Political column January 11

His loving family is gathered by his bedside. Along with a stranger. It is November 14, 2018.

Mr Higgins, aged 82, a retired machinist, has lived a blameless, if ordinary, life. The stranger moves closer. He is Giles Hampton-Farquhar of the Nexit To Brexit campaign.

"I hope this isn't a bad time, Mr Higgins. But could I ask you a question?"

Mr Higgins' eyelids flicker as he processes this outside input. "What is it?" he groans.

"How did you vote in the referendum?"

Mr Higgins appears surprised and confused.

Hampton-Farquhar makes himself clear: "Leave or Remain?"

It sinks in.

"Leave," croaks Mr Higgins.

The stranger withdraws to the foot of the bed and gives a little mental fist pump. The vigil continues during the afternoon. Mr Higgins departs this world at tea time and Giles passes on his condolences to the family.

Outside he gets out his mobile phone and punches in some numbers on its calculator. This time there is a real fist pump. And then he makes a phone call to London...

The death of Mr Higgins is a key moment in history, giving life to what comes to be called the Aaronovitch Doctrine.

Let the columnist David Aaronovitch outline it in his own words as expressed on a Viewsnight contribution to the BBC: "The Brexit Generation is dying out."

He advances in support some calculations by a pollster which show the Brexit majority in the 2016 referendum will be eclipsed by a Remain majority by the time the UK leaves the EU, because of older voters dying, and youngsters reaching voting age.

This is a new twist in the argument that older voters who voted for Brexit have voted to destroy the futures of Britain's young.

But is there not a basic flaw?

It was the disillusioned young who voted for Brexit in 2016. Not the young of today, but the 1970s young who, like my Dawley schoolmates, were so enthusiastically pro-Common Market in the first referendum in 1975 (I was not old enough to vote myself).

Shropshire was considerably more pro-Common Market than the nation generally, with 113,044 voting Yes to continued membership, which was 72.3 per cent, and 43,329 voting No, 27.7 per cent. Nationally the split was 67.2 per cent Yes against 32.8 per cent No.

Where did all that support go? In 2016 the teenagers of 1975 gave their verdict on the EU and the promises they received based on experience after a 41-year road test.

Anyway, back to November 2018.

After Mr Higgins' passing, which just happens to coincide closely with HM Government concluding a provisional Brexit deal, of sorts, with the EU, the pressure for a second referendum in the House of Commons on the terms of the UK's departure becomes irresistible, thanks to Tory Remainers and Labour opportunism, supported by the Liberals.

The cheers when the vote is passed are deafening. Then the amendments start to come in.

How can people vote on the terms of the deal if they are not told what the terms are?

The Government responds by publishing a 46-page document in small print on all the terms covering everything from agriculture to security arrangements and fishing rights. This booklet is delivered to every home in the UK at a cost of £220 million.

Full steam ahead with the referendum now. What should the question be? Do you agree, or disagree, with the terms of the deal for the UK's withdrawal from the EU?

More amendments. "Terms" is plural. So should not voters be able to indicate which individual terms they are for and which they are against?

Good point. The terms are boiled down to the 23 key issues, each going on the ballot paper with individual tick boxes by each for For or Against. Each ballot paper is three pages long and collectively they are so bulky that instead of ballot boxes they are collected in small skips.

On polling day confusion reigns supreme. Some voters are in the booths for hours agonising on what terms to vote for, and what against. The result, a counting nightmare, is declared two weeks later. It is decisive. Britain is For, Against, and also something in between.

Some older Brexiteers will have no cause to worry about any of this. Because, according to the Aaronovitch Doctrine, they may not live to see this mess.