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.
