Although I was not in the United Kingdom on the morning of Friday, June 24, I have a distinct sense that the prevailing sentiment was similar to that of the morning of February 22, 2013, as reflected in the noted absence of triumphalism on the part of Democratic Labour Party supporters here and Brexiters there. This is a fascinating reaction on the part of people who vote actively for a particular outcome and have selected this novel concept of buyer’s remorse (of a political variety) from a range of issues generated by the Brexit for closer analysis.
UK commentators noted there was a distinct absence of triumphant jubilation on the part of the “winners” with the noted exception of MEP Nigel Farage, who thankfully no one takes too much notice of. The more establishment oriented candidate, Boris Johnson, was considerably more subdued as the result was announced and Prime Minister David Cameron simultaneously announced his resignation.
As time has passed, more indicators demonstrated that UK voters were having “buyer’s remorse” and one of the more notable was an online petition on the Parliament website which quickly passed the one million mark, which was the difference between the leave and remain voters.
The UK media has subsequently interviewed several persons who voted to leave, and discovered that it is indeed the case that many of them really did not want to leave the European Union, but had other reasons for associating with the leave camp. Interestingly enough, I have a few (thankfully very few) Brexiters among my British friends and can attest to the fact that they are not all unintelligent xenophobes as they are being portrayed in some media. Instead, several people who voted to leave did so because they felt this was the most effective method of sending a signal to Brussels about the extent to which they were dissatisfied with the EU arrangements. Reference to “EU arrangements” is deliberately vague since Brexiters have several different types of opinions regarding what offends them about the EU.
There are Brexiters who associate with the school of thought once articulated by Cameron himself that the institution was encroaching on the sovereignty of the UK and unelected bureaucrats in Brussels were making decisions on behalf of elected governments in London.
Worse, there was the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg which on more than one occasion struck down UK government policy. The fact that this court is distinct from the EU in Brussels is (sadly) meaningless to the average Brexiter.
I am inclined to think that these more rational Brexiters cast their ballots safe in the belief that their side would either not win or that their win would trigger a renegotiation of terms and conditions, but not an exit.
In the early hours of Friday morning, the earliest manifestation of trouble was the fact that the pound tumbled and markets started to manifest the projected uneasiness. Subsequently, there have been manifestations of hate as ethnic minorities have been made to feel quite uncomfortable.
Right-thinking Brexiters, unsurprisingly, sought to distance themselves from the ill effects and have been arguing that these results were unintended and surprising. I too, was surprised by the outcome because I assumed that people understood what it meant to vote and that a vote to leave would mean just that.
The “cost” of leaving was carefully explained in the campaign and from my simple perch in Barbados I could not understand why Brits would want to willingly impose such harm on themselves.
The logic of the majority of UK voters is, however, explained by a fellow columnist in the wake of the February 2013 Barbados election. In his LOWDOWN article, Richard Hoad explained that he intended to vote against the DLP (consistent with polling predictions) but changed at the last minute since he was uncomfortable with the idea of Owen Arthur returning with “too much power”. As a pollster, I learned a lot from that election, the last UK election and this referendum vote.
These all demonstrate the extent to which people vote strategically and their electoral or voting choices are considerably more nuanced than could be reflected in a simple “yes” or “no” question. This proclivity of the voting population is not a reflection of an unsophisticated voting public, but perhaps a leadership that believes itself to be shrewd enough to manipulate that public. This is perhaps why one of my earliest instructors in political science (Sir Lloyd Sandiford) spoke of the dangers of the referendum, which can often be like handing a loaded gun to a child. The UK will therefore now have to deal with the consequences of their choice in much the same way that Cameron has paid the ultimate price for creating this mess.
Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES). Email: peter.w.wickham@gmail.com
