In 1973, when Britain joined the then EEC, it was promised to be the beginning of an exciting future.
Memories of the imperial project were still fresh, but the world had changed around us. The argument was that the empire was dead but this would be the new alliance to replace it.
Does Brexit mean another great change? And if so, what will historians say about this period in history?
What will historians say about this period of history? That the campaign harnessed many reasons for discontent – from poverty and lack of opportunity to a feeling of distance from decision making, the pain and anger of being left behind as other parts of the country gained in prosperity, the decline of industry, fear of immigrants and a dislike of the pace of modern life. It was a protest vote against all of these things.
And it relied on many versions of what the past was – the empire as great, rather than a failing, oppressive project; the Blitz as a time of camaraderie.
The lessons we will learn from this period: that politicians in Westminster should never underestimate the power of dreams of the past.
Most referendums offer a chance to change, to go forward, whether they are the Irish abortion referendum, Scottish independence, or even the referendum on proportional representation.
The referendum in 2016 was unique in holding out the option of going back to the past, or at least a version of it.
But much of the vision of the past offered was caught up in historical myth-making about Britain in the 19th and 20th century, about the greatness of the empire and the generosity of the Blitz – as well as underplaying the country’s reliance on immigrant workers from the 18th century onwards.