Now is the time to explore the case for another EU referendum

Today, this special edition of The Independent invites both sides of the Brexit debate to argue the case for and against putting the final deal to the British people

This is not a campaign. The Independent is not calling for a further referendum. We want to explore the ways in which the people and their elected representatives can continue to have a say over Brexit. True democracy cannot be reduced to a single event, the meaning of which is unclear, and so in this special edition of The Independent we want to open out the important discussion that Britain needs to have now.

In Parliament, the issue of how we leave the EU is proving to be bitterly divisive. When MPs are reduced to tears by the whips insisting they vote against their beliefs, we have to question whether this is the best way to decide whether the final Brexit deal is good for the UK.

That happened this week ahead of the vote on Dominic Grieve’s amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. The Independent welcomes any changes to the process of Brexit that improve scrutiny and provide a democratic means for the decision to be taken by the people. Mr Grieve, a thoughtful and principled former Attorney General, provided the House of Commons with an important guarantee that its view will be respected.

But, given how fractious that vote was, is a parliamentary vote the best way of deciding whether to accept the final Brexit deal? It is a pressing question.

The arguments against another EU referendum are simple. If you want to leave the EU, you may say that referendums cannot simply be re-run until the “metropolitan, liberal elite” gets the result it wants. If you want to stay in the EU, you might argue that a referendum got us into the mess, so why would another one get us out of it? Both are important points.

But the arguments in favour must also be heard. It is fair to question whether the referendum of 2016 was anything like a high point of our democracy. It certainly represented a pinnacle for the power of spin on the campaign trail. “We send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead.” That battle bus slogan has come to represent so much about how the truth was the first victim of this ideological war. And with the exaggerations of the Remain campaign’s “project fear”, neither side of the debate was entirely immune. Were the voters sufficiently informed of the likely scenarios? Who thought it would come to the situation we face today?

The truth is that, 18 months after David Cameron’s referendum, the Brexit process is not proving to be quite as many had imagined. When it comes to it, will we be happy for MPs to vote on our behalf to settle the final terms of Brexit? And in that vote, what would it mean if MPs vote against the deal? That we go back and negotiate for even longer – would that really improve matters? That we leave with no deal – and crash out of Europe without a trade agreement of any kind? Or that we stay in the EU after all – but on what terms?

This is too important a question to be settled in a way that – when the time comes – may leave more than half the people frustrated or angry. This is an issue that has divided people, and politics.

The Independent was of the view that leaving the European Union is against the interests of the United Kingdom. We also believe that there is a possibility that the majority of the British people may come round to this view as the reality of Brexit becomes ever clearer towards March 2019.

If that happens, would a vote in the Commons be the best way to respect the democratic will? Would another referendum be better?

This is an important discussion to be had, and the clock is ticking. But it is not a discussion for angry exchanges on social media or on television.

So we hope that by inviting those on both sides of the Brexit fence to write, uninterrupted, on the subject, we have at least put the question on the agenda, before it is too late.