The electoral advance of JC – not to be mistaken for Jesus Christ – seen by many on the far left as The Messiah – was propelled in large by the disenchanted youth vote. Contrary to the popularly held credo, they turned out en masse. Their turn-up not only registered and signalled their displeasure with the Brexit debate but in the process delved the Tory government an embarrassing electoral blow. The restive youth, inhabitants of the post-industrial Britain, belonging to the world of Netflix, skinny Frappuccino, and all-you-can-eat-buffet, cannot recognize themselves in the version of Hard Brexit being floated about as the preferred negotiating stance to reflect the knife-edge result of the Brexit plebiscite. On the balance of a democratic outcome, the victory for the leave campaign was unequivocal. The conquest however did not put the Europe debate to rest. Certainly the echoes of the referendum wrangles resonated during the June elections.

Rewind to last year. Dig deep into the 2016 summer referendum results then a narrative takes shape in part to explain the unexpected electoral shock result. By a breath-taking majority, the demography of 18-35 years old overwhelmingly chose to remain part of the European Union, dysfunctional as it may be deemed to be. The majority of the older generation voted to leave. The majority with the least to lose in the future voted to leave and majority with the most to lose chose to stay with the EU.

Despite this demographic age schism on a question affecting future generations, Mrs May, the phlegmatic UK Premier,  interpreted the result as a wholesome mandate to gamble on a Hard Brexit – exit from the customs union and common market. Easy to see why. Choosing not to be outflanked by UKIP, immigration formed the guiding mantra for the Brexit debate. How to manage the exit became the pink elephant in the room during the elections campaign – Brexit is Brexit. Immigration was the singular focus of engaging with the remaining 27-members of the EU based on the narrow wishes of the 52 per cent leavers which stifled any real considerations for the 48 per cent remainers.

Complicating an already difficult political situation, real parliamentary opposition was feeble. The Labour Party was engulfed in an existential infighting between the Left-wingers and centrist Blairites. The Labour Leader Corbyn, a hard-core lefty, unrepentant Marxist and totally ambiguous on Europe , was pushing further for a more socialist agenda. The soul of the party was the prized stake. Two Machiavellian attempts to dislodge Corbyn failed. As revenge for the failed coup, the Trotskyites were conspiring to purge the party centrists.

Sensing a lack of pushback in parliament and polls showing a potential annihilation of Labour, erstwhile “Remainer” May did the most politically expedient thing to undertake. Snap elections were triggered. It was a calculated Machiavellian plot to – once and for all – obliterate Labour swimming in shallow waters of mediocre polls and embroiled in a useless civil war. How could she lose? After the Cameron lost wager on the referendum, chances of another loss seemed remote. The Tories had morphed into UKIP, labour was self-disintegrating and the Lib-dems marginalised.

Yet, one could sense a perceptible shift in the public mood especially among the youth. “Remoaners” and “Bregretters” alike felt excluded from the debate decidedly pushing for an exit into the precipice of the unknown. With the elections called, an opportunity was glaring to upend the results of the referendum campaigned – both sides of the referendum – on blatant lies. To further explain the surge, there was mounting anecdotal discontentment among the youth particularly because the government was pressing on an agenda that did not take them into consideration given the results affected them the most. They further developed austerity-fatigue. Quite frankly, they scarcely cared for the conservative fiscal budget lecturing flying around by an elite force unaware of the price of a pint of milk. Who cared, the youth don’t vote, right?

The Stage was set.

Copious amount of humble pie was dealt out when the exit polls pointed to a hung parliament. Arguably the most humiliating results suffered by a sitting government dizzy on sky-high polls prior to triggering the election, it exposed not only the disconnect between the electorate & government, but also that the democratic process can sometimes yield brutal results if political hubris is the underlying driving force. Besides this, the idea of deciding an issue of such profound significance by a simple ‘yes’ and ‘no’ by Joe Public seems like a fools errand combined with an exercise in futility.

And so it was that on the hottest day of June ever recorded since 1976  – a harbinger of what lies ahead – the Queens speech was delivered by a minority government devoid of manifesto ambitions  or policy clarity on the greatest subject facing the U.K. Mrs May called a snap election under the guise of getting a hard Brexit mandate ala Macron. Instead she was doused in bucket of ice cold realism. The mandate she required was flatly rejected. Pretty much the entire manifesto can be seen as the longest suicide note in recent British political history.

May’s political clout in tatters, Brexit in disarray, Corbyn in ascendency, a new way ahead is required. Though the referendum is a blunt democratic tool to be respected, it is fair to suggest that bogus & outlandish campaign claims were made on both sides. It is a matter of deep courage to pause and question if the result fairly reflects the informed choices made in the elections which was indirectly brought about by the referendum. One wonders if the referendum result can re-run purely on the basis of misguided decisions. If not, whether or not the rights of the 48%, a majority of whom will have to contend with the consequences when the majority of 52% Leavers have gone. Can the  zealous Brexiteers dictate the contours of a future relationship of U.K. and The EU?

The way ahead calls for a sensible exit. A cross-party approach without tribal affiliations must prevail to safeguard UK’s interests. The scale of the challenge going forward should not be underestimated. The incessant ideologically-driven propaganda suggestion of the inevitability of the Brexit by the right-wing cartel spearheaded by the The Mail, The Telegraph and The Times is dogmatically misguided. It calls for a balance where the concerns about immigration and fear that hard Brexit would reckless vandalism are addressed with sober minds. It requires a concerted war on austerity that has worsened the divide between the rich and those just getting on in life. The dangers of  deficit-cut fetishism are all apparent for everyone to see. Austerity is not sustainable in an age where it affects more people on living wages and there is cap on public pay wages.

The unexpected election result is a cry to reset the political discourse in the U.K. Simultaneously an opportunity for the EU to get its house in order. Bold and pragmatic thinking must inform the politicians’ negotiating positions on both sides of the Brexit table. Practical visionary leaders with a deep sense of value transformation are what is required to deal with the quagmire of Brexit and its ensuing challenges. Konrad Adenauer, Joseph Bech, Johan Willem Beyen, Winston Churchill, Alcide De Gasperi, Walter Hallstein, Sicco Mansholt, Altiero Spinelli, Robert Schuman, and Jean Monnet, laid the foundation of the EU. It is time for a new breed of leaders to take the project into the 21^st century.