Brexit Britain is the purgatory for hard working people that nobody voted for. Yet as soon as anybody mentions the so called “Second referendum” they are immediately exiled from the debate, as a minority within the 48%. As remoaners demanding a second chance to get it right! As traitors hidden inside the EU establishment willing for the collapse of British society, so we can all sit around eating croissants, drinking German beer, outside Italian ice cream parlours.

Now just to confirm, to the disappointment of everyone – I know – I am not some crazy, raging eurocrat. Yes, I campaigned to remain inside the European Union, but honestly I’m as proud to be British as anybody else…Well unless you’re a xenophobic leave supporting skin-head; see stereotypes aren’t nice. So hush up and listen to my points before you start screaming “God save the Queen” at me. At the end of the day, my words might even enlighten you.

Carrying on with the controversial comments, first of all I need to emphasise that a second referendum is not a re-run of the last. That I would completely oppose. So don’t start giving me the “well you wouldn’t re-run the Scottish referendum of 2014” because I wouldn’t no. This is completely different.

One of the ways this is different is firstly that in 2016, we had absolutely no idea what Brexit would look like. It was like being told to write the most complicated book for a very long time without knowing the alphabet. Or if you prefer mathematics – to perform some complex sums without knowing any values. Values which even a year on we still do not know; for example the dreaded Brexit divorce bill, which our guy in charge of supplying the stats – David Davis – still doesn’t have a clue about…despite supposedly negotiating it last week; but hey ho that’s just the nature of Brexit.

Secondly, what is wrong with ending a process which started by listening to the people, by turning around and saying “Look, you told us what you wanted. This is what we are able to do. Do you still want it?”. Surely that is the democracy which every leaver, remainer, or sensible individual has been arguing for?

You don’t wander into a supermarket to collect shopping bags with no idea what’s inside them. Instead you go in with a list – or an idea/purpose if you aren’t too organised. Sometimes things on that list might not be available. In some cases you might even come out with something a bit cheeky to quench your sugar needs. Perhaps even something which you haven’t tried before. But by the time you reach the till, you have been able to decide on what you are buying, for better or for worse, even if it strays from the initial list. Yet you have still made that decision. You have had the ability to decide what food is in your cupboards, as well as that initial decision to go to the supermarket.

That is democracy. That is just sensible.

My third point stems from this idea of democracy, of common sense; but this time focusses on the people who take part in the campaigns and try to dominate the country’s political conversations, such as myself. So I ask you; if you are so confident that you have the right plan, then why are you scared of losing? Surely ideas as superior as your own, would triumph in a vote, as long as you are able to run an effective campaign. This is when the oh so self-righteous phrase “But what if the voters don’t make the right choice” is put forward. “How can we trust them?”. To this I have only one clear answer. How can we trust that you will stand up for every single person in this country, if they do not have a say on the final deal? No lone individual is able to represent other people fully, when they may not understand their circumstances in full. We must therefore make one of the most significant decisions this country has to make since the Second World War, fully accountable to all people in British society.

This topic of a second referendum is one that has not been effectively nor vocally argued, and has turned into a taboo for anyone not seeking to be accused of wetting the bed over Brexit. I have tried as best as possible, to keep it light hearted, which I hope is a refreshing break from the anxiety and instability, any negotiation of this magnitude creates. Yet I have also tried to keep it straight to the point.

Conclusively, I strongly believe that it is only fair that a referendum is given to the British people at the end of the negotiations with a very clear unescapable question, with three distinct choices.

Now the negotiations for leaving the EU have finished and the terms are clear. What would you prefer the government to do?
– Agree to the final deal
– Remain a member of the European Union
– Leave the European Union with no deal

Such a referendum should be the last this country ever has. Frankly I’m fed up of them. Yet this proves the only fitting end to a rotten political debate which has torn through Westminster, businesses and ultimately through the deeply divided minds of the British people. This second and final referendum would require: Three fact based leaflets to be delivered to every door to inform. Three television broadcasts to propose. Three television debates to explain. And a short but engaging campaign with no lies, no nonsense, and reasonable limits to campaign spending.

I’m not in any denial that in the current political climate, a second referendum is effectively dead in the water. That doesn’t mean that by 2019 it isn’t the right thing for us as a country to heal the wounds that have been tearing us apart for the last few years. The 2017 General Election did not make anything clearer when the electorate is trying to predict the outcome of the Brexit deal, and therefore there is no official mandate or endorsement for anything other than the principle of leaving the EU.

I have absolutely no idea how I would campaign in a second referendum. We can only know how we feel about Brexit once the terms have been made clear. All those complications put out in the open. All the bravado and posturing pushed aside. At the end of the day in order for Brexit to mean Brexit, we need the most important part. The British people.

SOURCEOwen Cartey
Previous articleA Cabinet of Chaos
Next articleLessons in Post-Truth Politics from Venezuela
Owen is a young politics enthusiast, who is currently a pupil at Southend High School for Boys. He joined the Conservative Party in November 2015 after previously being a member of the Labour Party, who had grown tired of the lack of leadership and competence under Ed Miliband and then isolated after the election of Jeremy Corbyn. Despite this change of heart, Owen still holds many of his centrist views, and has carried with him a love of social justice. It is this which has carried his politics forward, and he now regularly campaigns for organisations such as LGBTory and 38 Degrees. All of this when combined with his internationalist approach to foreign policy - as seen by his contributions to the Stronger IN campaign during the EU referendum - and his support for economic liberalism have played a part in him now labelling himself as a Moderate One Nation Conservative. He is now Vice President of Castle Point Conservative Future, and has fought several local campaigns on issues such as housing and the protection of funding for Grammar schools. It's campaigns like these which he believes have the most significance for hard working people up and down the country, and which need to be focussed on if we are to bring the unenthused back into politics. Owen's personal motto is one of great inspiration. forti nihil difficile - For the determined nothing is difficult


  1. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that by triggering Article 50 we have effectively left the EU. So the ‘middle’ option (remain) shown in this article:

    – Agree to the final deal
    – Remain a member of the European Union
    – Leave the European Union with no deal

    is not strictly available. It would have to be re-join, and in these circumstances the terms of re-joining would be about as clear as those for leaving. We would certainly not keep the rebate so £350 million would probably be true and we’d possibly have to adopt the EURO.

    • Just to clarify. We have not officially left the European Union until the Article 50 process has ended. In the same way that we have set precedent by triggering Article 50, we would also be setting precedent by going back on that. Yet this is absolutely possible, and even if there is no legal provision for it, I am almost certain that the European Parliament would vote to allow it

  2. Just to clarify. We have not officially left the European Union until the Article 50 process has ended. In the same way that we have set precedent by triggering Article 50, we would also be setting precedent by going back on that. Yet this is absolutely possible, and even if there is no legal provision for it, I am almost certain that the European Parliament would vote to allow it.

    • I had a very unusual position on the first referendum. I was neither fully for or fully against. Instead I argued that 2015 was not the year to make promises for referendums, and that in 2016 there were plenty of other issues that needed to have greater levels of attention than those of a constitutional nature.

      I did however feel that a referendum would be perfectly justified once we had eliminated the national deficit, and got the country back up and running again. This would have firstly put us in a better position to negotiate for EU reform beforehand and look forwards instead of backwards; as well as secondly putting us in a better position to carry out the will of the British people whatever it may have been.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.