The story of the British exit from the Union is enriched by a new episode. The leader of the main opposition party has decided to support a new referendum on the subject. The decision comes late, after an attitude never defined within Labor education and with the conviction of the leader himself of the need to leave Europe. Until now only the liberal democratic party has clearly expressed itself against Brexit. The positions within the Labor Party, on the other hand, are not homogeneous and this does not contribute to a clear and unambiguous position of the party in the face of a possible repetition of the consultation. That this repetition is necessary seems to have been a thing long established. The referendum that decreed, with little difference between yes and no, the United Kingdom’s exit from the Union was carried out without due information and with evidently distorted news on the consequences, above all economic, that would have occurred on the lesser classes nots. Furthermore, from a legal point of view, it was a consultative referendum, which, in theory, should not have had practical effects, other than to indicate a way to the government. The very nature of the question was too limited to an affirmative answer, which had no other interpretation, to a negative one, which, instead, as the subsequent events demonstrated, had different implications: from the one without conditions to the more attenuated one of developing , however, with Europe a common commercial area. The incapacity of politics and English politicians has determined a immobility that has been negative both for London and for Brussels. Evaluating the reasons for the Labor decision is not easy, certainly reasons of political expediency have conditioned this choice: in the face of conservative immobility, Labor have tried to change their political attitude, also characterized by a disconcerting indecision , which caused a severe defeat in the European elections. Both the conservatives and the Labor parties, that is, the parties that stood out for their indecision were the ones most punished by the voters. But, while conservatives are struggling with the change of leadership, Labor is trying to exploit the advantage of not having this problem, re-launching the theme of the referendum. The thing can, however, prove to be positive because it brings back to the center a chance to make a fundamental choice for the country in a more conscious way, but, the uncertainty in Labor on how to deal with the situation remains completely. This uncertainty in the two major parties reflects the image of a divided and confused country that does not know how to make a decision: the responsibility still lies with those ruling classes who have not been able to understand the growing importance of the sovereign feelings of part of the country and groups who knew how to manipulate this part of the population and their perception. It should be remembered that the United Kingdom, in the European Union, enjoyed far greater privileges than the other members and despite this, Brussels was seen with aversion also because the political classes in power did not know how to explain the importance of belonging to the Union. The uncertainty, however, also concerns whether a new referendum will actually be carried out: the winners of the exit from Europe appeal to the failure to respect the popular will, in case of repetition, fearing, in reality, a reversal of the result. In conclusion it is not risky to say that any outcome should come out of the polls that the government that will have to apply the outcome, but this is true even without a new referendum, will be in great difficulty because it is made up of personalities of both opinions, so much so that it is impossible not to detect that the real difficulty is to mend a country that is too divided and torn apart.