It has been just over a week since the EU referendum in Britain produced the surprising but close result in favour of Leave, along a 52-48% split. There have been a whole host of articles published in response to this and the wider implications of Brexit – what the results mean, who was motivated by what, who voted for what, and how the country will proceed going forward – however I want to elaborate on my own thoughts which I think haven’t been effectively articulated in many of the articles I myself have read.

First we consider the politicians’ response. From much of the Conservative and Labour parties’ leaderships, we hear only that the referendum must be respected. The Conservatives, having lost their Prime Minister, seem to think that they can install new leadership in the country through a party election – which at its best will include around 150,000 Conservative Party members. I’m not sure about the rest of the country, and perhaps in the 90s this process was good enough, but for me in a 21st Century European democracy, I don’t think so. The Labour Party haven’t seemed to challenge this assumption quite yet though I could hardly blame Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Opposition, considering he is facing a coup by his own Parliamentarians which smells of frankly more blatant opportunism than Boris Johnson and Michael ‘Brutus’ Gove put together. If Angela Eagle and her parliamentary allies think they’ll be able to topple Corbyn with a vote of no confidence, they, I think, will be gravely mistaken. Meanwhile both the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor have both forecast economic downturns and are responding accordingly; monetary policy looks like it’ll be loosened before long (though I’m not sure how much lower a 0.5% interest rate can go, or how helpful it will be) and Mr Osborne on Friday has announced he will be abandoning the budget surplus target he set for 2019. So much for restoring confidence to the markets. John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor’s, response has been the most calm and reasoned so far – on Friday he also made an announcement, laying out 5 areas which the Labour party will be looking for in the coming negotiations for Brexit; access to the Single Market, access of British financial firms to the European market, continued membership of the European Investment Bank (set up in 1958 with the remit of supporting European integration and social cohesion in the Union), maintaining the current standard of workers’ rights provided by the EU, and maintaining the full rights of all EU citizens living in Britain. Like the others, he has accepted Brexit and has made it clear he will not challenge the result (something few major politicians are likely to do); unlike the others, this is a clear and reasonable path going forward for the Labour Party – it’s a shame the rest of them couldn’t similarly get their act together. The Liberal Democrats meanwhile have decided to reject the referendum result outright, and have announced they will take Britain back into the EU as a manifesto pledge, should they come to power at the next election, currently dated for 2020.

From Scotland, we have the challenge from Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who has both entered talks to maintain Scotland’s membership whilst part of Britain, and has announced at the same time that her party (SNP) has begun drawing up the legislation for a new Independence Referendum. It would seem the one would make the other redundant, if not legally then politically (because the boost required would likely be drained in Scotland somehow maintained its EU membership whilst remaining part of Britain), nevertheless the First Minister is aiming for both. On the day the result was announced, Sinn Féin did call for a referendum on Irish Unification in Northern Ireland, however this seems unlikely. Nevertheless, Northern Ireland has many questions which it will need to answer in the coming months – questions their English brothers and sisters neglected to think about when voting it seems. Several aspects of the Good Friday Agreement signed in 1998 were accepted on the assumption of EU membership of both the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain, specifically the open border between the north and the south, and the ability of Northern Irish people to claim both British and Irish citizenship. Should a border have to reappear in Ireland, a lot of people’s lives will be significantly affected and old tensions will resurface. Furthermore, should Scotland leave Britain, then the Unionists in Belfast and the east of the province will be flanked on one side by the Republic and the Nationalist communities, on the other by Scotland. With England clearly uninterested in Northern Irish problems, it seems unlikely that the political constellation in Northern Ireland won’t change – to something more violent or something more anti-Unionist.

The papers all seem to have different takes on the vote. We have of course heard the talk that Britons wanted their country back and that’s what they got, ideas that Europe and the Union simply weren’t delivering for Britain anymore, the perfectly rational argument that despite the high profile issue of immigration in the last days of the debate, 52% of the nation has not become raging xenophobic nationalists – the list goes on. The Guardian has been the clearest in saying that this was not simply about the EU but about established politics in general, and the built-up discontent of the people who simply voted which ever way they thought would kick the Westminster consensus the hardest – which inevitably would lead you to voting Leave. Others have retorted that this undervalues the intelligence of the voters, and people were perfectly aware of the issues at stake – the economy, immigration, self-determination and sovereignty etc.

This however misses the real crux of the issue. Firstly, anyone who understands politics knows national referenda of any subject inevitably become about the general state of affairs in a country, and whether they should change, or not. Why do I say this? Well to take the issue of the EU; even in November last year the EU did not even feature on the Ipsos MORI ‘Issues Facing Britain’ Index; only in January does it enter the board at 8th place, with 16% of respondents mentioning it. It has been said time and again, before UKIP and the right-wing press made it an issue, the EU was not a problem factoring in to British lives. The top three in January were immigration (46%), the NHS (38%) and the economy (26%). Now it can be said that immigration is directly linked to the EU, but there’s an interesting thing about this issue which I think should really be discussed. The wide concerns in Britain aren’t necessarily, and I don’t think, an indication that Britain is a xenophobic and nationalist country. Why do I think this? Well considering this country has long been a home for immigrants from the continent and more recently further abroad, from Britain’s ex-colonies, you’d think we would have seen a larger scale of backlash. Now, don’t misunderstand me, in the 60s and 70s Britain did see serious problems with xenophobia and racism. However, if you think about the fact that the country saw sustained immigration for over a decade, without the professed ‘Rivers of blood’ of Enoch Powell’s worst nightmares, it seems Britain has been able, in the main, to absorb the immigration it has seen. Likewise today, whilst we have seen a marked rise in racist and xenophobic incidents after the vote, in the main the rise in Britain’s Eastern European population has been met with fairly low levels of racial friction (considering most Eastern Europeans are white).

So what is Britain’s real problem with immigration? Here we must switch our discussion to social infrastructure; housing, its shortage long a problem in Britain, education, seeing an increasing lack of places in many parts of the country, and the NHS, perhaps the most under-siege from the changing nature of the country. Also, local public services are also under unprecedented pressure. Of course, immigration, playing a role in Britain’s rising population, does play a role in the increasing pressure on public services. However, it is by no means the only factor. Britain critically is facing an ageing population, with a rising number of old people whose pension  and healthcare requirements place significant strains on the public purse, this coupled with the fact most are no longer active in the labour market. Secondly, Britain currently has a government which has been enacting austerity and public spending cuts since 2010, with the Chancellor relentlessly driving for a budget surplus in 2019-2020 (the current deficit being around £70bn per year); this has led to several public services, despite all the ‘ring-fencing’ receiving much lower budgets than are required for Britain’s population. Public services in particular have seen some of the worst cuts. The NHS, whilst not seeing any overt cuts, has not received the necessary rises in funding required to keep it at peak performance. Furthermore, not only has it been demonstrated in a 2014 study by researchers at University College London showed that in fact, EU citizens in Britain contribute around £20bn net to the economy, with £5bn coming from the 10 states which joined the Union in 2004 (as explained in this Guardian article). In addition to that, an Oxford University study in 2015 demonstrated that in fact, areas with high immigration did not experience higher waiting times for healthcare services on average. In deprived areas this was the case, but in the medium-term (after 3-4 years) the impact of this vanished; this is on account of the fact migrants tend to be healthier than native Britons. If that study is anything to go by, then it can be similarly suggested that migrants’ effect on housing and education is also much smaller than some would have you believe. Some of the areas in Britain which voted by the largest majority to leave the EU (such as Cornwall and parts of South Wales) have almost no EU migration at all. Boston, at the opposite end of the spectrum, whilst voting for leave, relies heavily on EU migrants – the argument that ‘they’ are taking out jobs simply does not hold up. With 20,000 economic migrants in the area, the local unemployment rate is comfortably below the national average. If anything is tightening the screws on parts of the country, it’s not migrants, and certainly not those from the EU.

What is my response to all this then? If the politicians are being characteristically unhelpful, what can we draw from this referendum? Clearly, the people of Britain were seriously underestimated in the overwhelming discontent with their current situation. The British people don’t really have a problem, or perhaps even an opinion on the implications of the EU; many probably haven’t even thought about it. How can I say this when the EU leadership currently has a 56% disapproval rating among Britons? Well, firstly, if we put that in context, the British government’s leadership currently has a 54% disapproval rating, suggesting it’s more than the EU people take issue with. Secondly, approval among young people of the EU’s leadership is the lower than old people’s currently, sitting at a measly 29%. Yet they overwhelmingly voted in favour of remain – the EU itself is not the problem perhaps? Finally, despite these negative figures, countries across the continent believe the EU should be more active in the affairs of the world – 74% of EU citizens (including Britain) say yes to this idea, compared to 17% who say no. Finally, the EU rarely features on polling as one of Britain’s top issues; even in January the EU polled in 8th at 16%. It’s clear, the EU is not the problem here.

Of course, migration is often something that is turned to in times of crisis, especially when it proceeds at a pace that is far faster than people have ever seen before. That is the case right now, however despite that, it is not the cause of Britain’s problems, nor the real source of her people’s unhappiness with their situation. For years now, and certainly since the Cameron Ministry came to power, wide swaths of the population have been abandoned by a government whose response to the Financial Crisis was austerity, and to turn a blind eye to the social dislocation his government has caused in this country. Lives have been manipulated by forces so distant, that people were not even sure what was manipulating them and who to be angry at. Almost every state in the EU thinks their countries have less global influence now than in the past. As always, this is the perfect breeding ground for nationalist demagogues like Nigel Farage, and Britain was primed ever since Maastricht in 1992 for a clash over the EU, the best actor Farage and his ilk could cast as Britain’s arch-nemesis, her authoritarian oppressor set to destroy her island ways and crush her people and traditions. Brexit has managed to redirect the anger and tiredness of a British people betrayed by their own political elites onto an institution which could have been the source of rejuvenation for us Europeans, a source of empowerment and a tool to solve our problems. Farage and Johnson were from that very same elite they were pretending to fight. If you believe the problems this country faces will now be able to go away, you’re seriously mistaken. Britain is set for some decisive battles in the coming months and years, I hope my country can rally itself to face its challenges before too much damage is done in the meanwhile.

Sources: FT, The Independent, The Guardian, Oxford University, UCL