In 2016, the people of Britain got a once in a lifetime opportunity. They got the opportunity to transform tomorrow through today. In a referendum, they got their say, and look at where we are today. We still haven't got a clue what they actually meant to say. We still haven't got a clue what tomorrow will look like in the UK. In other words, the story that I will be telling you today is one of how not to transform tomorrow through today. Now, who can we blame for this glorious failure? It is very tempting to look at individuals, like this person, for instance, who triggered referendum simply to steal thunder from his political opponents to win the elections. He was successful at that: he won the elections and he kept his promise and held a referendum. It's also tempting to put the blame on his bystanders, on the people in the Remain Campaign, those people who did not campaign enthusiastically about Europe, who rather said, "Europe is flawed, but it's still the lesser of two evils. Vote for us." Of course you wouldn't. You can also blame it on the other side of the argument, on the people who had the charisma. But charisma can be very dangerous if you don't put it to good use. In this case, we're talking about charismatic leaders of the Leave Campaign who spread falsehoods, many of them. But can you really blame them? Because this is basically what they've been doing - politicians, the media - since the 1990s. So the people of Britain were used to this. It had a fertile breeding ground, as it were. You could also blame Europe, Europe, for not being all that alluring at the time of the referendum. It was a Europe in crisis. Just think of the refugee crisis, for instance, the migration crisis. It did not really hurt the UK itself. It was not critical of the UK as such, but Europe was not the tempting bride that it could have been. If you just go back a few years, you also see a Europe in a financial crisis, in a debt crisis, and so on and so forth - even forcing austerity measures, and lots of them, on its member states. It gave conservative government a wonderful excuse to blame their own austerity measures on Europe, even though they made their - mind the word - "sovereign decision" to put these austerity measures to their people. All of these elements, indeed, were a factor in the debate. They played a role, but they actually are signals of something which runs much deeper in society. It touches the heart of the relationship between the UK and the EU. This was never a passionate, all-consuming love relationship, not at all; it was rather a marriage of convenience. Now, is that bad? Is a marriage of convenience not meant to last? You can wonder. Well, I would say that it can last provided that the reason why you got into the marriage in the first place is still intact. And that is pretty much the case. The reason for the marriage was economic benefit, mutual economic benefit. For the UK, this meant access to the vast European trade market. But gradually, in many arguments and debates, this advantage was narrowed down to a simple money flow. How much money do we send from London to Brussels? As you can see, that's almost 10 billion euros - let's use euros here, not pounds. And how much money do we get in return in terms of subsidies, investments, etc.? And that is only 6 billion euros. So you get the feeling, among the people of Britain, that they were duped worth 4 billion Euros - disregarding, obviously, the broader picture of simply what it means for your trade, for your employment figures, for your society at large to be a part of the largest trading bloc on earth. If you then, at the same time, when you see that so much money is flowing across the Channel, you also realize that not enough is being invested at home. Just think, for instance, of one of the hallmarks of British society, the NHS, the National Health Service, in crisis for years because it doesn't get enough money. Then it becomes tempting to argue that instead of sending the money across the Channel, you should rather spend the money at home and send it to the NHS, send it to your education system, send it to your public transportation system, and many more. When you also look around you and you see that a lot of people in your family, in your circle of friends are unemployed while at the same time you come across a lot of people who are in work but who come from another country in the European Union, most notably from Central and Eastern Europe, then you think, perhaps there's a problem here with the freedom of workers, which is imposed on us by the European Union. If you look at this graph, for instance, at the blue line you can see estimates of EU migration into the UK that is work related, for reasons of occupation. And you can see a clear hike roundabout 2004, or at least starting roundabout 2004, which is the moment of the EU enlargement to the east. And it never really stopped. This is true, but if you only look at this graph, then you might think that, again, you are disadvantaged and that these people are taking advantage of you. Again, disregarding some clear facts, such as the average that these people are earning is considerably less than the wages given to British workers. Same time, you will also see that these people are clearly employed in areas where you've got a shortage of staff, like nursing, teaching assistants, waitressing, and so on. The second point, apart from the economic benefit, is that in any relationship you have to feel in charge of your own destiny. This is all the more the case when you're living in a marriage of convenience. Because normally you believe, in a marriage, that part of the destiny is made jointly with your partner, with your spouse. Not so in the UK, obviously. Because it's a marriage of convenience, you don't have that feeling. Quite the contrary, what you often get is the feeling that you have this external power, Europe, that imposes rules and regulations onto the British people, more particularly, rules and regulations that are at odds with British traditions and that even challenge the traditions - be it the kind of vacuum cleaner that we use, be it the kind of fish and chips that we make, be it the kinds of sausages that we make. Many of these stories are completely bogus. But they're always enlarged and always front-page matter. It has been the case since the 1990s; it's still very much the case today. This gives rise to feelings that you have a lack of sovereignty, that you are not the master of your own destiny as a people, as a country. Of course, the third factor, which is very easy to understand, I guess, is as soon as your relationship gets into crisis mode, it's very difficult to recognize the twinkle in the eyes of the other that you got together for in the first place. Of course, if your relationship is in crisis, it's very tempting to start pondering perhaps life is better as a happy single. And indeed, you regain your freedom. And indeed, you do no longer need to contribute to the larger household. But on the other hand, you're no longer at the receiving end either. Can you still participate in these large EU-wide research programs? Can you still send students abroad through Erasmus exchange? And if so, at what cost to you? What about roaming tariffs for ordinary people? Thanks to Europe, they were just abolished within the EU. They will have to be reintroduced to the people of Britain. What about social rights, workers' rights that were often entered into UK legislation through the catalyst of Europe? Questions. No answers yet. If you go from married life to single life, you have to go through a divorce. And everyone wants to get the most out of a divorce. But then the question is can you have your cake and eat it at the same time? Especially when you have 27 people sitting around the table at the other end of your table. Then again, these bottles have never been as close as they are today, mind you, thanks to the external enemy of the UK. What does it mean to settle this divorce to the UK? What is the British point of view? Well, it's very easy. It has two pillars. One is Theresa May's clear mantra: we need to deliver Brexit by taking back our money, our borders, and our laws. The second pillar is we need to preserve our clear and free access to the vast European market. Because, let's not forget, 43% of British exports are sent to EU member states, which is a lot. It is very difficult to reconcile these two because this entry to the European market, for the Brits, should be frictionless, without borders, and with zero tariffs levied on goods and services. But that is very difficult to reconcile because that would mean that if you, for instance, try to get goods from the UK to the EU free of charge, that's not a problem in itself, but that means that the goods have to live by exactly the same standards as those upheld by the EU, which involves a common rulebook. If you import goods into the UK from say, the US - suppose that you want to import chickens, then you have to make sure that these are not chlorinated chickens, which is possible when they come from the US. You also need to make sure that the tariffs that you levy for these goods to get them through customs in the UK are exactly the same as those that would be levied in the EU because you can send them across the border. And if you don't want to live by the EU rules, you need borders. Say, somewhere in Northern Ireland, which goes against the Good Friday Agreements. You understand the conundrum that British politicians are facing today. And often forgotten in divorce settlements are the children. What about the children? Particularly one child, one child who'd rather be with the other spouse. The Scots would rather be a part of the European Union. Let's not forget that there is a strong current, not a majority yet, as far as we know, but a strong current in Scotland to strive for independence from the UK. Could the UK really deny the Scots the right to reclaim their sovereignty over what they consider a supranational power if they themselves claim this right vis-a-vis the European Union? It's hard to see. In other words, they've imported this problem now into their own country. You've got a bit of a mirror referendum or a mirror strive for a referendum going on within the UK. This is a nation within the UK, but you can also have a look at individuals. In the whole referendum debate, in all debates in British Parliament today, you always have plenty of people claiming that we need Brexit, we need it now, and we need it hard. Why? Because that is what the people of Britain voted for and that is what you cannot deny the 17.4 million voters. True. But let's not forget that next to these, you also have the 16.1 million who voted the exact opposite. Can a modern democracy truly impose - or have a majority impose - its will on strong minority? Is that possible? Or do you have a basic problem, then, at the heart of your democracy that you're importing, and that you will have to live through for the coming decades. What about the future? It is very difficult to tell. I must admit that when I was asked to give this talk, the whole concept was going to be completely different from what I turned it into. The idea was that I was going to tell you something about what people's lives would look like after Brexit. Since we don't know what Brexit will look like, it's a bit different. But could it be that some people's utopia will indeed come true? Will Brittania rule the waves again? Will we go back to the great British Empire that used to be? Quick answer: no. If only because there were good reasons for the collapse of the great British Empire. De-colonialism, anyone? Globalisation these days? The world has changed; the UK has changed. "Face up to it," you might say. Are we then perhaps closer to a cliff age? Might be. Could well be that we crash out, that the Brits crash out of the EU, that you get a no-deal Brexit. This would be catastrophic for both parties. It's not going to happen. If only because that would mean that it would harm trade relations, it would harm people's lives, it would make people's lives much more expensive, and it is likely to also damage, for instance, food supply, medical supply to the UK because of all the red tape involved in customs, the tariffs that would have to be levied, and so on. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the possibility of revoking Article 50 in technical terms, which basically means no Brexit - it'll simply remain a member. It isn't going to happen either. And I don't believe that it should happen, for the very simple reason that the problem will not go away. It will keep lingering within British society and, pardon my French, the Brits will remain a pain in the ass of Europe. So we need something in the middle probably. Yes, we need Brexit, but we need a Brexit that keeps the Brits as close as possible to Europe as they can because that is beneficial, mutually beneficial, for trade and it does not impede on the British sovereignty to make their own rules except perhaps for trade. If you want to trade, you need to make deals across the Channel. How can we make this happen? That is to say, how can British politics make it happen? Well, I believe it's time for British Parliament, especially the House of Commons, to remember why they so proudly call themselves the cradle of modern parliamentary democracy. There were no parties at first. All you had were people of good standing from all over the country coming together and throwing ideas around, their own convictions, fighting for them, arguing for them, and in the end, coming up with pragmatic solutions that a country needed in the interest of the country, in the interest of the people. But that means that you need to embrace the art of compromise. Now, the Brits have been a member of the EU since 1973. If there's one thing that Europe is known for, it is making compromises. That is at the heart of the way in which you do business in the EU. For some reason, not enough people across the Channel have realized this and have mastered the art of compromise. It is high time that they do. Thank you.