Jon Pretty

But there was far too much riding on the outcome of a single day, a single choice, a single vote. Most legislation passes multiple times through the House of Commons and the House of Lords, amongst elected (mostly!) and well-informed (mostly!) officials

Instead, the Brexit referendum was a single vote, widely open to manipulation from inside and outside the UK, and influenced by other irrelevant factors, such as dissatisfaction with the government of the day and unpredictable news events fresh in people's minds when they voted.

To make a decision like this, with such dramatic economic and social implications (whether believed to be positive or negative) for so many people, for decades to come, was incredibly foolish.

I don't believe that direct democracy is a good way of making decisions like this, but I accept that democracy is a broad set of compromises, and referenda are a valid form of national decision-making. But a decision of this importance should not pivot on a choice so frivolous.

If the turmoil of British politics over the last four years have not provided sufficient evidence of it, we should learn, very clearly, that a referendum, no matter how likely victory seems, should not be the crux upon which complex decisions are made.

But if referenda are to be used, then one should not be considered sufficient. So I would like to suggest an improvement on the Brexit referendum process. Here is what I think would have been a better approach:

Firstly, a referendum on opening EU departure negotiations and holding a second referendum; then, if accepted, a second referendum on continuing negotiations towards a deal and holding a third referendum; then, if accepted, a third referendum on accepting the deal and leaving.

The public would be able, at any referendum, to abort the process and maintain the status quo. By spreading the choice over several referenda and years, it would provide more time to debate the details, at the same time as those details are becoming increasingly concrete.