A second Brexit referendum would be divisive

The argument

The case against a second referendum is that it mistakes the problem. The difficulty is not a shortage of votes but a country split by the one already held, and running the exercise again does nothing to close that split. It reopens it, with the same two camps, the same arguments and higher stakes, and whatever the outcome it would entrench divisions, widen the political divide and do further damage to a political landscape that has already absorbed a great deal. The decisive point is that no result resolves anything. Consider a second Leave victory: the Brexit camp is itself divided between a soft and a hard Brexit, and a renewed mandate to leave would not say which, so the rift inside the winning side would survive the vote intact and the argument would resume the following day. Consider the alternative: a Remain victory would overturn a legitimate vote held in 2016, and those who won that vote would reasonably conclude they had been made to vote again until they produced the preferred answer. Tensions already running high would be inflamed rather than settled, and the result would carry no authority with the side it defeated. That is what distinguishes a second referendum from an ordinary election. An election's loser accepts the outcome because another contest is already scheduled; a referendum is meant to settle a question once. Holding a second one establishes that referendum results are provisional, which weakens the standing of the first vote and of any that follow it. Proponents of this position argue that a mechanism capable of delivering a result neither side would accept is not a route out of the impasse but a way of deepening it, and that there should therefore be no second Brexit referendum.

Context

The whole reason we ended up with a referendum in 2016 was because David Cameron sought to heal the divide between pro-EU and anti-EU forces in the Conservative Party. This failed miserably. The Conservative Party is more divided than ever and, now, so is the public following a tight-won referendum marred with campaign violations, lies, and controversy.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The first referendum only sewed division because the British public was manipulated, lied to, and was voting blindly without any idea of what a Brexit deal would look like. Now Theresa May has a deal with Brussels, the public can see what they are voting for and have far more clarity. This will only serve to increase the legitimacy of the second referendum. A legitimate referendum would not sew division but settle the matter once and for all.

Rejecting the premises

The first vote only sewed division because of the circumstances it took place under. A second referendum would have more legitimacy and carry more weight. It would, therefore, heal divisions, not foster them.