Brexit will follow a familiar script when it comes to who suffers most

OK, SO NOW WHAT?

The UK referendum on its future in the European Union revealed a couple of things. The first, obviously, is that a slight majority of voters opted for the “Leave” side. The second, which followed the vote, is that the leaders of the so-called Brexit movement had no plan for what would follow their victory.

The country appears essentially rudderless at this point, British Prime Minister David Cameron having announced his intention to resign, his political obituary already being written in the most unflattering terms. He’s the architect of failure for the political manoeuvre of the referendum and the potential disintegration of the United Kingdom.

With the reality of last week’s decision sinking in, however, there appears to be more than a little buyer’s remorse going on.

Therein lies some hope that cooler heads will prevail. The referendum was not legally binding, and the House of Commons has to vote on the use of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to formally withdraw from the EU – a snap election could be called as a form of reconsideration.

Recognizing this option and the underlying economic woes that have angered Britons, Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, is making the case for an election call.

“I think it is right that in a general election we say to the British people that if you want to get out of the increasing economic mess that we find ourselves in, where we have lost control, [where] we are at the mercy of markets, people’s jobs are going, people’s livelihoods are being destroyed and we are not taking back control … And the fact that the key tenets of the leave campaign are now proved to be lies … it would prove legitimate for the Liberal Democrats to go into the next election and say we offer you a chance to reconsider.”

The final decision will have a large financial impact on the UK – the markets are going haywire already – and its people, including those who took the “Leave” side. But whether or not Britain stays or goes, the underlying problems with the EU remain, particularly the central bureaucracy, the lack of currency controls and the immigration problems.

Those Britons who voted to leave the EU were overwhelmingly those who felt marginalized economically and culturally, the result of a weakening economy, lack of jobs, poorer prospects and lack of affordable housing, much of the blame for which was heaped on the EU and, rightly or wrongly, on visible minorities – plenty of people aren’t happy with the changing face of Britain.

On a larger scale, the “Leave” vote was an indictment of globalization and neoliberalism. People no longer trust politicians, bureaucrats and those labelled elites to serve the public good – rather, those in charge serve themselves and their paymasters. A vote to “Leave” is a vote for people to take back some measure of control of their lives.

People are starting to wake up to the fact there is a fundamental problem with “trade” deals: money moves instantly, goods are shipped globally, services can be outsourced readily. But people aren’t really that mobile. Many want to stay among family, friends and support systems. For those on the move, there are financial and cultural hurdles that prove insurmountable. And mobility typically means people moving to those locales with better economies, putting pressure on the job market and government social programs. And, like it or not, there’s a sizeable chunk of the population that objects to newcomers, especially those with clear ethnic and cultural differences. The latter foments the kind of rage that is growing in Europe and is evident in the U.S. presidential election.

The UK is not alone in these attitudes. As Gwynne Dyer points out in his column this week, there’s a real fear other EU-member countries will follow suit, with right-wing parties already using the same kind of arguments as those used effectively by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the run-up to last week’s vote.

Immigration has long been an issue with populist parties, which have grown from fringe groups to political players in places like France, the Netherlands and Italy, more so since 2008’s Great Recession and resultant austerity. Those groups will draw on the UK experience.

That makes it all the more interesting to see what the Brexit leaders will do. They are already backpeddling on the promises made during the campaign. That politicians lied is nothing new – they all do it, we know – but the unfulfilled expectations will lead to more anger and could prompt even more extreme movements.

“There is a clear tension between what the voter wanted and what senior euroskeptic leaders want to produce,” notes Matthew Goodwin, a professor of politics and international relations at the University of Kent. “If they don’t deliver radical reforms on immigration, it would be the equivalent of pouring gasoline on the populist UKIP fire that has been burning since 2010.”

Again, immigration is likely to be the key ingredient. Many “Leave” supporters, specifically those who back UKIP and similar parties, want the flow cut off yesterday. When that doesn’t happen, things might get ugly.

There were plenty of lies told on the both sides, notably among the Leavers. Pro-Brexit politicians painted a picture of an easy transition whereby Britain would continue to enjoy the benefits of EU membership without any of the downsides, including free movement of people. Now those leaders are singing a different tune.

European leaders anxious to make a UK departure punitive aren’t likely to have any of it. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country will have

even greater influence with the departure of the second-largest economy in the 28-member bloc, was clear about the terms this week.

“Those who want free access to the European domestic market will have to accept the basic European freedoms and the other rules and duties which are linked to it. This applies to Great Britain just like to everyone else. Free access to the domestic market is granted to those who accept the four basic European freedoms — of people, of goods, of services, of capital.”

Beyond that squabble, however, there’s an underlying unease at the prospect of both another financial meltdown and a bailout on the backs of those who are most screwed over and least able to pay – just like we saw in 2009, and in a host of other neoliberal moves, suggests economist Michael Hudson in an interview with Chris Hedges.

“A lot of banks in America and Europe that held their money in Great Britain just lost 9 per cent at current exchange rates. They have probably not hedged it. There have probably been large Wall Street institutions that made bets believing that Britain would remain in the European Union. There are firms and banks, I suspect, which have lost hundreds of billions of dollars. There is talk of another Lehman Brothers. We don’t yet know who it will be.”

The U.S. will follow a script set out in 2009, he predicts.

“I expect Obama to do whatever he is told to do by Wall Street. He has turned over management of the economy to his campaign contributors from Goldman Sachs and Chase Manhattan. He does not have views of his own, other than self-promotion. He wants his presidential library. He wants to have a big foundation like the Clintons. Most of the population will oppose a bailout, of course, and he will cry all the way to the bank.”