 On the 23rd of June, the people of Britain opined that another Europe is not possible. Aided and abetted by the official Remain campaign that was disrespectful of voters, of the truth, even of arithmetic. Brexit won. To a people craving instant immediate change and a drubbing of the state's score, we offered a worthy policy in and against the EU. A policy which nonetheless, we would need to be in government to implement it on the 24th of June. And yet, we were nowhere near government. So if Remain had won on the 23rd of June, is it not true that we wouldn't be in Tendining Street to implement what we were proposing, which is another Europe, a confrontation with Brussels from within? So, from where I'm standing, the Remain victory would be grist to the mill of the David Cameron's, the Tony Blair's, the IMF, the Bank of England, the Bilderberg crowd, and would be interpreted by the establishment as a license to do business as usual. The one thing that voters opposed more than anything. Now, does this mean that we were wrong to oppose Brexit? Of course it doesn't. Of course we were right to oppose Brexit. But what it does mean is that it was not foolish of voters to vote for Brexit. Voters, at least, who were hunkering change, had reasons to turn their back on us, they just didn't believe us. The lesson here is very simple. Unless we back up our views on Europe, on Britain, on Scotland, on England, on Wales, with a surge throughout the country that will see these views being implemented from the commanding heights of Tendining Street, the people will turn to those who offer them realistic change now, even if it is their own kind of change. Our defeat is fragrant of the overarching progressive forces' failure to harness the anti-establishment rage caused by two simple facts. That for 40 years now, 80% of the people, 95% of the time, are taken to the cleaners by the top 20% of the privileged ones. That for 30 years now, 30% of the people are being discarded persons, treated as men and women whose opinions do not matter, squeezed out of the sphere of influence by the tyranny of the shifting median voter. You want to really know why Brexit won? Look at the official statistics of this nation. For the last 13 years, the median voter continuously lost real purchasing power if you take into consideration housing costs. This is the first time it has happened for 13 years since 1819. This is, well, to paraphrase, let me paraphrase, Bill Clinton. It is the austerity stupid. Our first task should be to reconfirm in our hearts and minds that we will ride to oppose Brexit. Already this becoming obvious that my favorite line of how the California's final verse is proving accurate. We showed that you can check out any time, but that leaving is an utter mess. The paradoxes mount. Do free marketeer Brexiteers. Truly believe that it is logically coherent to address Europeans on the continent and say to them, Britain is open for business, but we don't want you here. Our second task should be to prevent a major error. We must not turn against those who turn their backs on us, those who voted for leave. The balance was tipped in favor of Brexit by those who yearned for change, for the change that we failed to convince them that we could deliver. So instead of talking down upon them, we should accept the responsibility for our failure and convince them that we can gain power to implement in the House of Commons, on intent down in the state through Whitehall to implement a progressive internationalist economic and political agenda within a Europe that we are confronting while staying within it. Our third task should be to put forward a roadmap for Brexit that respects our democratic agenda and our progressive internationalism. Now I understand why some of you on the 24th of June began dreaming of a second referendum. It was a mistake. Let me remind you of what happened in 2008, next door from here, in Ireland. The Irish voted in a referendum against the Lisbon Treaty. And what happened? Brussels asked them to have the referendum again until they delivered the right outcome. And they were threatened that they would have it again every Sunday, they would have a referendum. Now is this what we want to do? Especially in an environment where there are no remainers left except for those in here. Everybody else is going to ground. I believe not. So here is a proposal, three-part proposal. First, demand that Theresa May triggers Article 50 yesterday. This is in accordance with the Brexit outcome. This gives us two years from the moment it's activated. Conservatives, small secret conservatives, should want to conserve what needs to be conserved and to avoid uncertainty and chaos. So we should demand that the government announces that at the end of this two-year period it will have settled for a Norway-off-the-shelf EEA-like agreement so that it should last at least a full parliamentary term after that two-year period is finished. So that the British Parliament has an opportunity fully and openly to debate and to include the British public through participatory means in this debate what kind of future it wants. Thirdly, commit to having this parliament or the parliament after that decide amongst the different varieties of potential arrangements. This way we shall have a seven-year period of certainty for business and of people whose lives struggle the United Kingdom and the continent. At least one full parliament after the two-year period is finished that has the time and the space to debate the kind of links Britain wants with the rest of Europe. Thirdly, simultaneous respect for voters who opted out of the European Union who voted for Brexit by triggering Article 50 and for voters aghast at the thought that a small circle of inane insiders are going to negotiate behind closed doors on the future of Britain. Now this proposal offers progressives in this country a lengthy period, a seven-year period during which we can succeed in doing that which we failed to do on the 23rd of June to show to the good people of Britain that they do not need to settle for bad change overseen by their own regressive isolationist type of government that good government in the United Kingdom is a realistic prospect opening up the road towards strong links with a better Europe.