Co-authored with Andreas Kallmuenzer, University of Innsbruck, Austria and Jessica Greenhalgh, University of Southern California
On June 23, 2016, the Briton voters shocked the world with their vote (49% to 51%) to leave the European Union (EU). The vote of the younger generation was almost 80% in favor of remaining with the EU to 20% for leaving the EU. The puzzling issue in this vote disparity by age is to understand the motivation and incentives of the voter's bloc. Ostensibly, the vote does not seem to be enhancing Britons economic and political position. The proponents claim to regain Briton's sovereignty including important national policy decisions and borders based on immigration issue although Britain's immigrants are legal and can be managed under its current legal system. In contrast, the U.S., for example, has a large number of non-documented residents. It follows that the incentives of the U.K. voters must have been different than just the immigration issue. Research has shown that the contributions of immigrants to host countries are significant in new skills, cheaper labor, new businesses, and entrepreneurship. Ostensibly, the senior U.K. voters acted emotionally rather than rationally and were yearning to recreate the dignity and global stature of the former British Empire.
Since the end of WWII, United Kingdom has lost most of its colonies in Africa, Asia and other parts of the world and has lost its former position as a great power. That inevitable process was explicated in Paul Kennedy seminal book, which explained the inevitability of the rise and fall of great powers. Great Britain was no exception in light of heavy military expenditures that it sustained as an empire and fell into the cycle. It has been on its way to becoming a Small Britain as a victim of a falling empire by the end of World War II. The former colonies emancipated one by one.
However, Britons voting to leave the EU is not going to rectify the British downfall, in fact it can be argued that the exist vote is going to be counterproductive. For instance, as a response to the vote, the British pound took a nose dive and the exchange rate vis-à-vis U.S. dollar went down to a 31 year low after the Brexist vote. The pound sterling lost about 11% in value against U.S. dollars. This depreciation leads to higher import costs, most notably gasoline and consumer products, and lower export earnings, assuming inelastic demand for U.K. exports. Besides, London will no longer be the world's financial center and thousands of employees in the financial sector will be (or will have to be) seeking employment elsewhere in Europe. British citizen will not be able to move freely throughout Europe anymore, and 2 million British expatriates living across Europe are confronting a sea of uncertainty. They may lose their property rights as local citizens, right to work, own and operate a business and may face a host of regulatory imperatives imposed upon them.
The "leave vote" has caused Britain without a functioning government and the uncertainty associated thereof raising the issue of how to reverse the "leave" vote including the possibility of another referendum and avoid the invocation of the formal process of divorce from EU under Article 50 of the 2007 Lisbon Treaty.
In the final analysis, if the "leave" vote is implemented, it would discriminate against the younger population of Britain, whose orientation is globalism rather than nationalism, and who do not wish to leave their privileges to enjoy the freedom of movement, export-import, investment, employment and social interaction with Europe. The "leave" vote, which caused consternation across Europe and political disarray in London, was more emotional than rational and, if possible at all, it must be reversed for the benefit of Great Britain as well as Europe and the world at large. ----------------------------REFERENCESKennedy, Paul, the Rise and fall of the Great Powers (1987), ISBN 0-394-54674-1."Paralyzed by 'Brexit' Fear," The Los Angeles Times, July 5, 2016.