The saddest part about the anti-Brexit rhetoric is that people believe that because the UK has left the EU, it no longer wants to live or work in peace with the rest of Europe. This illustrates a few fallacies and other points to consider:
1) The first fallacy? The only way to work together is to surrender your right to make decisions for yourself. Saying thus is an insult to the intelligence of average people and is incredibly elitist in attitude.
2) Second fallacy: The “publicly good” intent of the EU should trump the actual faults plaguing the entire enterprise. This is pervasive among statists who believe in intentions over results.
3) British citizens have no right to demand that the government ruling them actually be responsible to the voting of its own citizens (noting that the EU government isn’t elected like each nation’s leadership and isn’t responsible to the individual citizens)
4) The only way to trade easily between nations is to FORCE trade to operate by exactly the same rules. This, you should know, has historically killed economic evolution and creativity. The way markets evolve is by freeing them, not by increasing archaic rules that seem nice in the beginning but hamper innovation in the long term.
5) Nations can institute simple policies of “free trade” and still enjoy all the economic benefits the EU offers while promoting greater innovation. This also allows each nation to determine the desires of its individual cultures to mete out national security measures and cultural policies most fitting to the very people over whom these laws will apply, while also forcing nations to take responsibility for their own poor economic decisions (See: Greece, v.).
6) The fact that so many other countries now ponder leaving the EU after the UK’s vote for departure is a clear sign, in my eyes, that the EU was never the utopian supergovernment everyone hoped it would be. If it was so wonderful, the rest of the EU would be happy the UK left, because what group wants to force someone to remain who doesn’t want to be there? This illuminates the same lie offered by socialism — because socialism cannot operate without forcing its own participants to remain and could not otherwise keep by positive return. Could citizens (or citizen states) depart, socialism would always and inevitably crumble within a fortnight of its own implementation. (See: Venezuela, v.)
Whether the vote depended with anti-immigration rhetoric is actually neglible to the greater benefit at hand — the chance that the people of the UK are more likely to get involved with their own government now that the locus of primary control has moved from Brussels to London. If there is a bigotry problem in the UK, beating them down with political correctness and big-government newspeak (See: 1984, n.) is the worst way to attempt resolving a group such as the EU, unless Brussels wishes to move into the business of violent hegemony. It’s been done (See USSR, n.), murdered hundreds of millions and still failed miserably.
Instead, merely waking the British people up to managing their own affairs has a profound chance of helping them embrace innovation of culture, science and economics as power consolidation never will, most especially when that power leaves their hands.
The biggest naysayers in the EU are those who profit from the subjugation of all EU nations under the single rule of Brussels. We’ve seen how many such have lost billions, and despite their cries of the end of the world, Britain has already seen a positive recovery from the initial reaction. Time will truly tell how all this plays out, but I can’t help but think that decentralization of power and putting government closer to the people its designed to serve is news in which any of us could rejoice.