Although I voted to ‘Leave’ the EU, I don’t regard the result as a victory – there were only going to be losers whichever way the vote went, as it was predicted to be close.
Understandably, most of those that voted to ‘Remain’ in the EU are livid at the result – and have assumed that those that voted to ‘Leave’ are largely anti-science, uneducated, xenophobic numpties. Furthermore, they want the referendum result overturned, either by making it null and void (as it only has an ‘advisory’ status) or, simply by holding a ‘2nd Referendum’ (as it is assumed that those that voted to ‘Leave’ were lied to very grievously and would change their minds given another bite at the cherry). The gloves are off.
Just press pause for a moment and reflect on what’s happened.
On 23 January 2013, at Bloomberg's European headquarters in London, David Cameron delivered a speech concerning his vision of a reformed European Union (EU) – but crucially, he also gave the promise of a simple ‘In/Out’ referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU (see link below).
At that time the referendum was promised ‘by 2017’ and sure enough, it was held on what will now surely go down in history as one of the momentous days in British politics and since the founding of the fledgling European ‘project’ – 23 June 2016.
The turnout was a very high 72% of the eligible electorate. 52% voted to ‘Leave’ and 48% voted to ‘Remain’ in the EU. A marginal but decisive result.
As it was a simple ‘In/Out’ ballot, it was a very divisive binary choice by definition, with no nuanced options – a recipe for trouble, either way.
But, if it was such a ‘no brainer’ and the ‘height of folly’ to vote to ‘Leave’, why was the referendum offered in the first place. To do so, simply to plicate a few Eurosceptic MPs or to rattle the cage of the other European leaders in order to press for EU reform, would have been an act of gross irresponsibility.
Here’s the thing: where were all those raging ‘Remainers’ trying to prevent the referendum in the first place?
I’ve seen no end of petitions (on social media and the internet) to either force the government to ignore the referendum result or hold a 2nd referendum. However, I’ve searched high and low for any significant move against the implications of David Cameron’s speech, despite 3 years of available time to have done so. Maybe it was a sign of arrogant complacency that a vote to ‘Remain’ would be assured?
It’s only right and proper for a democratic referendum result to be respected for what it is, ‘warts and all’. Period.
When I did my final year degree in Building Surveying in 1992, I chose to complete a project on commercial property development – specifically Canary Wharf (which at that time was still a fledgling development brainchild of Olympia & York’s Paul Reichmann, but it was heading for significant financial trouble).
Following initial financial collapse, Canary Wharf eventually became a vibrant success story, in commercial development terms, despite much of the development remaining empty for well over a year. Significant rent-free periods were on offer to entice business occupancy.
The point of mentioning that, is to illustrate with the way markets work, or frankly, sometimes don’t work!
The overriding issue now following Brexit is ‘uncertainty’ in the financial markets – and one of the major players affected by that is commercial property development and management – and to that is linked so many other aspects of fiscal and financial investments and controls.
Although it gives the impression of being ‘bullish’ and secure, the financial markets are a veritable ‘house of cards’, with vulnerable inter-dependencies. It’s hardly surprising that we’re currently seeing huge dips in the values of sterling, shares and equities etc. whilst the markets adjust to the concept of Brexit, amid political meltdown.
This leads conveniently onto the main issue contributing to the level of uncertainty – a complete ‘void’ in political leadership.
How can a Prime Minister lead a nation into a referendum, with an absolute binary outcome, without a Plan A and a Plan B? You can almost ignore the fact that the ‘Vote Leave’ contingent didn’t have a plan (much as that was also totally reprehensible), but to leave the nation exposed with NO political direction and leadership has weakened our stability even more.
Perhaps again, there was such an arrogant confidence of a vote to ‘Remain’ no-one thought a ‘contingency’ plan was necessary. What enquiries were being made about that? I suspect none!
There’s simply no reason to accept ‘failure’ within the context of ‘Brexit’, but this will become more and more likely, if we don’t urgently address two things:
- Political leadership
- Self-destruction at the hands of aggressively angry ‘Remainers’
All sorts of analysis has been cast on the demographics surrounding the vote to 'Leave' the EU, the age groups, education levels attained etc. in order to cast aspersions on those that voted to leave.
Although I've not read or seen a comparison anywhere else, I suspect the closest alignment with the vote to leave, will be all those in the areas of the country with the lowest rankings in the Indices for Multiple Deprivation (many in the political Labour heartlands, following years of underinvestment since the 1980s).
It was as much a vote against our own parliamentary establishment, corporate giants and 'elites' as it ever was about the EU.
Britain has become smug, over-confident in its own success and wealth - at the expense of the poorer communities that have been deliberately left behind, devoid of their once flourishing manufacturing base and any real and meaningful investment. The talk of a 'Northern Powerhouse' is far too little, too late.
The democratic voice of the nation has now been heard, for good or ill, and it’s time to accept that result and move on, positively, from the fears driven by hype, to a future full of hope.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/01/david-camerons-speech-eu-full-text