The current nation-wide divisions arising from Brexit are arguably the greatest and most acrimonious since those of the civil war of the 1640s (between Royalists and Parliamentarians).

As with the civil war, Brexit has splintered the nation into two diametrically opposed camps, each holding passionate and almost zealot-like views on the future governance of the nation.  Thankfully unlike the civil war the fate of the nation today is not determined through force of arms, but through the democratic process.

This poses the question of the available democratic options should the current deal on Brexit, as agreed by the UK government and the EU, be rejected by parliament.

Many Brexiteers would undoubtedly argue that there must be strict adherence to the outcome of the referendum of 2016, even if it involves a no deal Brexit which, as most informed observers articulate, may subject the nation to severe economic damage, at least in the short to medium term.

In addition, a no deal Brexit undoubtedly risks the fragmentation of the UK.  With such considerations in mind it is surely appropriate, and within the bounds of the democratic process, to reconsider the outcome of the Brexit referendum.

These consideration are reinforced by the fact the referendum vote is now more than two and a half years old – and it seems democratically indefensible that an historic vote (partly based upon the imperfect knowledge and beliefs of that time) should direct and shackle the future direction of the nation, without further consideration.

Furthermore the evidence seems indisputable that the vote to leave was the domain of most of the older generation while remain is the preference of the young.

As such, as we go through time, the declining number of those older voters together with the increasing number of younger voters are likely to shift a second vote decisively into the camp of remain.

Thus while it is certainly the case that all votes, no matter from old or young, have equal value, it again seems democratically, and maybe morally, indefensible that an historic vote (not yet enacted) should force the great majority of young people of our nation into a future that they oppose, and do not want – without that vote, in light of current knowledge, now being reconsidered.

It is therefore argued that the so-called people’s vote, is both appropriate and democratic.

However, what must be minimised at all costs is the enmity and national scarring that followed the end of the civil war.

A reversal of Brexit must therefore be decisive, and a supported by a clear majority of the voting population.  As such, it is considered essential that a future vote in favour of Remain must achieve at least 55 per cent of the total vote (which ought to have been the case for leave, in the 2016 referendum).

Keith Harker

Wilmslow