The London Mayor is today calling for a second vote in the event that Parliament blocks Brexit. Which is fair enough, really Sadiq Khan, it must be said, scrubs up well. There he was on the cover of GQ looking neither shaken nor stirred after the magazine had named him Politician Of The Year last month. It was well-deserved, if for nothing else than the way London Mayor superbly stood up to a certain unquiet American who questioned his handling of terror attacks on his city. Though truth be told, certain quarters were right to feel a little miffed that Jeremy Corbyn was robbed. After all, he had managed to rally most of the country — including naysayers from within his own party ranks — behind his leadership, as the results of this summer’s snap general elections underscored. Which likely explains why Prime Minister Theresa May has repeatedly ruled out a second Brexit referendum. She has already had her hand well and truly charred by her own hubris. And since she has vowed to stay on until the bitter end, she is now feeling slightly shy about being twice burned. To be fair, Corbyn has also ruled out a second vote on leaving the EU. Yet he has done so since the official results came in on that fateful day back in June. And ever since, he has found himself busy trying to keep a lid on Labour in-house divisions. Britain needs to stop peddling the myth that democracy begins and ends with the ballot box. Especially given that the system itself is open to regular review. Thus with the country’s leaving party being scheduled for 2019 — would it really be so very undemocratic to allow the citizenry to vote on the final terms and conditions of the Brexit divorce? It appears that his tight grip has considerably loosened. For just a few weeks after receiving his award, Khan was raising the possibility of including a commitment to a Brexit re-run in a new Labour manifesto. To even the most undiscerning eye, this appeared a direct challenge for the party leadership. A known Blairite, Khan’s was among the cacophony of voices that termed Corbyn unelectable. Today, he has toned it down somewhat. Meaning that what he is now saying is that a second vote should take place in the event that Parliament blocks Brexit. Which is fair enough, really. Even if the warmongering Blair has re-emerged to try and appropriate the spotlight, backing calls for the same or else yet another general election. A shame, really, that he has discovered the will of the people and parliamentary representation now that he is out of Number 10. Brexit wasn’t quite too close to call. But it was pretty near; with Leave securing 51.9 percent of the vote and Remain 48.1 percent. Voter turn-out was said to be 71.8 percent or around 30 million. It had been a risky gamble that didn’t pay off. And even though the referendum isn’t binding in nature, the ruling Tories decided to keep calm and carry on. Well, everyone, that is, but the man who called Brexit and lost. Nevertheless, all this talk of doing right by the British people is a lot of old hogwash. Democracy must always name the process by which it comes into being. Meaning that only an informed electorate can make educated decisions. And what the country had at the time of the vote was a whole host of politicians lying outright about what the realities of Brexit would actually look like. The most infamous and barefaced being the claim by the then Ukip leader Nigel Farage that Britain spent 350 million GBP a week on EU financial obligations and that his party would redirect this sum to funding the National Health Service. The point is that when it came to Brexit it was and remains to be a case of the blind leading the blind on both sides of the political divide. After all, the citizenry was only called upon give its verdict on an in-out vote. No one had any idea of what any deal would actually look like if the worst were to happen. Britain, for its part, needs to stop peddling the myth that democracy begins and ends with the ballot box. Especially given that the system itself is open to regular review, typically after every four or five years. With the country’s leaving party being scheduled for 2019 — would it really be so very undemocratic to allow the citizenry another vote, this time on the final terms and conditions; regardless of what Parliament may or may not ultimately decide. For if those who represent the masses believe the latter to be too ‘illiterate’ to decide their own fate — then this is indicative of a powerful either not doing its job when it comes to the free flow of information from the top-down. Not only, that. It will recast Blair as one of the sole voices of reason when he (rightly) claims that everyone must have a final say on the ‘divorce’ settlement. And that is something that no one wants, surely. The writer is the Deputy Managing Editor, Daily Times. She can be reached at mirandahusain@me.com and tweets @humeiwei Published in Daily Times, October 25th 2017.