Because the circumstances have changed, and I'll develop that argument in a moment, if I may. 

Mark Reckless can stand in this Chamber and he can argue that it was a vote to leave under any circumstances. He can make a case for that on the basis of the result in 2016, even though nobody argued it in 2016, but he can use that evidence to make a case. Similarly, I take the view that it was a vote to leave the EU but it was silent on the single market and the customs union, neither of which require EU membership, nor was it, to my mind, a vote to leave the European Medicines Agency and Euratom. I can make a case for that. This was simply leaving the EU and nothing else. We can't both be right. 

We know that people were offered a hard-ish Brexit in 2017 and they declined to support it. We saw what Theresa May did. We saw the headlines in the paper that said this would be an attempt to crush the saboteurs, who are apparently still uncrushed. We know that a fortnight ago, 32 per cent of people supported a party that was unequivocal, in fairness, about committing itself to a WTO deal. That is not a majority in favour of leaving the EU without a deal. That is not democracy. The numbers don't add up.

And I have to say, I've heard this so many times about 'the establishment'. Well, let me say to those who claim that I and others are part of the establishment, I am the great-grandson, grandson and nephew of colliers. I am the first head of Government in the UK to have come from a comprehensive school. I didn't go to Eton, I didn't go to a private school and I didn't gamble on metal prices in the city. I had a proper job, and then I came to this place and carried on with the experience that I had as a lawyer. 

The analogy that's often used to describe Brexit is that of a cliff edge. Well, people were told that they could jump off the edge of a cliff, but there would be a hang glider there to help them, that it would soar in the air—nothing to be afraid of. 'Don't worry', they were told, 'the EU will make sure the hang glider's there and, if not, the German car manufacturers will make sure the hang glider is there.' But now the people have come to the edge of the cliff and there is no hang glider. 'Don't worry', they're told, 'you can jump off, it'll be fine, don't believe those people who tell you that gravity will cause you to plummet—that's part of project fear. And don't worry anyway, because the US will turn up with a parachute, maybe when you're in mid air, but only if you give them your shirt.' 

It's time to settle this once and for all; three years of incessant argument with no end. Britain is a laughing stock. It's not the EU that fell apart because of Brexit; it's Britain that's doing it. Government in London is paralysed. Nothing is happening there. No-one took any notice to what happened with British Steel; it's all about Brexit, utterly consuming. Jobs are being lost. Surely, the people of Britain deserve to consider whether they want to jump with or without the hang glider, or whether or not to jump at all. 

To me, that means we have to consider another referendum. And let's not pretend that if the result had gone the other way that Nigel Farage would not over the last three years have been agitating for a second referendum because the first one was so close. One of the London newspapers had its front page ready in anticipation of a remain vote with the headline implying that votes had been rubbed out on ballot papers. It was The Sun, and then, of course, everything changed. So, let's not kid ourselves that somehow it would all have been settled in 2016 if it had been a remain vote. 

So, how on earth do we settle it? Well, to me, it's a two-question referendum. Question one: in the light of current circumstances, remain or leave? It's a fair question. Question two: leave with a deal or without a deal? Settled. You ask those two questions, you get the answer one way or the other. If people vote to leave without a deal, well, there are many of us in this Chamber that wouldn't agree with it, but the decision's made, it can't be argued about. That's it. There is no question about it. And that will give us clarity. You cannot hijack the 2016 vote and give it the most extreme interpretation possible, especially given what happened in 2017 and, of course, what happened a fortnight ago when a WTO deal was not supported by two-thirds of those who voted.

We know that such a referendum will give us clarity. The Scottish referendum had two questions in 1997, but there is a serious question mark—I am winding up, Llywydd—not just about the economic well-being of the UK, but whether the UK itself will continue to exist. It would surely be the ultimate irony if those who wish for the UK to leave without a deal become the architects of the UK's own demise. Our politics is poisoned. Our society is fractured. We need to settle it. The people had a voice in 2016. They deserve a voice now. In sense, in reason, in democracy, the people deserve a final say.