The referendum, some days later

Those English! How they dynamited Europe.
Why they don't do anything like the rest of us.

The referendum has predictably brought its lot of anger, recrimination, confusion, despair but also its lot of wishes for a successful outcome from many quarters, if not from the European Commission. The New Zealand government has offered to second some of its highly experienced EU trade negotiators to London which may or may not be practicable, but it’s a most kind and encouraging offer which shows that we are not without friends.

Emotions are still running high and some of our politicians are not setting the highest of behavioural standards. Nigel Farage’s baiting of MEPs in open session in Brussels shows why he is not a suitable person to take part in domestic UK politics at any decision-making level. I don’t often say this, but I felt embarrassed - by his taunting manner, particularly given that what he said about MEPs’ work experience was clearly not true and vindicated those who accused him during the Brexit campaign of telling lies. The other person who disappointed me was the Prime Minister who railed against the leader of the opposition, in the Chamber, telling him to resign, to go. I have a lot of time for David Cameron, it’s a pity he’s leaving; I suppose that the heat of the moment got to him.

Referenda are very unpredictable events. They are simple matters with fiendishly difficult questions. They are expressions of participation in the democratic process, yet the questions asked are usually so technical that only top flight specialists could hold a reasoned opinion. The mass of voters end up relying on their intuition or, usually, their emotions. In the present referendum, everybody knew the consequences of voting the status quo, but nobody knew what leaving would entail, not the experts, not the government, not the Brussels technocrats, nobody. You would be forgiven for thinking that the government simply wanted to off-load responsibility for the decision onto the electorate. You would likewise be forgiven for asking why the referendum was called in the first place. David Cameron bears this responsibility. I understand his motives and if he is to be condemned for anything, it must be his judgement; he was too sure the result would go his way, but so also was half the nation.

Yet it was always going to be a close run thing. It was fairly clear that the élite, those with money, would vote remain, that those less well-off would vote leave; the educated, remain and the uneducated, leave; those in the London area, remain and those in the North, leave; the upper classes, remain and the lower classes, leave; the young generation, remain and those who grew up before 1973, leave; those who went skiing in the French Alps or clubbing in Ibiza, remain and those who went on holiday in the UK, leave; Scotland and Northern Island would vote to remain. It was all very binary. It was always going to be a close call. The unknown and unfathomable is what difference the large numbers of people living and working in Europe and who were disenfranchised would have made had they voted.

Britain has always been accused of having only one foot in Europe, of being an unruly and disruptive element, yet one of her great contributions to the European project has been to ask difficult questions, openly oppose what she did not think right and fight for change. She has fought for a rebate and she has fought for opt-outs. Sometimes these positions have provoked acrimony and sometimes official enquiries and change have been the result. Once again, she has asked difficult questions, but this time it’s: how does Article 50 work? and how do we negotiate our place outside of the European Union? One doesn’t have to be gifted with divine foresight to predict that the European institutions will now reflect on the reasons this has happened and on the need for change. For once, foresight and hindsight are both perfectly aligned and on target.