LAST YEAR June the United Kingdom voted to exit the 28-nation European Union (EU).
Observers to the ensuing acts and actions by citizens, government and interest groups after the casting of the ballot on the 23rd noted mixed sentiments for the referendum. According to the recently revealed YouGov Poll there is an even split between those who want to exit now in comparison to those who want to await the result of the exit negotiation, presently taking place. Undoubtedly there remains some buyers’ remorse for wanting to exit as was shortly evident after the polls, where some admitted to voting not expecting their choice would have prevailed and some admitted they did not understand what they were voting for. Where the die is already cast such brings attention to two issues often taken for granted or overlooked in man’s existence.

Elections have consequences. The casting of a ballot brings with it all the pluses and ramifications of the decision made on voting day. And whereas, some have rightfully argued the importance of having an informed electorate translates to better understanding of the issues, thereby knowing what they are voting for, the truth is where universal suffrage is present it allows for a mix from the most to least informed. Another factor often ignored too in the unique brand of politics where isolationism or going it alone is promoted as nationalism, is that such belief would be challenged and tested in a globalised environment. Citizens, including governments function with a high level of interdependence. Gone are the days where a product is singularly produced in a country and or businesses are willing to settle for solely plying their trade in the domestic marketplace.

International engagement is the way government and business trade and work with each other in pursuit of common good/goals, where both the receiving and producing countries stand to benefit. Where citizens, including politicians, governments and others ignore this reality it is to the peril of all, though those having greater adverse impact are the executors of such action. Acknowledgement of this does not ignore existing challenges and setback wrought by globalisation that are deserving of attention, one of which is ensuring the pursuit of free trade encompasses components to bring about fair trade.
Last Saturday thousands marched to the Parliament in London to protest exiting the EU as negotiations to do so are proceeding. Though organisers, using the theme “People’s March for Europe” say their goal is to have people “unite, rethink and reject”, the Conservative Government plans to proceed with exiting confirms further second thought on the issue. Not to be ignored too is that among this school of thought are those calling for the electorate to go back to the polls to vote support or rejection for the exit negotiation when completed.

The cold hard fact is, exiting the EU stands to hurt Britain and the benefit of international preferential treatment that came with such association will be lost, with some tallying this cost to the tune of billions of pounds yearly. According the 9th September 2017, UK Telegraph, the think-tank group `Open Europe’ said unless Britain keeps its borders open the country stands to lose £55billion a year by 2030. It projected that such loss equivalent to 2.2 percent of its Gross Domestic Product could see a recession. How the totality of this financial impact, its consequences to the economy, welfare of the citizens and Britain’s influence in the global marketplace and politics will be factored in with the pressure of the domestic politics to close the borders only time will tell.