On 24 June 2016, it was announced that the people of the UK voted in a referendum for the UK to leave the EU. But instead of being implemented in a simple straight‐forward way, this constitutional decision has lead to an avalanche of arguments and activities around this issue up to the present day. And it is still not clear when and how this “saga” will end, and what will be it's end results.
And there are even arguments about the reasons for the Brexit Referendum and its purpose.
Some say: “We voted for Brexit to make Britain great again”.
Some say: “We voted for Brexit to take control of our borders”.
Others say: “We voted for Brexit to regain the Sovereignty of Parliament”.
And when they say “we”, they mean “we, all of Britain”. And they say that what they (individuals, or group) voted for was the purpose of the Brexit Referendum.
But, if we take a closer look at the pre‐referendum period, we shall see that different people voted for different reasons, had different motivations, and had different expectations from the post Brexit future.
Many voted “leave” because they did not like those who voted “stay”. Which is proved by a “splash of conservative revival” following the referendum results.
The referendum vote, however, was not about any of the pre‐referendum slogans, arguments, or expectations. It offered nothing but a single simple choice: “LEAVE or STAY”.
The only purpose of the referendum was to resolve the leave/stay argument by a majority vote. It had no other purpose whatsoever.
And the only consequence of the referendum result, if and when finally implemented, will be that the UK will cease to be member of the EU, and will be governed by UK laws and not the EU ones.
What laws the UK government will introduce, after UK becomes independent of the EU, will be up to the then government and subject to then parliamentary procedures.
And the purpose of any post‐Brexit UK laws should be not to follow the pre‐referendum slogans and arguments, but to deal with the real needs of the UK at the time.
So, if there is excessively high flow of immigrants from the EU into the UK, which causes problems and requires to be restricted, then it will be for the then UK government to pass appropriate laws.
But, if there will be shortage of agricultural labourers in the UK which can be remedied by bringing in such labourers from the EU, then it will be for the then UK government to pass appropriate laws.
But, if neither of the above is the case, and there is a moderate natural movement of people between the UK and the EU, which has no adverse effect, then neither restriction of movement, nor encouragement of movement, will be required, and no laws will need to be passed to solve a non‐existing problem.
Any of the above situations is an example of “controlling our borders” in an intelligent way, rather than pandering to slogans, headlines, and pressures from political groups.
They are also examples of “government”, as opposite to “politics” — posing, posturing, pandering to get cheap popularity and creating more and more problems, as has been shown by politicians again and again.
Leaving the EU will not “make Britain great”, but it will give the UK government opportunity to rid Britain from the curse of political games and intrigues and make it an example of a country governed by honest competent government — a role model for the rest of the world.
Will this opportunity be taken, or will Britain sink still lower in the cesspool of politics?
The Brexit Saga continues …
For more articles to make sense of Brexit see:
EU “Single Market” and “Soft” and “Hard” Brexits
Who Should Have Say in the Brexit Negotiations
Sample Notice to Terminate Membership of the EU
The Earliest Date of the UK Leaving the EU
Brexit Deal and the Life After
Brexit Mess — How to Sort It Out
Brexit Uncertainties and How to Remove Them
The Practical Consequences of UK Leaving the EU