Browsing and Reflection on BREXIT

The most prolific topic in the current news cycle is the vote by the UK to leave the European Union (EU), also referred to as "Brexit." There is considerable confusion and consternation around the result, particularly when even those predicting a "close" vote thought that the UK would choose to remain. The idea was that the vote would be a strong symbolic statement about need for reform of the EU management and relations with member nations. The problem with setting formal processes in motion is that they result in REAL consequences. Now, there is loud dissatisfaction with the outcome, including a petition for another vote, a "redo" if you will, that has garnered well over 2.1 million signatures in less than two days. Scotland, which voted heavily to remain in the EU, has announced that it will seek renewal of the 2014 vote on whether to remain a part of the UK, in light of the change in material circumstances. Scotland was induced to remain part of the UK in that vote because of the benefits of being part of the EU membership. The result has caused David Cameron to step down as Prime Minister, and there is huge pressure on the leader of the Labour Party (who backed the "Leave" vote) to step down as well. Meanwhile, the UK stock market has tumbled and the Pound Stirling is at the lowest level in over 30 years following the vote to leave the EU.

Some have speculated that there are similarities between the voices and sentiment that fueled the UK vote to leave the EU and the current "outsider" disaffection in the USA. It is argued that much of the appeal of Donald Drumpf, the GOP presumptive nominee for President, is based upon that anger and resentment against a perceived political "establishment. While there are a great many distinctions to be made in the two situations, there are a few similarities. These similarities do not necessarily reflect well upon the "angry mob" or the Leave supporters. One example, whether based upon ignorance or naivete, is the comment from the Cornwall Council following the Brexit vote and the realization that departure from the EU would also mean the loss of significant investment in that area:

"The leader of Cornwall council said he was seeking 'urgent steps' to ensure the impoverished county in southwest England would be protected. 'We will be insisting that Cornwall receives investment equal to that provided by the EU programme which has averaged £60 million ($82 million, 73 million) per year over the last 10 years,' said John Pollard.

Simply put, the angry demand for the separation from perceived "oppression" from an "unresponsive" central governing body ignored the actual benefits from that source that the constituents, including the protesters, depend upon for survival. In the USA, there are similar uncritical (ignorant or naive) complaints against the Administration in Washington, DC. They are loud and strident until a disaster strikes and the region is in dire need of supportive response from the very Administration they say they want to reduce and remove from their lives. (Sadly, West Virginia is a most recent example.) But a crisis mode is not necessary to illustrate the misdirected hostility. Kentucky, whose leadership has vowed to obstruct the Obama Administration at every possible turn, has many counties in which more than 95% the populace are entirely dependent upon federal social welfare and other economic benefits.

But perhaps the blame needs to be shared by the leaders of the angry mob, who use fear and hatred to motivate the uninformed and gullible followers. An example of this is the announcement immediately after the Brexit vote by the leader of the "leave" movement, Nigel Farage, that the promise of funding to the national health service was an outright lie. This promise was used to induce voters to support the Leave campaign because their social benefits would be protected. It is an old ploy: blind them with hate and they will believe anything.

One more reflection points to irony. The supporters of the Leave campaign targeted their scorn on London and the Financial Markets - the "Fat Cats"- and the Westminster government who they said were unfairly profiting from the EU relationship while the less prosperous areas of the North were lagging. George Soros, the billionaire who profited over $1 Billion in 1992 betting upon the poor judgment of the British, has done it again. He made bearish investments based upon the hunch (actually an educated prediction) that the Pound would plummet if the UK voted to leave. No doubt we will find other investors in the London based financial groups who made similar hedge bets.  So the irony is that the vote against the "Fat Cats" in the form of the Leave campaign and the Brexit vote has actually resulted in MORE profit and wealth going to the rich at the expense and pain of the less prosperous folks in the UK. To add insult to injury, Soros publicly warned the Brits that if they voted to leave the EU, that which has occurred would happen.

No one can say what will happen in the next months and years as a result of the vote, except that there will be continued uncertainty and pain. It is likely, however, that the EU will offer the UK a better deal or more concessions than Cameron was able to obtain in the last round. This would not be specifically to "punish" the UK for the "divorce." The stance would be to send a message to remaining EU members and citizens of member nations that the choice to exit will have serious and painful consequences. There is already fear that nationalist and xenophobic right wing factions in some EU member nations are gearing up for their own votes whether to leave or remain in the EU. We can collectively hope that the pain of the UK will serve as a sobering event, and that those other angry mobs will recognize that, as one former British minister observed, they would be "cutting off their noses to spite their faces."