What could be unreasonable about giving the people the final say on Brexit? Quite a lot, according to a series of recent articles.

William Hague, the former Tory foreign secretary, wrote a column in the Telegraph that a new referendum “would be the most divisive, bitter, angry, hate-filled and disillusioning process this country could inflict on itself … Millions of people of all ages would be enraged by an elite trying to overturn their opinion, a political system going round in circles, and an impression that consulting them at all is a sham.”

Meanwhile, in the Times, Iain Martin wrote that: “Diehard remainers are playing with fire. If a plan to scupper Brexit looks like it’s coming to fruition, the response from cheated leavers will be swift and furious … For many millions of voters this will be ‘our betters’ saying that what the country voted for should be vetoed.”

There is no way of magically healing our country. David Cameron set us on a path that divided us right down the middle.

If people like me, who want to stop Brexit, were planning to force through a new referendum against the wishes of voters, Hague and Martin would have a point. But the political reality is that the people will only be consulted if they demand it. For there to be a referendum, MPs would have to pass a law calling for one. And, if public opinion doesn’t shift – a lot – that won’t happen. Although many MPs have deep misgivings about the whole Brexit malarkey, few will speak openly against it unless they feel the will of the people has changed significantly.

There does seem to have been a slight shift in favour of staying in the EU. The average of YouGov’s last five polls shows 51% thought that we were wrong to leave the EU versus 49% who thought that we were right to, after stripping out don’t knows. The average of the first five polls this year was bang in line with the referendum – 52% that we were right versus 48% wrong.

My own view is that polls would need to show around 60:40 in favour of remain before parliament gave the green light to a new referendum. Although we haven’t reached that point yet, we could.

After all, as each week goes by, Theresa May and her merry band of ministers are making more and more of a hash of the Brexit talks. Ivan Rogers, our former EU ambassador, told MPs last week that he had warned the government we’d get “screwed” if we triggered article 50 without a plan. The prime minister went ahead anyway – and we’re getting screwed.

The people realise this, and they are not impressed. They see that the Brexit that the Tories are going to thrust down our throats bears little resemblance to what leavers promised in the referendum: European nurses quitting the NHS rather than an extra £350m a week; chlorine-washed chicken from America rather than a wonderful trade deal; and so forth.

My fantasy Corbyn speech: ‘I can no longer go along with a ruinous Brexit’ | Alastair Campbell Read more

Evidence is also emerging that so-called Project Fear is actually Project Reality. Last week alone, retail sales suffered the largest fall since the financial crisis, and Toyota warned that the “fog” of uncertainty threatened the future of its Derbyshire factory. It’s not surprising that the biggest shift in public opinion has been among working-class voters, according to YouGov. In August 63% thought Brexit was right; by October only 56% did.

Where Hague and Martin are wrong is that, if public opinion turns decisively against Brexit, not holding a referendum would tear the country apart. If the Tories pressed on with Brexit after the will of the people had changed, as it became clear what a horrible mess we were getting into, the country would be apoplectic.

It is true that, in those circumstances, the losing side in a referendum wouldn’t be happy. But if the public really was 60:40 in favour of remain – or thereabouts – it wouldn’t be nearly as bad as not giving the people the final say. It is also true that there is no way of magically healing our country. David Cameron set us on a path that divided us right down the middle. The question now is how to minimise the damage. If the people’s will really does change, letting them decide is the best way to achieve this.

• Hugo Dixon is chairman and editor-in-chief of InFacts