Just days after Britain voted to leave the European Union it would seem that reality has set in. David Cameron may have looked a bit forlorn when making his concession speech, as well as announcing that he will step down as prime minister. But Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, the two main protagonists of the Leave campaign, didn’t look as happy as they ought to have been. In the waking hours after the vote was out, #NotInMyName was trending on twitter. Hundreds of thousands of millennial
Brits took to social media to express disgust and frustration over the vote. The fact is, that a majority of young Britons voted to Remain; it was the older crowd, 50 years and above, that voted to Leave. Now, while many are calling for a second referendum, there is political and economic turmoil to deal with.
There was a joke doing the round on twitter, which said that
it was only after the Leave campaign won 52 percent to 48 percent,
that many of the Leave voters began to actually look up
and read about what the EU did for
Britain. It wasn’t far from the truth.
In a referendum like this, does it
make sense to base a massive decision
to leave the EU based on a few
percentage points majority? The
memorandum online to have a second
referendum claims that there
would need to be a wider margin
before such an important decision
is taken.
Most Leave voters were incensed with the ‘loose’borders.
They felt that the country was spending money to help immigrants
and this money was being taken out of their pensions.
The fact is, after the 2010 election, the British government embarked
on a massive austerity programme, cutting funding in
many areas. In fact, it was the EU that boosted funds in certain
areas of Britain. The rural areas in the north of Britain saw
billions of Euros come in to boost organisations that helped
out the unemployed. The same rural areas voted to ‘Leave’ the
EU, perhaps without even knowing where their funding came
from. Were the EU migrants really responsible for the healthcare
problems, the housing and education issue and the lack
of public funds? Or was this just the austerity measures by the
government?
If it were just migration and the availing of benefits that upset
a lot of Britons, then Cameron could have worked out ways
to deal with that. There could have been curbs on availing of
benefits without a certain period of employment in the UK.
Now Cameron has talked of stepping down, rightly so since he
failed to win such a decisive vote. The next prime minister will
have to take the country through this period of turmoil, negotiating
with the EU and, at the same time, working to stabilize
the British economy.
Cameron may have unknowingly not just helped splinter the
EU, but also splinter the UK. Scotland has called for another
referendum to part with the UK. Northern Ireland also voted
to Remain, so there are rumours that they might split from the
UK and form a unified Ireland. The future for everyone is uncertain,
more so for the millions of young Britons who now feel
that the older majority who voted to Leave have now jeopardised
the lives and livelihood of the next generation.
So the question now is, do they respect the majority, or do
they feel that the majority is not enough to warrant the breakaway?
Euroscepticism has now turned into Brexit-scepticism.
