THE voters of the United Kingdom (UK) cast their ballots on Thursday, 23rd June, in a referendum to decide whether to remain or exit the European Union (EU). The results showed a divided UK.

The people of Britain and Wales voted to exit EU, but the Scottish and those of Northern Island voted to stay. The divided votes have implications on many fronts.

While the World Stock Market’s trading prices plummeted at the news and in the face of uncertainty as to what will happen to the EU and UK trade relations, given the latter is the Union’s largest trading partner, it has internal implications for the UK.

At first look, some questions immediately come to mind: How will the Government of Britain — legislature and executive — treat with this matter? How will the monarchy treat with a divided Kingdom? How will the Government in Scotland respond? What are the implications for the states’ sovereignty and relations with the UK? How will the EU respond to the expressed will of the British people? And how will both the EU and UK proceed?

An answer to Scotland came on Friday, 24th June, when First Minister and Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon said officials would plan for a “highly likely” vote on separation from the rest of the UK. In 2014, Scotland went to referendum for its independence, with the votes going to remain in the UK.

That being said, the questions posed are likely to be asked, even though answering will be complex, given the complexity in the relationships present and going forward. What it has said, however, is that the EU has taken a blow, and the platforms upon which its existence stands will be impacted.

Where its Economic Community focuses on a trade and economic bloc driven by free movement of goods and services within the Common Market, reducing regional inequalities, preserving the environment, promoting human rights, and investing in education and research, it is reasonable to think that such could better be achieved through collective voice and action. Externally to Europe, it could also have an impact on the EU-CARIFORUM (CARICOM Member States and the Dominican Republic) Economic Partnership Agreement.

In a world growing increasingly complex through the ever-present threat of terrorism, narco-trafficking, corrupt government, increasing poverty, human rights violations, climate change/ environmental protection, and ballooning refugee problem, solutions to man’s induced problems are better achieved through convergence of influences and decision-making.

In this new world, traditional notions of sovereignty no longer rigidly apply, given that in return for the benefits and protection secured being in any association, treaties, declarations, conventions and charters are needed in order to ensure universal principles are upheld and objectives achieved.

The EU will most likely meet sooner, rather than later, to assess the implications of Britain’s decision and to chart a course on the way forward. Belgium Prime Minister Charles Michel has, even before Thursday’s vote, called for wide ranging discussions on the role of the EU.

It is not unfair to say there was a general view or expectation that the people of Britain would have voted to remain, given the stirring presentation made by Prime Minister David Cameron, outlining the options and acknowledging the voices of dissent, and the violent death of Member of Parliament Jo Cox, who was an advocate to remain. Those who wanted to remain would probably be asking the question: Was it too little too late?

What is certain is that political watchers, the people of UK, their governments and the monarchy have to be asking tough questions, including examining the reasons that drove the vote one way or the other; the message being sent by the people — were the people properly informed and educated on the EU? And what could have been done differently to provide the assurances the people needed living in their society?

Among the driving reasons for the exit vote was that of the handling of the immigration influx, including that of refugees. The pressure, it was felt, was being brought on the social services systems, including the longevity of the National Health Scheme, in a society where healthcare is free. Concern about the British currency and the notion that Britain was losing its sovereignty being in the EU were also factors.

There is, additionally, the other concern that Britain’s vote can have a domino effect, given that France’s Marine Le Pen, leader of the anti-EU National Front Party, has been clamouring for the French to exit the EU.

External to the EU, the action of the British gives rise to the question about associations of similar nature, as in our region with institutions such as the Caribbean Community (CARICOM); The African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP); Organisation of American States (OAS); United Nations; and International Labour Organisation, to name some.

It is no secret that the people of the countries in the region question the benefit of being in CARICOM, though it should be said that such a question is in part fuelled by insufficient public communication about the role and benefits of CARICOM, and at times seeming collusion among the leaders in the face of acts by government(s) that are inimical to citizens’ wellbeing.

If the British vote has achieved any positive, it is that of a wake-up call to leaders to listen to the people and address their concerns.