Remainers often argue as if they had a monopoly on what counts as reasonable and rational decision-making. Supporting the EU comes from the head whereas wishing to leave the EU comes from the heart, as the MP Rachel Reeves once put it. And yet, the attitude of some towards a second referendum is breathtakingly reckless and cavalier. Almost anything – as long as it brings us one step closer to the UK staying in the EU – is countenanced and justified.

Labour MPs declare support for second Brexit referendum Read more

I remember one Cambridge lunch, on a day when cabinet ministers were resigning over Theresa May’s deal, in which a colleague told me he would cheer every time a new resignation was announced. The more chaotic the better, he said, because chaos makes shelving Brexit that much more likely.

So, many hoping for another vote will have cheered as MPs dramatically voted down the prime minister’s deal last night. Yet making a second vote happen would require tearing up much of what we consider to be the elementary workings of British parliamentary democracy. Since the June 2016 referendum, MPs have repeatedly voted in support of the result, in the name of implementing a decision taken by a majority of the electorate. Many seem to forget that between the original Brexit vote and today, we had a general election. Conservative and Labour parties both committed themselves in their manifestos to implementing the referendum result. Only the Liberal Democrats could say that they opposed Brexit in an election that saw them pick up only a handful more seats than the catastrophic 2015 election. The same happened over the so-called “great repeal bill”, the legislation required to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, when MPs rejected an amendment calling for a referendum on whether to support the deal or remain in the EU.

For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum.

Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions.

Quick guide What is the common market 2.0/Norway-plus Brexit option? Show Hide This soft Brexit compromise has been championed as a plan B for leaving the European Union. It is based on Norway’s relationship with the EU, which is outside the bloc and the customs union but inside the single market. Under the plan the UK would have to join Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland in the European Free Trade Association (Efta), which would then allow it to participate in the European Economic Area (EEA). The ‘plus’ in this option refers to a temporary customs union with the EU, which would need to be negotiated to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. This arrangement would remain in place until the EU and UK agreed a specific trade deal. The option has the advantage of being as close to the EU as possible without full membership, and it would do away with the need for the problematic backstop for Northern Ireland. Like Norway, the UK would be outside the common fisheries and agriculture policies, and would not be subject to the European court of justice. But it crosses a key red line for Brexiters by continuing freedom of movement, one of the preconditions of single market membership. It would also limit the UK's ability to negotiate its own trade deals while a new customs arrangement is under discussion. And it would require continued financial contributions to the EU without an influence, as the UK would no longer have MEPs or a seat on the European Council. It also isn't entirely clear that the UK would be welcomed into Efta.

This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.

Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer.

If a second referendum would have such a corrosive effect on British parliamentary democracy, why are we even considering it? The answer to this lies once again with parliament. Though we now know that there is an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons who reject May’s deal, and a likely majority against “no deal”, there is no majority on anything else. The only practical alternative floated thus far is “Norway plus” which, if compared with May’s deal, is a radical step away from Brexit.

The great convenience of a second referendum for MPs is that it absolves them of all responsibility. Rather than making hard choices themselves, MPs could simply pass them back to the electorate. Recently, we have heard a lot of fancy talk about parliament taking back control over Brexit; a second referendum would be quite the opposite and that is what makes it a likely outcome.

A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes.

• Chris Bickerton teaches politics at Cambridge University