Since the local elections, protagonists on either side of the Brexit divide have sought to marshal the poor result for Labour to advance their cause. Predictably, many MPs from leave-supporting areas have argued that it means Labour has to deliver on the referendum result; their remain-supporting counterparts argue that the strong performance of the Liberal Democrats and Greens means Labour should come out unambiguously as the “party of remain”. Here’s an alternative strategy.

Politics is not about two competing answers to the same question; it is about which question is being asked in the first place. So the core strategic insight of the Labour leadership is correct: that so long as the question is Brexit, the party will suffer at the polls. That means Labour’s primary political objective should be to change the question away from Brexit and towards domestic concerns. Put simply, to move on.

But Labour strategists have fundamentally misjudged the implications that flow from that understanding. Their thinking is polluted by the discredited ideology of so-called “Lexit”, a romantic nostalgia for what they imagine are the concerns of working-class voters, and a flawed understanding of the Brexit process itself. This has led them to stubbornly cling to the idea that the best political strategy is to negotiate a soft Brexit with the Conservatives.

The problem with this approach is that any form of Brexit – hard, soft, or no-deal – will mean that Brexit itself will continue to dominate British politics. In the short term, there will be months of domestic legislation to implement any deal struck between Labour and the Tories (which could be rapidly repealed by a future Tory leader). But more than that, it should not be forgotten that the political declaration is only a statement of intent; years of difficult negotiations with the EU will follow, whether for a trade deal or for European Economic Area membership and a customs union.

Even with soft Brexit, the EU’s starting point is that the UK cannot have a better deal than Norway, which has no say, and is also subject to a European court (Efta rather than the ECJ). The battle will rage on: leavers will say “we never left” and remainers will ask “what was the point?” and both will be right. At the heart of soft Brexit is ceding more control to the EU with diminished influence. Just imagine the next European directive that is passed that the UK must implement despite having had no say in its creation – the question “who decides?” will dominate political discourse for a decade.

So if the objective is to “move on” from Brexit, then the only way to remove the question from the centre stage in British politics is to go through the pain of a further referendum and for the remain option to succeed. No one should pretend that this is a costless option; as the rise of the Brexit party shows, perhaps as many as 30% of voters are strongly committed to Brexit and will surely feel betrayed. But even in a no-deal scenario, this group would probably find a way to identify as victims, claiming the EU was punishing the UK. One of the clearest lessons of the past three years is that attempting to placate implacable Brexiters is pointless.

How can a referendum be won? Remainers need to stop talking to themselves and instead think about how to persuade people who voted leave last time to vote remain next time. Rather than trying to sell the virtues of the European project or making the case for “remain and reform”, Labour should instead make and win the argument that Brexit simply isn’t worth it: that there are more pressing priorities, from wages to NHS waiting times. The country has already wasted three years arguing about trading arrangements and regulatory alignment rather than about jobs, living standards and public services.

Such an approach would frame Brexit as a question of priorities rather than principles, enabling Labour to assemble a new, broad-based coalition of progressive-minded leave supporters together with remainers. Rather than sneering at leave voters by claiming “now we know”, Labour would offer an alternative project of national renewal, summed up as “enough of Brexit, let’s rebuild Britain instead”. It would allow people to change their votes with dignity: not because they were wrong but because they were offered something better.

What’s more, this strategy would go with the grain of public opinion. Research has shown that Brexit has always been low down the list of concerns of Labour voters who also voted to leave the EU. They are more concerned with wages and the impact of austerity on their living standards – which is why Labour’s anti-austerity message resonated so strongly with this group in the 2017 general election. More widely, recent polling has shown that just 41% of 2016 leave voters now think Britain would be better off out of the EU. The Brexiters have already lost the economic argument.

Giving the public the final say would bring closure to the argument, while seizing the mantle of hope from the Brexiters. Leavers have always framed the question about Britain, while remainers have talked endlessly about the EU. This strategy would reverse that approach, forcing Brexiters to explain why they care more about our relations with Europe than about the state of the country at home. It’s also why none of the discredited establishment figures presently dominating the remain cause should be allowed anywhere near a future referendum campaign, which they seem determined to run on a message of “why we were right all along”. Perhaps the biggest lesson from the local elections is to know when a strategy has run its course, and when it’s time for a fresh approach. That goes for both remainers and the Labour leadership.

• Tom Kibasi is director of the Institute for Public Policy Research, he writes in a personal capacity