No matter what the outcome of the indicative votes on Brexit, we’ll still need a second referendum

That should, in truth, be the easiest thing to gain support on, for any faction must be confident that a sovereign people will back the judgement of their parliamentarians

One of the original sins of Brexit is the way in which the government, and especially the prime minister, have repeatedly ignored the will and wishes of parliament. Theresa May loftily informed our elected representatives she would not be giving a “running commentary”. She initially refused a vote on Article 50. She never sought approval for her various red lines. We see now that this attitude was arrogant and counterproductive.

Even when she still enjoyed the modest overall parliamentary majority she inherited from David Cameron, that was a dangerous game. Since she became the head of a minority government after the 2017 general election, this wilful refusal to listen to MPs doubts has been the undoing of the prime minister and her deal. If either survives the next few weeks it will be a surprise.

The Conservatives’ disarray is hardly unique. Labour too is showing signs of the same ailment, with a party policy that is at best ambivalent about a people’s vote. Even the Eurosceptics are split – the original Ukip now versus Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party. This is, at root, why parliament has found it so difficult to navigate Brexit – it transcends party.

As we see all too clearly now, but was always fairly apparent, the European issue cuts viciously across traditional party loyalties. From the 1960s to the 1980s it was Labour that was the more deeply and irreconcilably divided.

From the 1990s the rise of Euroscepticism and the cult of Thatcher in the Conservative Party has turned a small minority of eccentrics and Powellites into the mainstream, especially in the grassroots.

The more extreme Commons faction, the European Research Group, now operates as a party within a party, though it is not immune to splintering. As Britain tries to face up to Brexit, it is the unique historical misfortune of the nation to have both of its main parties so badly divided at the same time.

So the indicative votes now being held are one way to accommodate this new world of broken party discipline. In truth, they should have been held two years ago or more, to allow MPs to grant ministers a clear negotiating brief.

There would still have been crises and last-minute deals, but the British team could be much more confident that, in the event, they would be able to deliver their own parliament. Contrast with the other side: the Europeans, for their part, have maintained a remarkable unity, both among institutions – parliament, council and commission – and across the other 27 governments. They have ratified the November deal; the UK has not, and probably will never do so.

It would be disappointing and deeply ironic if our MPs, given the opportunity, fail to make some progress on their own behalf. There is no shortage of brains and imagination among those who have agitated for the Commons to take control – Oliver Letwin, Hilary Benn, Yvette Cooper, Dominic Grieve are all more than capable of organising their affairs and coming up with some sort of proposal. They will, wise as they are, pay due attention to what the EU is likely to accept in the way of a radical renegotiation of Ms May’s deal – in effect a fresh start.

Still more disappointing would be any failure to include in their proposal – whatever it might be – the requirement to put any new UK-EU deal to the people in a popular vote. It is an error, in other words, to see a referendum as simply another option, to sit alongside, say, a Norway-style deal or free trade area or whatever they come up with.

Any new settlement – Ms May’s bespoke deal, no-deal Brexit, a customs union – has to be put to the people to gain popular consent. The referendum of 2016 was flawed in many ways, but it was a popular vote; and another will be required on the terms of Brexit, with the option to remain as the fallback on the ballot paper.

That should, in truth, be the easiest thing to gain support on, for any faction must be confident that a sovereign people will back the judgement of their parliamentarians. It is the only logical way to resolve the mess. It will take time, and the EU will grant the British time only in order to hold a second referendum – so that question about whether to hold one in effect answers itself. A Final Say referendum remains the answer, whatever the indicative votes indicate.