Hello, and welcome to another day of gazing into an abominable black hole and wondering when it was that life suddenly seemed devoid of meaning – or, as I believe this process is more commonly known, Brexit negotiations.

Today we discuss the possibility of a second referendum, which the government is unequivocally ruling out, and about which the Unite leader, Len McCluskey, has – reportedly – expressed private reservations. This is in sharp contrast to the People’s Vote crew, who have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at forcing the country to relive the ordeal of the first referendum.

Not long ago I was a guest, alongside Peter Mandelson, on Politics Live, where I witnessed him criticise Theresa May’s fledgling Brexit deal as being a halfway house that no one voted for. It was as though he had been possessed by Jacob Rees-Mogg (and let’s face it, if there is one politician capable of demonic possession, it’s probably Rees-Mogg). So was this the game plan? Sabotage any deal in the hope that the prospect of hurtling towards a no-deal scenario will force a second referendum? It’s high-risk, but it may well succeed, as – despite the prime minister’s protestations – a second referendum seems more likely than ever.

So if there is a second referendum, what’s next? I ask because the People’s Vote strategy presently seems to be:

1. Secure a second referendum

2. ????????

3. Stop Brexit

One can’t help but suspect that some of the leading lights of this movement view the acquisition of the vote as a mere formality in order to remain in the European Union. In conversations with the centrist elements of the People’s Vote campaign, I get the impression that they feel they were sidelined by Cameron’s team the first time around, and expect automatic victory if they – and their election-winning magnificence – are in charge the second time.

This is dangerous, because it suggests that they may well end up in a power struggle with the more leftwing elements of the remain movement, such as Another Europe is Possible; and if historical performances are anything to go by, they will waste a lot of broadcast time on berating Jeremy Corbyn rather than explaining why we should stay in the EU.

Then there’s the Labour party, which is focusing on a general election. This is entirely the right thing to do: only by implementing the Labour manifesto is there any hope of healing the social and economic damage that led to Brexit (though why anyone would want to be in charge of the Brexit negotiations is beyond me – nobody volunteers to captain the Titanic). The problem for Labour, though, is that it doesn’t get to decide whether we have a second referendum or not. So the party may well end up in the situation where it’s fighting a second referendum without a clear argument about why we should, presumably, remain. The party urgently needs to come up with an in-case-of-second-referendum-break-glass strategy.

The comments attributed to McCluskey are absolutely right: a huge number of voters in this country were sold a beautiful tomorrow by the leave campaign, and will feel betrayed by any attempt to take that away. One man I interviewed recently told me: “I didn’t really know anything about it until the referendum. I wasn’t that interested. But then I heard all the arguments to leave and I thought ‘brilliant!’”

A second remain campaign will have to convince people like this man that the beautiful tomorrow offered by staying in the EU is better than the one he expects from leaving it. I know what remain voting readers will say in response: he was lied to. And maybe he was. But he doesn’t believe you; he believes them – because they ran a better campaign.

A collective amnesia seems to have erased the memories of what happened the first time around. Have we all forgotten the Breaking Point poster, the rise in hate crimes, Empire 2.0, Marine Le Pen celebrating the leave vote? It’s highly likely that, in a second referendum, we would have the leave campaign on steroids, its most ghastly elements at the front screaming betrayal and being even more hardline against immigration.

If the people agitating for a second referendum want to risk unleashing those forces again, they had better make damn sure they’re going to win. And that doesn’t mean remain limping over the line with around half the vote: it means winning an argument and convincing the population of a vision for the future in which people born overseas play a central part. It’s true that Caroline Lucas and Another Europe Is Possible have been attempting to build this vision, but it isn’t front and centre of the People’s Vote campaign.

If remainers have their own sunlit uplands to promise the country in the event of a second referendum, I don’t know what they look like. And if a political commentator who spends about eight hours a day reading and thinking about current affairs hasn’t got the memo, it’s unlikely that the rest of the country has. This is a problem that needs fixing before a second referendum can be fought. If it isn’t, the best outcome we can hope for is a continuing stalemate where the roles are reversed. And at worst, the most reactionary, rightwing elements of British politics will emerge victorious all over again.

• Ellie Mae O’Hagan is a regular contributor to the Guardian