Brexit – An Indian Perspective
Written by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, 30 June, 2016
Copyright © 2016 Dr. Seshadri Kumar. All Rights Reserved.
*********************************************************
On June 24, 2016, the
entire world woke up to some stunning news. The UK had voted to leave the
European Union. It was an unexpected verdict because polls had been saying that
the “Remain” group (which campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU) would win,
even though the numbers were close. It is fair to say that few expected the
victory. This was true around the world, including in India.
Following the verdict,
Scotland, which voted overwhelmingly in favour of Remain in the referendum, said it would want another
referendum on independence as it did not want to be forced to leave the EU against its will. The Irish from Northern Ireland, who
also voted to remain in the EU, also made some statements about their unhappiness with the result.
The leaders of the EU
made some blunt statements indicating
their desire to punish Britain for leaving, and to set an example to others who might thinking of
copying the British example. Newspapers started analysing the results and
explaining how much the UK would lose because of this decision. Shortly
thereafter, and not unexpectedly, the pound fell, as did the Euro, and some companies announced their
intention to move jobs from the UK to the continent.
This is a continuing
story, and there have been several developments since the announcement of the
result. My objective here is to record some impressions as an outsider on the
state of things in the UK, as well as talk about some of my personal
impressions of the UK and what I think this might mean for the UK as they go
forward.
In discussing Brexit,
I am not going to focus on whether the decision to leave was correct or not
from an economic or a social viewpoint. Countless excellent analyses are
available through various media outlets for this purpose, and will doubtless
continue to be published.
Instead, I am looking
at two things: the process followed and its implications, and, now that the decision
has been made, the prospects for an EU-free UK.
These are perceptions
from a distance. I do not live in the UK, and so do not have the benefit of
seeing daily debates on the issue on TV and in the daily newspapers. So some of
my observations and conclusions could well be wrong, and I am happy to be
corrected. (We do get BBC TV in India, though, and I have followed some of the
debates there – but it isn’t the same as living in the UK.)
Despite this, I am
hopeful that this outsider perspective on the Brexit issue might still be
valuable. One of the lessons in life that I learned a long time ago is that
perception is more important than reality. Britons may kindly view these
observations as an outsider’s perceptions of the country and what it is going
through, and hopefully find something valuable in them – because, to the
outsider, his or her perception is his or her reality.
Was a
Referendum the Right Option?
Since that historic
day, many
people who were shocked by the vote have said that referenda are wrong, that
they are undemocratic. They point to the 52:48 verdict on Brexit and say,
“Look, nearly half the population disagrees with the verdict. How can this be
representative and democratic?”
Well, for such people,
I have some news. Even in a landslide general election in a democracy, the
winner rarely polls over 50% of the vote. That means that in most elections, at
least half the country is against the winner.
Some examples will
illustrate.
The 1980 US Presidential election was
considered to be a landslide victory for President Ronald Reagan. It certainly was, based on the Electoral
College system: Reagan won a staggering 489 electoral votes, compared to 49
votes for incumbent President Jimmy Carter and 0 votes for third-place
independent John Anderson. But take a look at the vote share, and the picture
is quite different: 50.7% of the votes went to Reagan, 41% went to Carter, and
6.6% went to Anderson. Opponents of the greatest victor in US Presidential
elections got 49.3% of the vote!!!
 |
| President Ronald Reagan won 429 out of 538 Electoral Votes, But Only Got 50.7% of the Popular Vote |
Closer to home, the 1984 parliamentary elections in
India, following the
death of Mrs. Indira Gandhi was the most one-sided election in Indian history.
Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s party, the Congress (I), won a staggering 404 seats out of a
total of 514. But in terms of popular vote share, the Congress (I) won less
than 50% of the popular vote – it won only 49.1% of the total votes cast.
 |
| Late Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi won by the Biggest Majority Ever in India in 1984, with 404 Seats out 514, but only 49.1% Vote Share |
More recently in
India, in what was widely considered a popular “wave,” Mr.
Narendra Modi led his party, the BJP, to a more modest victory in 2014 – his party obtained 282 seats in the Lok
Sabha out of a total of 543 and an absolute majority. However, the BJP’s vote
share was a mere 31.3% - way short of a majority. Yet that government is making
changes that affect all Indians,
including the nearly 70% that did not vote for it.
 |
| Current Indian PM Narendra Modi, who won an Absolute Majority in 2014 But Only Received 31.3% of the Vote |
In 1997, Tony Blair of the Labour Party
won the election to the House of Commons in a landslide, winning 418 out of 659 seats. However, Labour
won only 43.2% of the popular vote. In other words, a majority of 56.8% of the
people did not vote for Labour.
 |
| British PM Tony Blair After his Historic Win in 1997 |
Therefore, in
comparison, a 52% vote in the Brexit campaign is far more representative of the
voice of the people than most popular elections, and far more democratic. The
fact that so many from the Remain campaign dislike the result cannot make the
result undemocratic.
Some people may also
wonder why it might not simply be enough for the ruling government to decide
for the country by passing laws instead of having a referendum. After all, are
they not the elected representatives of the people?
The problem with a
current ruling government deciding on a singular matter of great national
importance is this. The ruling Tory government was elected in 2015 on the basis
of a manifesto and promises made during the election campaign. One of the
promises was that there would be a referendum on Brexit. The election itself
was not about whether to stay in or leave the EU – the manifesto only promised
a referendum. So the Cameron government of 2015 did not represent the popular
vote on remaining in or leaving the EU.
This is highlighted by
the fact that a majority of the ruling government in Britain is against leaving
and against the popular verdict. This is the reason Cameron’s decision to
resign was correct – given that he did not agree with the verdict of leaving,
it would be wrong for him to lead the country in the process of leaving.
 |
| British PM David Cameron Announcing His Decision to Resign Following the Referendum Result |
(There is also a
political calculation there – nobody wants the hot potato of the Prime
Ministership when having to deal with the heartburn of many because of leaving
the EU. But more on this later in this article.)
Having Second
Thoughts – A Second Referendum?
Following the election
and public discussion of its consequences, many people seem to have had second
thoughts about their
decision. There is an online petition to have a second
referendum, which at the time of writing has gathered 3.5 million signatures.
Technically, nothing
stops the UK from conducting a second referendum, but it will be hard to
justify. The demand for a second referendum is primarily coming from the social-media-savvy
folks from big cities like London, which voted to remain. But this might send
the wrong message. The relatively quieter rural parts of England, which overwhelmingly
voted to leave, would not like their voice taken away. They might get the impression
that the Remain campaign wants to keep repeating the election until they win.
Besides, what is the
justification? That people voted without thinking and without understanding the
issues (as evidenced by Google trends after the
result on what the EU is)?
Surely such irresponsibility cannot be rewarded? Would such an argument be
accepted in a General Election? “Oh, we think we made a mistake electing the
Conservatives – we only Googled David Cameron today, the day after the
elections, and we don’t agree with what he says!” Would such logic fly?
One could rebut that
argument by saying that voting a political party in a general election is a
temporary decision, which can be reversed after 5 years, whereas the decision
to leave the EU is permanent (relatively speaking – there is no clear timeline
on when, if at all, the decision to leave could be reversed.) Even then, in any election, “I didn’t know what this
would mean and what I was doing” is usually an unacceptable reason for
demanding a re-election. It speaks very poorly of the electoral maturity of the
British people.
It wasn’t that this
decision was taken in a hurry or that people did not have time to understand
the issues. The UKIP (UK Independence Party) was
formed on the platform of leaving the EU in 1993. It has been steadily gaining
in vote share in the UK in European elections in the last 15 years, getting
27.5% of the vote in 2014.
The issue of whether to stay in the EU or leave it was a prominent issue in the
election campaign of 2015, during which Cameron promised to address the issue
by holding a nationwide referendum. The referendum date itself was announced on
February 22, 2016, four months before the actual event was held. There is no
excuse that the British people had inadequate time to study the issues.
What was the real
surprise with a “Leave” vote? Did those who voted to leave really not
understand that the reaction from the EU would be harsh? Did they understand
only that day that their travel through Europe and their ability to work in
jobs across Europe would be severely curtailed? Did they not know that the
stock market would tank and that the pound would lose value? All of this had been the subject of countless newspaper articles and debates.
In any case, Cameron has just shut the door on all
that talk, despite the
millions who signed the petition for a second referendum.
The Surprising Reaction of Boris Johnson
The Brexit campaign
has had its share of surprises. One of the big surprises was when Boris Johnson, the former mayor of
London, switched sides and started supporting the Leave campaign in February. He joined another defector, the Justice
Secretary, Michael Gove. The defection of these two important personalities is
considered to have had a decisive impact on the Brexit vote.
 |
| Former London Mayor and Prospective PM-in-waiting Boris Johnson |
Given this, it was
extremely surprising that after the decision to leave the EU, there was no
triumphant and exuberant reaction from either of these gentlemen, quite in
contrast to Nigel Farage’s very public, triumphant
reaction in Brussels, which greatly annoyed the Europeans. Boris Johnson appeared very subdued after David Cameron’s address to the nation in
which Cameron announced his decision to resign. Looking at Johnson’s body language,
one could be forgiven for mistakenly thinking he had lost and the Remain group
had won the vote.
One remarkable analysis by a commenter on an
article in the Guardian,
which has been cited hundreds of times by now, explained Boris Johnson’s muted
reaction in terms of David Cameron’s decision to step down and leave the
implementation, including the activation of article 50 of the EU, to his
successor, most likely Johnson. There is no guarantee that these were Mr.
Johnson’s motivations, but it is certainly a highly plausible theory.
This highly lucid comment
described the Prime Ministership after Cameron’s departure as a “poisoned
chalice,” because Cameron had abdicated responsibility for leaving the EU, and
so Johnson would be faced with three choices:
If he runs for leadership of the party, and
then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If
he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he
runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over – Scotland
will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession … broken trade
agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he
acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
(Apologies for the
politically incorrect language, but I thought it best to reproduce the comment
verbatim.)
The interesting thing
about this comment is this. While the consequences of the first two options are
quite obvious, it is the third option that is very curious. The third part of
the commenter’s theory is based on the idea that “it will all be over.” And why
will it be all over?
Scotland will break away, there will be
upheaval in Ireland, a recession … broken trade agreements.
If this is the reason
Boris Johnson was very quiet, the implications are stunning.
These possibilities
had been suggested well before the referendum took place and very publicly. Did
Johnson realize them only after the
referendum? What kind of leadership is this?
It wasn’t just Boris
Johnson’s body language at his address on the 24th. When someone
has vigorously pushed the people of the UK for a certain policy, and when the
world seems to be crashing around the UK as a consequence of the policy, I
would expect the person who spearheaded that initiative to appear daily on
television, reassuring the people who followed his advice, and telling them not
to worry – “I know the pound is down, jobs are going away, and people are
talking tough, but things are going to be all right. We anticipated all this,
and we have a plan.” But there was none of this at all while people in the
UK are fearful for their future. Instead, Mr.
Johnson seemed more concerned about winning the election of the Conservative
party so he can succeed David Cameron.
But wait – was there a
plan? The fact that Mr. Johnson did not bother to reassure, and reassure strongly,
the people of the UK, and tell them there was no need to worry, in nearly a week
since the referendum result, raises this obvious question. But here is the
thing. While it is not easy to publicly say that you have a plan when you really haven’t
the foggiest idea, it is Politics 101 that you don’t go around giving the
impression that you are clueless. Not exactly the best thing to do when your aim is to create a favourable
impression and generate confidence in a very scared country.
I come to the example
of my own country. Mr. Modi got into power promising a much faster pace of
development than ever before. The campaign rhetoric was: “You gave them 60
years. Give me 60 months.” While only a fool would expect him to be able to do
things at 12 times the pace of the previous governments, there were hopes that
he at least had a plan for faster growth. After 2 years, most
economic indicators are worse than those of previous administrations, and
the performance of his government has been roundly panned by critics for failing
to make adequate headway on its campaign promises.
However, to his credit
as a politician, Mr. Modi insists that he has a plan and that he has instituted
long-term measures that will yield fruit in the next 3 years of his term, even
though the effects of those measures are not immediately evident. Whether this
is true or not, it helps him retain the support of his core constituency,
allows him to parry criticism for at least a couple of years, and buys him time.
The projection of competence
in leaders and the generation of hope in the masses is an important part of
leadership. The results may not yet be there, but the Indian
populace is regularly bombarded with news of yet another “yojana” (scheme) to
uplift this or that sector. Whether something actually happens is another
matter, as the much-vaunted plan
to clean the river Ganga illustrates. The point is that the PR campaign to
suggest that the government is actually working on the issues, with a plan in
hand, is quite effective. The proof of this is the large numbers of supporters
of Mr. Modi on social media advising critics to “wait a little longer” for the
inevitable fruits of development.
That the leaders of
Britain are unable to infuse the population with
even a false hope at a time of crisis like this is indicative of a failure
of leadership. Regardless of whether something can be done or not, it is
important to work hard to raise the flagging spirits of the public – otherwise,
Britain could sink into a deep, avoidable recession. As President Franklin
Roosevelt told America in his first inaugural address during the Great
Depression, “The
only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” If a general panic were to
permeate the general public, things could get much worse than they need to. The
ideal situation would have been that the Leave leaders had a plan ready to deal with all
contingencies, but in the absence of such a plan, the least the Leave leaders could have done is to keep the confidence of the public up, even by lying if necessary.
The lyrics of a well-known old Bollywood
song capture the predicament of the British people very well (translated
from Hindi):
It is
agreed that no one can withstand the fury of the storm
Blame
not the seasons, it is the fault of humans:
If the
boat sways in the ocean, the boatman steers it to safety;
But if
the boatman himself sinks the boat, then who can save you?
It is one thing if the
common people are unaware of the consequences of a major referendum. Such
ignorance is not desirable, but it is quite common in all democracies. Most
people, the world over, prefer not to think for themselves, but to follow the leaders that they
trust. But the idea that the leader who was pushing for the UK to leave the EU
really did not have a clue as to how profound the implications of such a
decision would be is beyond comprehension.
For us in India, that
this could happen in a first-world nation like the UK is even more amazing. It
even turns upside down some of our most fundamental and deeply-held notions
about the world – such as the notion that education and literacy makes for a
more responsible and intelligent people who can make mature decisions. Viewed
in this light, disappointing as the reports of ordinary Britons Googling “what
is the EU” the day after the referendum were, even more disappointing was the
idea that the leaders of a nation who were advocating a dramatic policy change
for months and years were doing so without a clear understanding of the
enormous consequences of that policy change.
As I already
mentioned, it is not that we in India are not used to politicians promising more
than they can deliver. It is the norm rather than the exception. But it is
usually a case of calculations going awry, of political alignments not working
out as planned, or of unanticipated changes in the global economy. There are
also deliberate exaggerations of what can be achieved, as I mentioned earlier,
in order to win elections. But it is usually a case of not having done as much
as promised, with things not going exactly as planned. Never a case of not
having a plan at all.
We are used to U-turns
in policy in India, too – of governments promising to do one thing and doing
quite another when in power. Mr. Modi promised communal harmony (“Development
for all, in harmony” was a well-known slogan) in order to get elected in 2014, only
to have regular statements by its officers and ministers threatening the
minority Muslim community and telling them that they
could be lynched for what they ate and that they should leave the country if
they could not behave. We elected a leader who
said he would not have talks with our neighbour Pakistan until they abandoned
terror as an instrument of state policy, only to announce, after assuming
power, comprehensive dialogue with Pakistan – with plenty of going back and
going forward, when nothing had changed on the terror front. We elected a
leader who
promised to reduce the size of government, only to increase spending on welfare
programs.
These things are not
unusual in democracies. One of the reasons former American President George
H.W. Bush lost the election to Bill Clinton in 1992 was that he had promised in
the election campaign that there
would be no new taxes, only to renege on that campaign promise during his
term as President.
But the difference is
that in all those cases, the new government at least took a few months, if not
years, after getting into office, to size up the situation, and then realized
that what they had promised was not feasible. Here the realization seems to
have happened overnight!
What new information
did Mr. Johnson have on the morning of the 24th of June that he did
not have on the evening of the 23rd of June that he was not going
around town addressing victory rallies after the result was announced? This is
shocking beyond measure. It suggests that he advocated a separation from the EU
without doing adequate homework and without understanding fully the arguments
for or against the motion.
The final chapter in the miserable story of Boris Johnson is the news today that he has ruled himself out of the race for leader of the Conservative Party. It appears that Mr. Gove will run for the position of leader. The utter disaster of the Leave campaign and the complete irresponsibility of its leaders does not need a better testament.
The final chapter in the miserable story of Boris Johnson is the news today that he has ruled himself out of the race for leader of the Conservative Party. It appears that Mr. Gove will run for the position of leader. The utter disaster of the Leave campaign and the complete irresponsibility of its leaders does not need a better testament.
Can Brexit
Give the UK Back Its Lost Mojo? A Personal View
Whatever the reasons, and
whether this was a good move or a bad one, the die has been cast. Britain is
leaving the EU. It is no longer a matter of if, only a matter of when. It is
time the Remain campaign followers got used to it. Cameron is doing the right
thing now. He wanted the UK to remain in the EU. Let Johnson, who wanted the UK
to leave the EU, deal with the problems of leaving.
What does the future
hold for the UK, now that a divorce with the EU appears inevitable?
I am not an economist, and am not going to talk
about economics here. I am, instead, going to talk straight from the gut, based
on my personal experience.
I believe it is likely that Brexit, if handled and
viewed correctly, could be a good thing for the UK. Let me explain.
I lived in the UK for 7 months in 2005-2006 on my
way back to India after living, studying, and working, for a total of 15 years
in the US. I had gotten a job with a private engineering company that was
headquartered in the US and UK (the majority shareholder of the private company
was an American, but they had a big office in London.) I was hired to start
their India operations in Bangalore along with a colleague from the UK. My stint
in their London office was to help me get acquainted with the company and its
products before starting things in India.
For me, having lived so long in the US, it was
somewhat of a shock to live in the UK. The main reason for this was cultural. One
early sign of the cultural difference was when I wanted to buy some clothes for
myself. Since the office worked 8-5, I could only go out to buy something after
work, but I was stunned to find that most shops closed by 5.30 pm or latest by
6 pm! After this happened a few times, I found out that it had to do with labour
laws - that making people work late or extra would violate UK labour laws, and
so businesses had to close shop. The funny thing is that no one at work thought
it was strange. I asked them how stores could expect to do any business if
their clients were in offices all day and if they were closed all the time when
their clients were free. No one had a good answer...mostly a sense of
"well, that's how it is." In contrast, most stores in the US are open
at least until 9 pm.
This was just one example of culture shock. The
bigger picture was that the gung-ho spirit I had grown up with in the US - the
“can do” attitude which I had learned to internalize and which you can find anywhere in the US - was
conspicuous by its absence. I worked for a hard-driving American company, so
you could see the urgency at work - but I sensed that it was limited to the
office. More commonly, as I moved around London, talked to people outside and
colleagues in the office, I consistently sensed a subliminal pessimism
everywhere. It seemed the very atmosphere was soaked in pessimism - and the
constant rains and overcast skies in London did not help dispel that notion one
bit. There was little sign of people thinking that the future was bright, of
people talking excitedly about their plans for their lives – nothing. Mostly a
sense of “we’ll muddle through it somehow.” Neither in the US, where I had just
lived, nor in India, where I was moving to, did I sense such a blasé attitude
to life.
I realize this is a highly subjective opinion. But
it left a strong imprint on my mind. Britons will kindly forgive me for stating
my opinion, and be assured that I bear no malice towards their wonderful
country.
As I wandered around London on the weekends, and
saw Horatio Nelson's statue at Trafalgar Square or Robert Clive's statue in
Whitehall, I wondered, “Is this the same country that once justifiably claimed
‘the sun never sets on the British Empire?’” It almost seemed like the loss of
Empire in the years following WWII had robbed Britain of that vitality that once
led it to be the world superpower for nearly 200 years, and had led to a
national loss of confidence that persists to this day.
Now, don't get me wrong. I enjoyed my time in
London. That was mainly because I had my fill of the cultural events in London,
between the Royal Opera House, the Coliseum, the Barbican, and the SoHo
theatres. I visited every major museum in London, and a visit to the Tate
Modern was a given every other weekend. St. Paul’s, Westminster Abbey, Big Ben,
The British Museum, the V&A Museum, and the London Eye. So much to see. A
trip to Oxford one weekend. And I blew most of the substantial salary that my
company paid me on eating out at all the amazing restaurants, along with the
rather expensive Royal Opera House tickets (₤134 a pop then) and the tickets
for all the musicals.
But I also experienced London beyond the tourism,
the museums, Leicester Square, Covent Garden, and the South Bank. I once fell
ill and had the experience of the NHS; used to shop regularly at the
neighbourhood Tesco for my needs; used to go to beer bars in many parts of
London where I had the dubious fortune of drinking warm beer (an absolute no-no
in the US.) I got a very threatening letter from the government in my mailbox saying
they had found out that I was using a TV without a licence and should pay up to
avoid consequences. But it was all fun and immensely enjoyable. I had a lovely
old Irish lady as my landlady, and I even went to her home on Christmas for
dinner.
But I could not imagine living there. The
mojo was missing.
And that is what I think this Brexit vote might
bring back. The analysts may well be right - that Britain might lose a lot in
the short term – companies may move from London to the continent; the pound
might lose value; British citizens will not be able to work freely in Europe;
and there might be a recession in the UK.
But I also think this exit, if played right by the
leaders and the people, can finally give some sense of purpose to a people who,
for 70 years, have not really had much to live for.
America came out of WWII feeling like they had won
the war. The UK came out of WWII feeling that they had barely survived.
And that imprint has stayed on to this day, as the UK gradually kept losing its positions of leadership – not only politically, with the steady loss of colonies; but also in technology, as the best scientific research moved from Cambridge and Imperial College to places like MIT, Princeton, and Stanford; and in culture, whereby today most people in the world try to imitate American culture, not British.
And that imprint has stayed on to this day, as the UK gradually kept losing its positions of leadership – not only politically, with the steady loss of colonies; but also in technology, as the best scientific research moved from Cambridge and Imperial College to places like MIT, Princeton, and Stanford; and in culture, whereby today most people in the world try to imitate American culture, not British.
The best students from India used to go to the UK
for higher studies before 1960; after that, everyone wanted to go to the US. My
father’s elder brother left India in 1959, after studying medicine in Mumbai,
to do his FRCS in the UK; but my father, in 1960, preferred to go to the US for
post-doctoral studies in organic chemistry after doing his PhD at the
University of Bombay. Even in the creative faculties, students started
preferring the US over the UK. Contemporary news reports consistently refer to
the UK as America’s junior partner and, less charitably, as “America’s poodle.”
All these things play on the collective psyche of a nation. It took me less
than a week to sense this depressing feeling after arriving in the UK.
So, while Brexit may isolate the UK, it may just be
the antidote to the pessimism and the lack of self-belief that I think the UK
suffers from. Brexit may finally give some purpose to the people of the UK - a
nation-building project that might see the UK come out stronger than ever
before, with a need to prove itself, its back against the wall, and no one
giving it a chance.
As with people, sometimes countries also need a kick
in the rear to shape up. The
UK has certainly not lived up to its potential in the 70 years since WWII. This
is not the same UK that produced Keats, Milton, Tennyson, and Shakespeare;
Newton, Watt, Jenner, Turing, and Fleming; Locke, Mill, Russell, Hume, and Shaw;
the brilliant folks at
Bletchley Park who cracked the Enigma code of the Germans; or the folks who
invented radar and helped the RAF defeat the Nazis in the Battle of Britain –
to name just a few. But it can again be that nation.
This is not to argue for a return to Empire, but for a return of that creative efflorescence that led to great achievements such as the industrial revolution and advances in medicine that made Britain a great nation. It was the achievement in science, philosophy, literature and poetry that made Britain the leading power in the world, which in turn led to it becoming a technological and imperial superpower - not the other way around.
Creative genius was used in the 18th and 19th centuries as a means to building an empire; but that does not need to be its focus today, and should not be. It can be used to alleviate poverty, create new sources of energy, cure serious illness and improve the health of humankind, and so much more.
This is not to argue for a return to Empire, but for a return of that creative efflorescence that led to great achievements such as the industrial revolution and advances in medicine that made Britain a great nation. It was the achievement in science, philosophy, literature and poetry that made Britain the leading power in the world, which in turn led to it becoming a technological and imperial superpower - not the other way around.
Creative genius was used in the 18th and 19th centuries as a means to building an empire; but that does not need to be its focus today, and should not be. It can be used to alleviate poverty, create new sources of energy, cure serious illness and improve the health of humankind, and so much more.
I am not suggesting that such a reinvention of the UK
could not have happened within the EU – it most certainly could have, with the
right leadership and the right decisions. But crises have a catalysing action
and the ability to make the people of a nation opt for tough choices that are
necessary, not only for greatness in the long run, but simply for survival in
the present. The crisis engendered by Brexit could be that catalyst.
But for that to happen, strong visionary leaders
need to step up. Does the UK have such leaders who can harness the energy of
its youth to chart a new, better future? The present crop of leaders does not
offer the promise of leading a young UK to the heights of achievement it once
attained in the world, if the leaders involved in the Brexit campaign are anything to go by.
Who will rise to lead the British?
*********************************
Disclaimer: All the opinions expressed in this article are the opinions
of Dr. Seshadri Kumar alone and should not be construed to mean the opinions of
any other person or organization, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the
article.
