Renowned British historian Timothy Garton Ash[1] wrote a very good comment in The Guardian, which takes a step back and considers some of the larger picture:<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/jun/24/lifelong-english-european-the-biggest-defeat-of-my-political-life-timothy-garton-ash-brexit" rel="nofollow">http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/jun/2...</a><p>[1]<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Garton_Ash" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Garton_Ash</a>
The positive things that <i>could</i> happen are all European - that is the rest of Europe could take this as a wake up call and start dismantling the "bureaucracy" and giving member states electorate more direct access to decisions. This is apparently being talked about (cf Politico)<p>But there is almost nothing positive UK can do. All our moves depend on others. Negotiating treaties with EU, India, cutting immigration, introducing trade barriers. All of it we cannot unilaterally do without breaching serious treaties with serious consequences.<p>And you don't do that without a clear mandate. And we don't have one.<p>We are likely to have to have another referendum or general election just to discover what the plan actually is. I mean did the British electorate just vote for sending home immigrants now? For reducing net migration to 10,000 pa? To erecting tariffs on Steel imports? How the duck does one ask that of an electorate? Ballot papers would look like crossword puzzles.<p>Nothing discussed in the election actually represented the serious expectation they would win. And now they did.<p>Chances are high Boris will turn round tomorrow and prevaricate. "Not turning out backs on Europe"<p>And this will tear the right wing apart. A large chunk of voters thought we were really leaving the EU, actually going. This time Farage will be able to convert those people into MPs in the inevitable general election.<p>And we will have a three way split in the right wing - remain camp, Boris leave and Farage leave, probably sharing 1/3 of the middle and right wing. Add the SNP in and a weaker labour and there will be six or so parties none of whom are strong enough and no tradition of coalition.<p>This power vacuum will last for years.
If 1940's Germany or 1970's Soviets had wanted to decapitate British leadership they could have done little better than this. It would be nice if the Queen were to exercise Royal Perogative - quickly - and order Britain to honor its obligations as an EU member apart from immigration. In this way, the Queen could minimally pacify all sides and Britain could extricate itself from this quagmire with some face intact. She would set herself above the fray and if the EU objected it would be Brussels at fault thereafter.
Every single article I have read had indicated this is terrible. I have seen a lot of people who would I guess be classified in America as progressive liberals, e.g. the types who speak of privelege and safe-spaces, decrying how the country has gone to ruin via fascism. Just in general, younger people seem to be totally against this. All the 'economists' on CNN, FOX, Bloomberg, ect are saying this was stupid and economically catastrophic.<p>All this is to say, everyone has pretty much decided this is terrible for Britain.<p>Is it? I have seen some data and understand that they will lose an outsize ability to steer European affairs and that they will lose out economically because they contribute less to the euro union than they net back. However, there hasn't been much explanation other than sillyness and name calling.<p>What did they gain, and honestly why is this so negative. There hasn't been a particularly strong or cohesive explanation other than saying Cameron is an idiot and the world is over?
I noticed that on <i>Question Time</i> one of the panel mentioned the possibility of a "Government of National Unity" - which is something the UK hasn't had since 1945 and the end of WW2.<p>Still requires a leader to stand up and become PM though.
Reading the economist lately I note they are going on with the same neoliberal patter that they always have, little oblivious to the fact that neoliberalism is what we got to this place. (A few weeks ago they were gushing about a congressman from Nebraska who had an intellectual epiphany when he learned there was a town named Chicago with a University of Chicago in it that has an economic department...)<p>If they showed some empathy for the "little people" from time to time, things might have worked out differently.