On 20 October, more than 700,000 people took to the streets of London for an anti-Brexit march, calling for a second referendum on whether the UK should quit the European Union[1]. They raise the demand of giving the electorate the final say on the “exit deal” from the EU, which could also be a no-deal scenario in the event that the negotiations break down.

Coupled with this protest is the “Final Say” petition by the newspaper The Independent, calling for another referendum, which has already reached over 900,000 signatures[2]. It is very good for British democracy to see people being mobilised on a political issue and raising their voice. However, I do not believe that the call for a second referendum on Brexit is the right way to proceed, as it is inherently undemocratic.

The Brexit referendum on 23rd June 2016 led to a small majority of 51.9% of British voters deciding in favour of a UK exit from the European Union. This rather unexpected result was the final outcome of David Cameron’s general election campaign of 2015, where he promised to hold a vote on EU membership if re-elected as Prime Minister. The promise was Cameron’s strategy to silence the long-lasting Euroscepticism that had been present in the Conservative Party since the 1990s. Cameron’s political move then led to the unexpected win of the Brexiteers and to Cameron’s resignation shortly thereafter. The referendum polarised the country around the European question, dividing the country over diametrically opposing visions on what is the best future for the UK.

This situation was created by a referendum that was undemocratic in the first place. From a theoretical standpoint, I think the circumstances fit the theory of Jan-Werner Mueller’s book on “What is Populism?”[3]. According to his thoughts; referenda are a tool for politicians to give the population a vote on an issue they have already decided on and just want to give it a veneer of democratic approval by making it a decision by the people. In the case of Brexit, David Cameron saw the vote as an opportunity to silence the Eurosceptic wing of the Tories and to stop the growing support for the UK Independence Party. The only part that he didn’t expect was that he would lose. Secondly, referenda are not a democratic decision-making process, because as in this case, most people were not fully aware of the consequences of “the Leave vote” and were consequently misled by emotional arguments and fiction.

Therefore, such a complex and highly debated issue as quitting the EU, with its four freedoms of the Single Market, is a decision that ought to be taken via the ordinary decision-making process of the elected representatives. They have been elected by the people and as such should be the only legitimate way – along with the House of Lords and with the approval of the courts – to determine the future path of the UK.

Calling for a second referendum is a seemingly straightforward and democratic option to decide whether the negotiated Brexit agreement or the no-deal scenario is what the British would like or not.

However, such a campaign is rooted in the same illegitimate and undemocratic notion as the first referendum, which would not justify a new vote but only discredit its result. Holding a new vote would lead to a vicious cycle where each side would try to let people vote until they receive their preferred outcome. Moreover, what is there to be gained from a second referendum that reverses Brexit? In that case, Remainers would be happy, but the other half of the electorate would feel betrayed, leading to further polarisation and a failure to address the fundamental political division at hand.

In light of this difficult situation, I think the outcome of the first referendum cannot be contested in the same way but has to be challenged by democratic means. Consequently, instead of calling for a new vote, an alternative would be to hold a general election to elect a new House of Commons which will then be empowered by the people to decide whether or not to leave the EU based on the exit scenarios.

Such a vote must be held before 29th March 2019, when the UK is officially scheduled to leave the European Union. This option, however, is rather unrealistic as the unresolved “Irish border question” continues to prevent the conclusion of the exit deal between the UK and the EU. Without an end of the negotiations in close sight, it is unlikely that there will be enough time left to organise an election.

Hence, there are two primary actions UK citizens should engage in if they are not willing to accept the scheduled exit of the EU. Firstly, it is essential to make oneself heard like it was done on Saturday. Secondly, as the House of Commons votes on the final deal, I believe that convincing one’s Member of Parliament that Brexit should be halted is currently the only democratically legitimate and realistic option, time-wise, that British people have to reverse the decision to exit the European Union.