Certainty should be the Brexit goal

No matter what one thinks about Brexit, millions of British think differently. It is a polarising issue which has somehow created more and deeper splits the longer it has gone on.

Whatever the outcome, the United Kingdom needs certainty to move forward. It appears only a second referendum will offer that.

Many in the UK had been agitating to leave the European Union for several years before then-prime minister David Cameron triggered the 2016 referendum to honour an election promise. The rest is history. With the UK set to leave the EU in a matter of weeks, it is time to focus attention on the present and future.

The problems stem from differing views of not only what the future may hold, but of what the present is. The world looks very different to different people depending on their circumstances. Some paint all Brexiteers as one particular type of addled extreme, but only a fool would believe all 17.4million Leave voters fit that stereotype.

Similarly, it would be foolish to label all 16.1million Remain voters as privileged and unaffected by the ills those wishing to leave the EU believe are omnipresent. Which is why continuing to debate the philosophical pros and cons of Brexit must, surely, end.

There is a criticism from Brexiteers that Remainers have never accepted the referendum result and will continue with the ''one more referendum'' rationale until they get the outcome they want. That, they say, is disrespectful of democracy.

That is nonsense, as democracy exists as a mechanism to ensure people are represented in the affairs of state. People are complex, they change their minds and democracy empowers them to do so. Future referendums are not an affront to democracy but democracy in action.

It is fair, though, to argue each subsequent referendum will be as polarising as the first, as well as expensive and cumbersome for a nation which normally has its hands full simply governing day-to-day affairs.

But a second referendum should not be seen as just an attempt to get a different result. Instead, it seems without a second referendum Brexit will rankle and fester and never be accepted - fermenting anger, frustration and trouble.

A second referendum does nothing to serve Remainers if, as Brexiteers say, the majority of voters still want to leave. If leave really did mean leave in 2016, then a second referendum will starkly illustrate that. Leavers would be voting with a sober understanding of what they are leaving to. For obvious reasons, that destination was one of conjecture in 2016. Now, with Prime Minister Theresa May's deal complete, voters have a clear, binary choice: her deal, or the status quo.

Of course, Leavers fear such a binary, well-informed vote could end in a win for Remainers. Some of them, including Brexit champion Nigel Farage, are not really concerned about the cost or disruption of subsequent referendums - in 2016, they promised more of them when, initially, it appeared they had lost.

But leadership and governance require more than fearing and pandering to the squeakiest wheels. They demand understanding whom and what you lead, the needs of that entity, then doing your best to ensure its success.

What the UK needs now is certainty. It needs a thick black line to be drawn under the soap-opera fiasco of the last two years. A second referendum like that proposed by British Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson to back May's deal on the condition it is put to a public vote would give that certainty, one way or the other.

With all the resources, time and expertise available, the current deal is all that is on offer for Leave. Remain is already well understood. The two choices should be voted on and the subsequent wounds cauterised. Then, the UK can move on.