The Brexit vote managed to divide families and friends all across the country – mine included. Like most Britons, I’ve had to get used to a debate over the EU working its way into social events: birthdays, Christmas dinners and even a karaoke session. When downhearted friends asked me to name one benefit of Brexit, I used to say that it had made more people engaged in politics.

Away from divergence v alignment, sovereignty v frictionless trade, and the pros and cons of a blue passport, I argued that no matter which way you voted, it could not be denied that swathes of the public who usually felt politics had nothing to say to them were now debating the great issues of the day.

This was something to celebrate. After all, apathy is almost as great a threat to democracy as totalitarianism. Thanks to the EU referendum, no one could say we were a disillusioned nation of non-voting Russell Brands. We had just had one of the largest democratic exercises in the history of modern Britain, with 33 million people going to the voting booth. The turnout was 72% and 17,410,742 voted leave, making it one of the biggest votes in British history for anything. New voters came out for both sides – but for leave particularly, it seemed to unlock something. People who thought that they had no power and that the system would always win had discovered that they could – through the ballot box – change the system.

The days of people claiming that voting was pointless were over. What’s more, the decision to leave a bloated, bureaucratic organisation and hand more power back to the UK would only provide further reasons to vote in the future. But now that reasoning rings hollow.

I was too quick to presume a happy ending and should have been more realistic about the risks of high expectations and big promises. After all, it’s not as though any political party elected has delivered every manifesto pledge. And now it’s becoming clear that with regards to the EU referendum, everyone – on all sides of the debate – is going to end up disappointed. Rather than rallying people to get involved, it could do the opposite: it could put people off voting for life.

‘Commentators were quick to lambast Russell Brand’s irresponsible comments about not voting. But unless MPs get their acts together, this will become an increasingly reasonable, regular refrain.’

This is not a case of sour grapes. We can debate about what was said in each campaign – Vote Leave’s bus pledge, the Treasury’s prediction of a recession immediately after a leave vote – but this isn’t all down to one side. The political class has failed collectively. MPs asked the public to decide whether to leave or remain, but they are now turning to voters and saying, “it is all too complicated”. It is not an impressive sight, and will only add to the cynicism surrounding politicians.

The eventual Brexit outcome remains uncertain, but a large chunk of society will feel short-changed regardless. Whether we end up with May’s deal, European Economic Area, no deal or a second referendum and no Brexit, the overwhelming feeling is going to be negative. Brexiteers have already started calling it an establishment stitch-up. If we get May’s Brexit plan, leave campaigners will say it is Brexit in name only. If we get no deal, remain campaigners will say the vote was based on lies. If we get remain through a second referendum, leave voters will wonder what the point was in bothering the first time around. If we suspend article 50 until we have a parliament that can agree a plan, a similar feeling of being ignored will take hold.

A public consultancy work commissioned by one leave group has come up with the slogan “tell them again” in the event of a second vote. We can expect a campaign based on the failure of politicians to heed the people’s wishes. There’s still a small chance of no deal becoming a reality – but if it does, plenty of other voters will question whether that was what was promised.

It seems dissatisfaction is the order of the day, no matter what route we take. Far from reinvigorating our democracy, the referendum has done the opposite. In 2013, Russell Brand told Jeremy Paxman why he didn’t vote in a Newsnight interview: “It is not that I am not voting out of apathy. I am not voting out of absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery and deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations.”

At the time, commentators and politicians were quick to fly off the handle and lambast his irresponsible comments. But unless MPs get their acts together, this will become an increasingly reasonable, regular refrain.

• This article was amended on 31 December 2018 to clarify that the EU referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in the history of modern Britain, but not the biggest as stated in an earlier version.

• Katy Balls is the Spectator’s political correspondent