be made by the British people is enhanced by the fact that the Brexit process has been a debacle. From the outset, much of the campaigning in the first referendum was based on false information, aimed to instil in people a mixture of fear and misguided hope. What followed can only be described as a national embarrassment. Neither side designed a plan, let alone a coherent one, for leaving. Asking for the opinion of the people is never undemocratic. It must be at least as democratic as it is for the government or Parliament to decide on their behalf. Yossi Mekelberg The Brexiters, ironically, shared the same misguided belief as those in government who called the referendum: That there was no majority for it in the country. When they won, many of them were nowhere to be seen when it came to shouldering responsibility. The biggest loudmouth of them all is currently a radio presenter, rather than in politics, which is a blessing in disguise, and the prime minister at the time instantly resigned and lost his voice altogether. Lastly, the government’s subsequent incompetent handling of negotiations with the EU, combined with a pathetically shallow and partisan handling of Brexit by the political system, left the people’s trust in any outcome produced by Westminster and Whitehall almost non-existent. Last year’s general election demonstrated this rather clearly. If I am right in all of the above assertions, then asking the people for their opinion is the only and obvious democratic conclusion. The Remainers remain as convinced as ever that leaving will be disastrous, and may have gained more support since the 2016 referendum. The Brexiters, meanwhile, especially those who support a hard exit, are afraid that the divorce bone they hold between their teeth is about to snatched from them just before the finishing line. To reject going back to the entire population and asking them about it is the undemocratic stance. Does the UK need another divisive and probably aggressive referendum over Europe? In an ideal world the answer would be a definite no. But, before the country hopefully embarks on a much-needed post-Brexit collective healing process, it must let its voice be heard one more time when so much is at stake, including the survival of the Union itself. It might be the biggest and most consequential decision for a generation, and answering the plea by the marchers from all over the country for a second referendum will help to settle the issue of Europe in British politics once and for all. Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view