Parliament may yet tell us what it wants on Brexit – but the people must grant approval with a Final Say

It is worth reminding ourselves of some key facts: it is 27 March 2019; there is still no Brexit deal; and the government still has no viable plan. On Wednesday night, parliament voted on alternative Brexit options after seizing control of the order paper, but none of the alternatives gained a majority. The government stood aside while MPs desperately attempted to find a compromise to the current crisis.

There is, though, an unmistakable shift in the mood among MPs about a route out of this mess. Tonight the amendment for a referendum was officially supported by every parliamentary party besides the Conservatives and DUP. Crucially, the Labour Party lent its unequivocal backing to the motion which was one of two indicative votes to come close to a majority (at 268 to 295).

The recognition that seeking a fresh mandate for a deal from the British people is the best and only democratic way to proceed is finally impressing itself on the house. And for good reason.

Speaker John Bercow had whittled down the shopping list tonight from 16 options to eight. These options also included a customs union, which came in at 264 to 272. The no-deal option gathered the support of just 160 MPs.

Next to May’s deal, the softer options, especially common market 2.0, had been touted by some as a way of bringing together those who voted Leave with those who voted Remain – we leave, they argued, but at minimal economic cost.

But whatever the arrangement in question, it withers under scrutiny. We know now that there is no Brexit which can deliver on the promises made in 2016, which doesn’t result in either a profound loss of sovereignty or a real economic cost, and which can stop this national humiliation continuing for decades to come.

This is true of any proposal. But it especially applies to common market 2.0. This arrangement is singularly unpopular outside of Westminster. Young people in our organisation wonder why we would pay into a club we’re no longer a part of, why we would relinquish a seat at the table where the important decisions of our futures are made, and where the benefits lie to leave an organisation in all but name.

We reject the false choice between a hard, painful Brexit and a soft, pointless one, and we joined the one million who marched on Saturday to prove that. We know there’s another way.

Theresa May might continue to cling desperately to a deal rejected twice by historic margins, but other MPs have a duty to be realistic about the route forward. The vast majority of young people across the UK are relieved that her deal, which would leave us poorer and with fewer opportunities, lacks support.

Those “Grand Wizards”, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson, who have decried this deal as rendering us slaves but who are now climbing on board nonetheless, are not anywhere near the numbers she would need to get her deal over the line. And so her deal will fall again.

Wednesday night’s flurry of inconclusive votes may yet end up presenting a genuine alternative – the most popular options are likely to go to the Commons again. But whatever deal is found most palatable to the house must then seek renewed consent. Our representatives owe us the right to move past the impasse by the only legitimate route we have left. Parliament can now decide; but the people must approve.

Lara Spirit is the co-president of Our Future Our Choice, a pro-European Union youth organisation campaigning for a Final Say on Brexit.