Alastair Campbell was my bete noire when I was leader of the opposition, but I have always found him good company and respected his political instincts. Last week, however, I read his article in the Guardian, arguing that Brexit should be abandoned, with some disbelief. British Prime Minister Theresa May, he suggested, should deliver a speech in which she would say it cannot be done without damage to the economy, living standards, public services and our standing in the world that she is not prepared to accept. She would publish legal advice saying she has the right to revoke the use of Article 50, do just that, and take the consequences.

May is not, of course, going to do any such thing, but the article was another reminder that there are plenty of people in the British political system who would go back on the outcome of the referendum if they could find a way to do it. Campbell’s old boss, former prime minister Tony Blair, has spoken of a last-minute deal to stay in the European Union, and the Liberal Democrats have never really accepted the democratic verdict of the voters.

This unwillingness to embrace the result matters, because it means there are quite a few in the British parliament, particularly in the House of Lords, who will vote in the endless forthcoming debates to make matters as difficult as possible in the hope the entire Brexit project collapses. They also feed the idea in the rest of Europe that taking a hard line in the negotiations is worth it because we may lose heart and stay.

Like all these people, I voted Remain on June 23 last year. I did so because I thought leaving the EU would add to the accelerating fragmentation of the western world, and I still think that. I thought there could be a damaging impact on highly complex but crucial businesses whose work crosses multiple borders, in finance and manufacturing, and I still think that, too. I also feared there would be a new momentum behind a push for Scottish independence, but I am relieved to say that, for the moment, that has not transpired. I therefore sympathise with many of the concerns of those who complain about Brexit, and believe it is important to have a transitional period agreed soon, a free trade deal after that, and new ways of cooperating closely with our former partners on foreign and security policies. But it is another thing altogether to think that we should contrive to stay in the EU after all, or to conclude that the situation is so hopeless that we have no option but to do so.

We are all steeped now in the tortuous complications of implementing the referendum result, but just think for a moment of what would really be involved in trying not to do so. Have those fighting a rearguard action against Brexit really worked that out? It would indeed involve the prime minister of the day standing up and saying: “Sorry, we just can’t do this,” and, as a first step, asking Parliament to stop the process. Bear in mind that the House of Commons voted in 2015 by an overwhelming margin — 544 to 53 — to give this decision to the people, and by almost as great a margin after the referendum to implement the outcome.

Expressing a clear verdict

In the middle of that, the British people turned out in numbers that set a record in recent times and voted clearly to leave the EU. To ignore that entire sequence of events without going back to the voters would be morally and democratically unsustainable.

In theory, a general election could be held, but elections tend not to stay focused on the reason they were called, as we have recently discovered. In any case, the main parties would be too divided internally for voters to express a clear verdict through the party system — which is why a referendum was held in the first place. So a new referendum would be needed to try to cancel the one held last year. Any such plebiscite, or attempt to avoid one, would be the most divisive, bitter, angry, hate-filled, and disillusioning process Britain could inflict on itself. Yes, large numbers of young people who failed to do so the first time would turn out to vote, and they would mainly vote to remain in the EU.

But set against that, millions of people of all ages would be enraged by an elite trying to overturn their opinion, a political system going around in circles, and an impression that consulting them at all is a sham. Public opinion seems to stay fairly evenly divided on the merits of Brexit, but the resistance by voters to being told they had got it wrong and had to do it again would be very strong indeed.

Most people rightly seem to have a powerful instinct to avoid going through this debate again. Polls, for what they are worth on this subject, do not show majority support even for a second referendum on any deal negotiated with the EU. A large number of those who voted to remain agree, however reluctantly, with accepting the overall result. The same is true for how British people have got on with life since the referendum 16 months ago. Most have adopted the attitude of adjusting and making the best of it, setting an example to those of us who are, or have been, in government. Businesses haven’t stopped hiring, nor consumers spending. They can see that there are some formidable questions to answer about how everything is going to work, but they expect leaders to work that out rather than plunge the country into a new and more intense time of division and doubt. Whatever we think about Brexit in principle, the argument now should be about how to make it work, not whether it could be reversed. There isn’t actually any alternative.

— The Telegraph Group Limited, London, 2017

William Hague is the former UK foreign secretary and a former leader of the Conservative Party.