Farage and the “no” vote have won. Defeat of Cameron and “yes” vote. The United Kingdom, divided in two, turns its back to Europe

This article –it should be said– was written on Wednesday, June 22. The outcomes of yesterday’s (June 23) English referendum, with a majority “leave” vote, marked the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union joined in 1973. Moreover, the reflections made two days ago or in the month of March were and remain the same. Figures first. Turnout in the referendum on the UK’s permanence or exit from the EU was 72%; 17 million and 410 thousand British subjects cast their no-vote to Europe (51.9%), 16 million and 140thousand opted for “yes” (48.1%). London city, Scotland and Ireland voted “remain”, the rest of the Country decided the Brexit. (Britain exit).

In practical terms a long negotiating phase lies ahead to redefine the relations between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union.

The UK has two years to renegotiate the terms of peaceful and economically sustainable coexistence with the EU, which it hopes will bring mutual benefits. In the meantime the island is in a state of unrest and Community Europe is licking a new wound: the new political crisis adds on to the economic and migration crises. It’s not the first time that the EU in a similar situation. But this appears to be the most compelling challenge, at a time of disaffection from the European integration project for peace launched 70 years ago on the ashes of the Second World War.

In the past hours the words of the real winner (if he can be described as such) of this battle have reverberated loud and clear: Nigel Farage, visionary pro-independence UKIP leader, anti-European, untamed, obstinate MEP, has finally attained his twofold goal:

To isolate Queen Elisabeth’s Kingdom within an interdependent world and cast a heavy blow on a direly tried EU. “I now dare to dream that the dawn is coming up on an independent United Kingdom. This – Farage remarked in the light of the results – will be a victory for real people, a victory for ordinary people, a victory for decent people, I hope victory for Brexit will bring down this failed project of the European Union” and “it will lead us to a Europe of sovereign States that trade with each other, are friends, cooperate, getting rid of Brussels’ flag and anthem.” Finally: “May June 23 be recorded in history as our Independence Day.”

On the opposite front the first to lose was Premier David Cameron.

Last year, in order to win national election, he had promised a referendum of which he became the victim. With this electoral challenge Cameron divided his party (the Conservatives); split the electorate, and therefore his country, in two separate fronts. He instilled courage and winning force to populism, nationalism and Euroscepticism; he isolated the United Kingdom from the rest of the Old Continent and from the European single market that represents a large part of British companies’ business transactions. Now the same British nation risks being split in two if Scotland, convincingly pro-European, were to hold another referendum to secede from London in order to remain in the EU, as promised before the vote. In the light of this situation Cameron has no other option than to step down (as inferred in his first post-vote declarations), leaving others to undertake the UK’s neighbourly negotiations – this time in the position of an “Extra-EU” Country, with extra-EU citizens, enterprises, City … What remains is the language, for English is in fact a globalized language that today no one can do without.

Several questions remain, which are the same questions of the past days, week and months.

The first: on the basis of which ascertained facts and beliefs have citizens chosen leave or remain? It isn’t a doubt regarding democratic performance. Rather it questions the referendum as a simplified “yes” or “no” tool to decide on generally complex issues which deserve being treated with greater caution and comprehensive strategic, ethical, and political vision, in the appropriate seats purposely chosen by parliamentary democracies. And the history of the British Parliament dates back to centuries ago…

Second question: will the UK’s earthquake lead the EU to undertake self-reflection? The European dream of the “founding fathers” remains out of question, with solid foundations. However, in the light of changing times, of epochal transformations under way, of internal and external challenges, it needs to be updated, strengthened, made acceptable and once again coveted – even “loved” – by European citizens.

Third: will the British “example” be followed by other Member Countries on the wake of the widespread nationalisms we have been experiencing for years, whose “dark side” is found in the new walls that are being built across several areas of the continent?

Thus we come to the fourth question: before this Europe that seems to have undertaken opposing paths, will a multi-track Europe, with variable geographic assets, take shape? Indeed, this is precisely what Cameron has imposed to the EU, as agreed past February by London and EU27, when in order to avert a Brexit Member Countries accepted the conditions set by the British Premier, namely, that the United Kingdom would not make further concessions aimed at political unity; that London would select only the most convenient aspects of the EU as a whole (market, legislation, agreements, etc) thereby rejecting the solidarity principle underlying the existence of the EU; the United Kingdom would treat EU and British workers differently, starting with a different welfare system. Can those who truly believe in united Europe accept these conditions? Or is it best for the EU to take on a multifaceted dimension in concentric circles, with decreased political integration and depth? In all likelihood, these questions will start being addressed tomorrow.

Today one thing is sure. At the end of the day, those allured by populisms are doomed to be its first victims.