‘People’s Vote’ would be disastrous
and Roger Godsiff (Lab Birmingham Hall Green) recently joined the campaign. Pat McFadden, Labour MP for Wolverhampton South East, is sympathetic, saying “I will keep listening to voters on this issue”.
And the campaign received a major boost when Conservative Jo Johnson resigned as a Transport Minister, saying he wanted a People's Vote.
But what would happen if a second referendum took place?
The first referendum divided the country. Having said that, debate at the time was reasonably good natured.
After all, many voters genuinely didn't know which option to choose, and wanted to hear the arguments.
There were a few cutting remarks. Memorable moments included remain-supporting MP Amber Rudd telling Leave campaigner Boris Johnson that he was the life and soul of the party, but “you can't trust him to take you home at the end of an evening”.
There was, however, no talk of traitors or betrayal. That came after the referendum, as the UK began the tortuous process of negotiating an exit from the EU.
A second referendum will be far less pleasant.
People who support Brexit will be furious. And who could blame them?
They were asked for their opinion and they gave it. And they were assured at the time that their decision mattered – that the result of the referendum was final.
Holding a second referendum would mean they were lied to about that. In practice, they would be told that they got it wrong the first time around, and now must try again.
Supporters of a second referendum point out that when people voted in 2016, they didn't have a chance to endorse a specific Brexit deal.
However, it would be clear that a second referendum was really about reversing Brexit.
The idea that it was a public vote on the deal – which just happened to include the option of staying in the EU – would fool no-one.
It's also said that nobody voted to make themselves poorer.
But they did. Or at least, they were told repeatedly, by the Government of the day, by industry and by much of the media, that Brexit would make them poorer, and they chose to vote for it anyway.
Maybe they didn't believe what they were told, or maybe they decided the country would eventually recover from whatever damage Brexit caused to the economy. Either way, they made their choice. Some MPs who campaigned for remain in 2016 believe telling voters to think again would shatter confidence in British democracy and foster a belief that voting changes nothing. A few even predict civil disobedience and riots on the streets.
Supporters of a people's vote argue that a number of recent opinion polls suggest the public has come round to the idea.
A recent YouGov poll, for example, found 45 per cent of voters want a public vote, with 35 per cent opposed and 21 per cent saying they don't know.
But take a look at the question pollsters asked. It went like this: “When the negotiations with the European Union about Brexit are complete, would you support or oppose a public vote on the outcome?”
Now, anyone who's been following the debate closely will know this means a second referendum on Brexit. But it was presented as a vote on the outcome of Mrs May's negotiations. I bet a lot of people who took part in YouGov's survey didn't quite make the connection.
If a second referendum does take place, there will be no hiding what it really is. And what would happen next? It's true that if the nation voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU then the debate would be over.
But what if the result of the 2016 referendum, when 52 per cent wanted to leave, was reversed - with 52 per cent voting to stay in this time, and 48 per cent wanting to leave?
Would we make it best out of three? If not, how could we convince “leave” voters that the second result was conclusive while the first had to be re-run?
Some MPs are convinced that a second referendum would harden attitudes, and Leave would simply win a second time.
Meanwhile, the nation would suffer months of further uncertainty, making it impossible for employers to plan ahead and restricting investment into the economy.
Many voters would become even more convinced that their concerns and opinions mean nothing to those in power.
And the UK would be further divided by through an angry referendum campaign in which one side felt betrayed, and perhaps with good reason.
There was, however, no talk of traitors or betrayal – that came after the referendum. A second referendum will be far less pleasant