The UK government underlined today that EU citizens resident in the UK would not be shown the door after Brexit. It is not the first time this has been said, but in truth it is a very hollow statement for two main reasons.

Firstly, it says nothing about the rights of those EU citizens after Brexit which, in all honesty, would be less than they enjoy at present under the free-movement policy of the EU.

Secondly, it says nothing at all about the position of UK citizens at present living and working elsewhere in the EU, such as myself.

I have complained before in this blog about the exclusion of ex-pats from the franchise and of course they are being completely forgotten in the closing phase of the negotiations. Our position is actually far more complicated because we would not be subject to EU rules technically. We would become non-EU citizens overnight, and each individual EU member country would apply their own rules as to their status. Brussels has little or no jurisdiction over member-states’ policies on non-EU citizens.

Although the Dutch government has yet to legislate for UK passport holders living in the Netherlands (where I live), there is a simple move that would ease the minds of many who have lived here for at least 5 years: relax the rules on dual nationality for UK citizens. The law already contains exceptions, including allowing dual nationality with countries where you cannot give up your native passport. Extend that to UK citizens, at the very least to those who qualify for a Dutch passport by the date the UK leaves the EU.

Such a move would not solve every problem. I do not expect there to be an agreement on the continued consolidation of pension entitlement for Brits who have some years to claim from the UK. When I retire – still nearly 5 years from now – I will not get any state pension from the UK since I had only built up 7 years of entitlement before moving out of the country and the minimum contribution is now 10 years instead of the previous 5. The consolidation option, whereby the country you have the largest accumulation of qualifying years can be requested to add years worked in other EU countries (claiming it back from the countries involved centrally) would cease to apply after Brexit.

At least with dual nationality we would maintain free movement within the EU and the UK (post Brexit) and keep the door open to return permanently to the UK with a minimum of bureaucracy. So, Mr Rutte, what about it? In any event, it is high time the Dutch government clarified what the position of UK citizens resident in the Netherlands will be. The UK has dragged its feet during the negotiations on the deal, but the Dutch government is no better on this point. A year and a half after Article 50 was triggered by the UK, the Dutch government has done no better than utter soothing words which are meaningless unless backed up in law.

Some in Britain are calling for a people’s vote on the deal (still to be) reached between the UK and the EU on Brexit.

A doctor, part of a panel on Victoria Derbyshire’s morning current affairs programme today, made a striking point which rang a distinct bell with me.

Before undergoing surgery, for example, a patient must give ‘informed consent’. This means that not only must they consent to the procedure, they must be given all the relevant information on which to base that decision. You want to know not only what the surgeon is going to do, but what improvement or cure for your condition it will bring and what the potential risks are.

The doctor’s point was that when the referendum was held, the voters were not given all the relevant information. In fact, they were also given “facts” that we now know were completely unfounded. She said that if she provided as little or misleading information to a patient, she would end up being struck off!

The referendum did provide consent, but it was not informed consent. I choose to believe that was not essentially deliberate. We all hear political rhetoric every day, and almost as soon as the paint was dry on that bus, few people really believed that the NHS would get that 350 million pounds a week which would supposedly be saved by cancelling our membership to the European club.

The truth is that the real difficulties and ramifications of what would become known as Brexit were simply not known when the referendum was held. The few voices that tried to speak out were ridiculed and accused of promoting Project Fear. By the way, they still are! Project Fear has become synonymous with any critical comments dismissed by the other side of an argument, irrespective of whether or not there is any truth or foundation in said comments. It is a cheap retort seemingly voiced by those unwilling to enter into an actual reasoned debate.

With every day that goes by, the possibility of a hard Brexit – one with no deal in place – is looming larger and larger. Even now the consequences of that are being played down, but there are very real problems to overcome. Take customs checks at ports like Dover, or civil aviation, or the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland for example. The resolution of these issues without accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice on at least some aspects is impossible. The point has also been made that there is currently no country trading with the EU solely on World Trade Organisation terms.

There is, I think, an inherent weakness in the Article 50 procedure anyway. Most of the practical problems that weren’t even conceived when the referendum was held have only come to light as the negotiations progressed. The two-year period allowed for in Article 50 is simply too short to expose these issues and have an informed public debate on them. It is certainly too short for a country like the UK to disentangle itself from the complicated web of common agreements and rules which have been the order of the day for the UK’s day-to-day cooperation with its European neighbours.

Only now are we becoming informed. Better late than never perhaps. However, a public vote on the final deal would be based on completely different information than the original referendum. This time, at least, the real price of securing the goals Brexiteers wanted would be known.