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.