In the referendum on 23 June 2016 the majority of British people voted Leave. In doing so, they placed the cornerstone of a new future for the U.K. beyond the E.U. Some politicians, mainstream media and many pollsters failed to remember how the will to act had built the British Empire, Commonwealth and NATO. The will to act against questionable vested interests of politicians, media such as the BBC and organised criminal gangs has led to veiled threats on trade and a divorce bill ranging from £10 billion to £100 billion. Those supporting such tactics have failed to grasp the general conscience that propelled Leave to victory like Nelson or Churchill.

By 'going global' the U.K. historically had an advantage that few others have had or will have. We understand diplomacy. We understand that sometimes events get beyond anticipated courses like a river. Was it avoidable? The E.U. Had several years to deliver a package that was palatable to the British. It failed to do so. Questions therefore must be asked. Who failed to deliver a credible deal? Who has brought Hungary, Italy and Poland to the point where they too are considering referendums on the EU?

The idealism of the E.U. was to save Europe from further war. It was not designed to excuse money laundering from human traffickers, drug cartels and those aiming to pay zero tax and to avoid contributing to their respective societies. Had such measures been implemented would Greece owe as much? Would Italy? If those governments had been able to tax everyone and every business a minimum of 10% tax would they still have the same economic issues? We can assume that they would not.

The E.U. was not designed to fund criminals re drugs, prostitution or economic slavery as a result of human trafficking. Perhaps that is why so many agreed to leave it in 2016. They could see the white elephant in the room and knew the EU brand was tarnished. Such activities are costly to any decent society, but more obvious in the era of austerity. 

Unemployment in the EU is a classic example of the negative impact of austerity. It is one of the pillars that brings about reactionary politics. We can assume that if the UK leaves the EU in full in 2019 that such moves will actively create jobs in ports that will require staff to check goods at customs points. It will also presumably create secondary jobs in relation to bodies dealing with UK trade. There are a multitude of other methods for creating employment within the EU that have not been utilized.

We can be assured of 2 things.

  1. That Brexit is now a reality, despite the rants of some politicians and media.
  2. That 'going global' will create a healthier market for UK economics via the WTO.

My personal point of view is one of hope. The UK has always invented new ways of doing things. Why should we stop now?