We watched the Brexit Debate on Channel 4 to get a better sense of the alternatives in advance of the vote on Tuesday.   My own view is that James Cleverley did a perfectly decent job of defending the government’s position, but it represents a compromise which no-one supports, neither fish nor fry;  Barry Gardiner was defending a position which is intellectually unreal, that the Labour party might be able to negotiate a better deal, without any evidence as to how or why;  Jacob Rees-Mogg has the benefit of a clear position, which is Brexit whatever the intellectual and economic cost;  and so the argument was won by Caroline Lucas in favour of a second referendum which would allow the voters to decide whether or not they like what is on offer.