In the poll we are running today, we ask: Should there be a People’s vote on the final Brexit deal? ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

We have also asked two members of the Faculty of Advocates, former Labour MP Mark Lazarowicz and current Conservative MSP Gordon Lindhurst, to provide their arguments for and against another vote.

Mark Lazarowicz

Advocate Mark Lazarowicz is chair of the European Movement in Scotland and was Labour MP for Edinburgh North & Leith between 2001 and 2015.

The overwhelming rejection of the Prime Minister’s deal on a withdrawal agreement with the EU was dramatic politics, but behind all the excitement is the stark reality that the UK is now a few days closer falling off the Brexit cliff edge.

I don’t hide the fact that I am an ardent Remainer who would like to see a People’s Vote – an opportunity for the electorate to decide whether they wish the country to go ahead with leaving the EU now they know the deal (or no-deal) that is actually on the table, or whether they would rather choose the option of staying in the EU.

But I suspect that I share with those on the Leave side the wish that the long-running saga of the Brexit negotiations would actually come to a conclusion, and that decisions can be made on the basis of some certainty as to the future.

And that is one of the reasons why I support a People’s Vote and why I believe it is an option which Leavers should support as well.

One of the many problems with the 2016 referendum was that the details of the UK’s future arrangements outside the EU were not specified, whereas the status quo, membership of the EU, was clearly defined. The fact that, legally speaking, the referendum was also advisory meant that there was room for a myriad of interpretations of what Brexit “really, really” meant.

A People’s Vote on the final terms (or between no deal/remain), if it was just advisory and vague, might indeed not end the debate, particularly if it was close and/or there was a different result from 2016.

But such a referendum wouldn’t need to be advisory – providing no closure to the Brexit debate. Instead, it would be perfectly possible for its result to be made binding on government. That’s what happened with the Alternative Vote referendum in 2011. What happened then was that the legislation was drawn up so that the government was legally bound to put into effect the legislation introducing a new system of voting if it won majority support in the referendum, and if it did not, to repeal the relevant parts of the legislation so that the existing voting system stayed in place.

The same approach could be taken in a referendum on the terms of the deal. The legislation setting up the referendum could be set up in such a way that if Remain won the vote, the EU withdrawal legislation would then automatically be repealed; and if the withdrawal deal/no deal won, the government would be authorised and instructed to notify the EU that the UK accepted the deal (or if the choice was for no deal, it could simply do nothing and let Brexit happen without a deal).

Under either scenario, the result would be final, binding in law, and would not require any further discussion or debate in Parliament.

Proceeding in this way would mean that the country and the EU knew with certainty the choice that the UK had taken. And it would be a choice which would be made by “the people”. No doubt the arguments and debate would continue with intensity and passion under whatever outcome – but I suggest such a method of obtaining a definitive result would be one that would have good chance of bringing together an increasingly divided country.

Gordon Lindhurst

Gordon Lindhurst is an advocate and Conservative MSP for the Lothian region.

The “people’s vote”, or EU referendum, took place on 23 June 2016. The United Kingdom as a representative parliamentary democracy rarely holds referenda, and then only to decide issues considered to be of major constitutional importance on which voters should be consulted.

Detail of implementation (unless set out as a referendum question – e.g. should the Scottish Parliament have tax-raising powers?) is left to our elected representatives.

Leaving the detail to them creates a buffer between detailed decision-making and voters, avoiding the sort of divisiveness and acrimony which can come to the fore in a referendum.

It was made clear when the EU referendum was held that the result would be implemented by parliamentarians. In the lead-up period to the referendum there was time for the full airing of views on whether the UK should remain a member of the EU.

No one could have been in any doubt of the decision being taken, as set out by Act of Parliament.

A clear decision was taken by the people to leave the EU, even if by a narrow margin. How often have political decisions been made and votes taken, with results contrary to the views, beliefs, persuasions of many many people? And implemented despite that opposition continuing to exist in a country that values freedom of thought and expression? Accepted and, sometimes grudgingly, respected by those who lost?

Rejection of the result of the EU referendum and calls for a second referendum are unfortunately just that – a rejection of democracy.

What would be the question on a rerun? Why should the result be accepted? A different result would simply confirm a dangerous current tendency of some politicians who assert a divine right to rule, and undermine the whole concept of democracy.

This must be avoided, or the cost will be high.