We need another referendum to settle the Brexit debate

The argument

Proponents of a second Brexit referendum sometimes make their case not as an attempt to reverse the decision to leave the EU, but as the surest way to bring the argument over it to a close. On this view, the Brexit debate has never truly ended: remainers continue to contest the outcome, questioning whether the public genuinely wants to leave and keeping the dispute alive. So long as the decision rests on a single vote, that space for doubt remains open. A second referendum, advocates hold, is the mechanism for closing it. If the people voted for Brexit a second time, the result would show beyond any doubt that the public wants to leave the EU — a verdict repeated is a verdict confirmed, and one that no longer admits of serious challenge. The reasoning proceeds in two steps. First, a repeated vote for Brexit would transform a contested mandate into an unambiguous one: objections that the public did not know what it was choosing, or that it may since have changed its mind, lose their force once the same answer is returned a second time. Second, a result of that decisive character would settle the dispute itself, silencing remainers once and for all — not by excluding them from the conversation, but by removing the grounds on which continued opposition could plausibly stand. From these two premises the conclusion follows: another referendum is needed precisely because it is the instrument by which the Brexit debate can finally be settled. Notably, this gives even committed supporters of leaving a reason to back a second vote, since on this argument's own terms the referendum serves to entrench and legitimise the decision rather than to unpick it. The argument's settling power, as stated, runs through the scenario it envisages: the public reaffirming its choice to leave.

Context

Brexiteers hoped that once the majority of the British public voted for Brexit, it would settle the issue once and for all. They imagined that the referendum would heal divisions and unite the country under the Brexit banner, granting the government the freedom to negotiate the terms of Brexit secure in the knowledge that they had the backing of the British people. However, this was far from what happened. The referendum sowed more division among the public and created more questions than it answered. The British people and political landscape are now more divided than ever, with infighting over Brexit plaguing both major political parties.

Premises

Counter-arguments

There is no guarantee a second referendum would heal divisions. If the public votes to remain in the EU, which polls indicate it will do, then that would mean there has been one vote to remain and one to leave. This would only fuel uncertainty and division. Instead of silencing remainers, it would empower them. In that case, where would it end? Would we have a best of three referenda? Or would Brexit turn into a tennis match with a best of five series?

Rejecting the premises

The first vote did not heal divisions. There is nothing to suggest a second vote would either.