AS someone who has been pragmatically pro-European for more than 20 years, there was only one way I was ever going to vote in the 2016 EU referendum.

But above all else, I am prodemocracy and have not been comfortable with the idea of a second referendum or a people’s vote, or whatever you may want to call it.

The UK is a sham democracy in which every vote does not count equally in a General Election.

The Conservative Party winning a 12 seat majority on 37 per cent of the vote in 2015, and Labour winning a 66 seat majority on 35 per cent of the vote in 2005, are just a couple of illustrations of the sham democracy we live in.

As much as there were arguments over false information on both sides during the 2016 referendum, what cannot be disputed is that for once every voter had a vote that counted equally.

But let’s say we do have another referendum, which this time produces a narrow win for remain.

In that scenario, those people who have advocated a people’s vote may well feel vindicated, but the Brexit argument will not be settled.

In the event that Parliament remains gridlocked, and a people’s vote subsequently becomes the only way out, remain campaigners need to reflect on people with similar views to myself.

Should a people’s vote be a straight re-run of the 2016 referendum, then it is possible that I may vote to leave.

If we do have to have a people’s vote, then for me a threshold of a 60 per cent vote in favour needs to be set for remain to have been seen to have decisively settled the issue.

Any vote to remain below 60 per cent in favour should mean we need a third referendum.

On the other hand, a repeat of a vote to leave should mean a further public vote within a few weeks to choose between no deal and a soft Brexit arrangement on offer by the EU.

Ultimately, I still would prefer there to be no further referendum, and for Parliament to implement the original verdict of the 2016 referendum, which i would personally interpret as a soft Brexit.