ONE of the few things that everyone in the country agrees on is that Brexit is a shambles.

How can an advanced economy, previously held up to be an example of good administration, tolerance and stability, get into this mess?

We must look beyond the easy target of our MPs who are doing their job protecting the interests of all constituents, trying to find some way of making sense of Brexit.

We must even give Mrs May credit for trying to square an impossible circle.

Cries of betrayal are nonsense: the problem is Brexit itself.

More specifically, the problem is those who promoted a fantasy and then either disappeared on to the lucrative US lecture circuit (Farage), quickly realised what they had done and resigned from office (Johnson, Raab, Davies) or never even attempted to take responsibility (Rees-Mogg).

Not to mention our arrogant former Prime Minister who believed he could ‘wing it’, and deliberately omitted any preparation for the possibility of Leave winning the referendum (Cameron).

These are the guilty men.

Not surprisingly, a majority of the country (55 per cent according to an opinion poll this weekend) think the 2016 referendum was a mistake.

Also not surprisingly a proportion of Leave voters seeking some kind of Brexit are now supporting a ‘no deal’ exit.

According to opinion polls, this could be 25 per cent or more of the population who intend to vote in the European elections (this is the level of support for the policy free Brexit party).

Of course this is well under 20 per cent of the electorate.

There never was a mandate for ‘no deal’ and the concept is nonsense.

Why wouldn’t we want a deal with our closest neighbours and largest trading partner?

At the other extreme, six million people signed up to simply revoke the Article 50 declaration.

Tempting, but not democratic. Where do the silent majority stand?

Now we know that leaving is complicated, messy and expensive, is it still worth it?

Compared to the massive issue of climate change, which calls for dramatic, international cooperation and forward thinking, bold action, this is a pathetic waste of our nation’s energies.

There’s only one way to close this down.

In six months we could organise and run a referendum with a choice between leaving on Mrs May’s terms, or staying in and pushing the EU hard in the direction we want to go, building alliances with like-minded people across the EU.

If the remain option were to win the debate, the issue would be closed and everyone could get on with their lives.

If we voted for a real Leave option we would at least have to accept the 10 years of negotiation and argument that will follow.

DAVID MYALL Warrington