Furthermore, the UK is deeply divided about exactly what the referendum meant and also has to negotiate departure and a future link with the EU and in an increasingly uncomfortable pressure cooker as the clock counts down to 29 March.
A powerful analogy used by those who conclude that Brexit is so damaging it has to go back to the people for a second vote is medical. You see the doctor and receive a diagnosis of cancer and after further checks you have a choice of treatments.
The people are therefore are entitled to offer a second opinion. But the one medical choice you don't have is to refuse to have cancer and I suspect many now see the inevitability of some form of Brexit, soft-boiled or hard-boiled perhaps.
Parliament could in theory revoke the decision or the people could change their minds. Whatever the government said in its leaflet to all UK households about respecting the result it is technically advisory in law or, at the very least, not obligatory.
The UK rarely does referendums and this one has put the cart before the horse. A better way of doing it was shown in how Scotland adopted devolution. The case was lost in the 1979 referendum but civil society groups then fashioned a consensus which was endorsed in the 1997 referendum.
The question is whether it is now too late to ask the people for a decision based on the outcome of negotiations with the EU and clearer knowledge of the trade offs - the sort of decision we should have had in the first place.
However, it is not clear that a fresh referendum would result in a victory for remain. It could even be higher for leaving and the campaign would have a powerful emotive appeal by stressing that the people should just tell the establishment they want to leave.
I have also seen little evidence of a more emotionally attractive appeal from the remain camp. And a fresh vote would alienate many who voted for the first time or the first time in many years in the referendum. It seems that most MPs, either reluctantly or enthusiastically, recognise the need to implement Brexit.
The Prime Minister's deal with the EU flows from the recipe and ingredients she chose in the first place. She originally chose not to ask for the opinions of other parties as she wanted to take credit for the meal and too many cooks spoil the broth.
Her normal priority is relying on her party and, because she lost seats in the snap election in 2017, the ten votes of the Democratic Unionist Party. Governments don't normally cede their power and winning votes on the other side could alienate crucial votes on hers. However, the result was narrow and it could be argued that the near 50/50 split should have prompted an unusual attempt to fashion a deal that appealed to as many as possible on both sides.
At the very least May should have secured a cabinet consensus before triggering the departure mechanism which gives two years to negotiate a deal, much of which was consumed by reconciling her cabinet, losing several ministers in the process. Oddly, Corbyn was the first political leader within hours of the result being announced to advocate triggering the departure countdown.
But we are where we are. If the EU could agree to formally limit the backstop the deal could pass the Commons where many Brexiteers seem to have concluded that the defeat of May's deal could mean the end of Brexit.
Yet everyone was shocked at the massive scale of her recent defeat in the Commons. In response, May promised wide consultations before tabling a new proposal which can be amended. The leaders of most opposition parties and different factions all agreed to meet her. Corbyn said he wouldn't do so if she refused to take the possibility of no deal off the table.
This gave May a stick to beat him with, providing a telling line in the last Prime Minister's Questions: "[Corbyn] has been willing to sit down with Hamas, Hezbollah and the IRA without preconditions, yet he will not meet me to talk about Brexit."
No deal would, in my view, be a disaster but is best eliminated by agreeing a deal. The possibility of no deal concentrates minds in the UK and the EU. One of the most frustrating aspects of much media commentary is that the EU's decisions are taken as sacred texts rather than bargaining positions that can become more fluid if necessary.
No deal would be bad for both sides. Taking no deal off the table, therefore, weakens the UK's bargaining position although most people hope it doesn't come to that and may yet seek ways to take it out of the equation before it is too late.
Warnings of the consequences of No Deal come in many shapes and extend to fears that it would cause a 30 year recession, force out many companies, slash the finance sector, and even require martial law. Even if the first is only slightly true there will be needless suffering and most MPs oppose it.
The swirl of motions and amendments being batted back and forth in parliament also reminds me of Bismarck's quip that “If you like laws and sausages, you should never watch either one being made."
We don't yet know which amendments will be on the agenda. But it is unclear what can command a majority or whether there should be an election or a referendum, with various proposals for the questions. Another option is for the UK to join a customs union, probably the softest option. The priority is making sure Britain continues to bring home the bacon but exactly how will still be unclear after tomorrow's vote and the crunch votes may come next week.
Gary Kent is the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
