The Tribune

How is Britain after the momentous vote to leave the European Union? Six weeks on, Peter Young detects a mood of calm and optimism . . .

More than a month since Britain’s referendum on its membership of the European Union (EU), what has happened following the decision by a small majority to leave the bloc?

Termed one of the most momentous votes in the nation’s political history, it created unpleasant divisions domestically, with the Remain camp describing so-called Leavers as stupid, racist and xenophobic and the younger generation feeling let down by their elders who, by and large, voted to leave.

However, now that the dust has settled, people want to know whether the scaremongering by the Remainers about a commercial meltdown and severe economic downturn was justified and how serious has been the fallout from the post-Brexit resignation of a sitting Prime Minister and the speedy election of a successor. In short, how has Britain fared following two such monumental upheavals?

The answer is that so far the nation seems to have weathered the storm; though, of course, the long-term political and economic consequences remain unclear.

Apart from the instant volatility affecting sterling and the financial markets, the warnings of economic disaster have not materialised and both the pound and the markets have since stabilised, with the London FTSE 100 now at its highest level for more than a year. Employment rates are at a record high and a lower pound is boosting exports. Furthermore, new post-Brexit major investment has been announced by, among others, the pharmaceutical conglomerate GlaxoSmithKline and the US bank Wells Fargo which, reportedly, plans to establish a new European headquarters in London.

The newly-appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer has stressed that the fundamentals of the British economy are strong. Nonetheless, he has spoken cautiously about economic uncertainty resulting in businesses postponing decisions and consumers reining in their purchases, and that this, together with the possible effects of other unknowns during Britain’s negotiations to quit the EU, could last for up to two years. A higher growth rate for the second quarter has been recorded while even the International Monetary Fund, which in advance of the referendum issued dire warnings about a UK recession, is now predicting growth of 1.7 per cent this year.

However, the Bank of England has now lowered its UK growth forecasts and has just changed interest rates for the first time since 2009, cutting them from 0.5 to 0.25 per cent.

On the political front, despite protests and a huge anti-Brexit demonstration in London, the new Prime Minister, Theresa May, has rejected calls for another referendum. She has said that “Brexit means Brexit” and that she is determined to make a success of the negotiations to withdraw while work to prepare for those negotiations is already well under way. This firm stance seems to have received public support overall on the grounds that another EU vote would be a democratic travesty.

Mrs May has already asserted her authority through a ruthless cull of ministerial colleagues (not dissimilar to Tory Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s infamous ‘night of the long knives’ in the 1960s). In addition, as evidence of her commitment to ‘Brexit’, she has appointed several ‘leave-backing’ ministers: not only Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary but also Liam Fox and David Davis in newly-created departments - respectively, international trade and ‘for exiting the EU’, the latter being responsible for the negotiations under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which provides the legal basis for putting into effect Britain’s withdrawal from the EU.

Another Leaver, Pritti Patel, has been put in charge of international aid.

Notwithstanding the political shake-up, life in Britain seems to have stayed on a relatively even keel since the June 23 vote and there is already a growing feeling that, having opted to leave the EU, the nation should move on and ensure that it departs on the best possible terms it can negotiate. At the same time, it should seek to maximise the benefits of interacting with the rest of the world freed from its EU shackles.

While, even in normal times, public opinion embraces contrarians who are all too ready to challenge the status quo - and despite, in the modern age, the emphasis on rights and self-expression rather than obligations - British people tend to maintain a sense of restraint, self-control and desire for security and order in everyday life. So, in the aftermath of the drama of the past month, violent behaviour has been comparatively rare apart from a short-term spike in race hate crimes - and, with relative equanimity, the country appears thus far to have acquiesced in, if not universally supported, the need for change.

It has been heartening that observers far from the action have expressed their vicarious admiration for the seamless transfer of power in Britain to a new Prime Minister and her fresh ministerial team in a prevailing atmosphere of calm, decorum and good order.

Having lost the referendum, it is surely commendable that David Cameron should have stood down of his own volition as a matter of principle; namely that, being convinced that it would be in Britain’s interest to remain in the EU and having lobbied hard for this, he could not in good conscience preside over negotiations to leave. Having led the Conservative Party since 2005 and having been Prime Minster for the last six years, it must have been a gut-wrenching decision, but someone of such enormous experience and ability will surely have an important role to play in the nation’s affairs in one form or another in the future.

Reflecting on the referendum, some commentators now suggest that the Leave vote might have been even greater if more emphasis had been placed on the sovereignty issue and on the nature of the Single Market.

The Remain camp’s persuasive arguments about the important need to retain full access to the latter did not perhaps take fully into account the public’s widespread frustration and irritation with the excessive and growing intrusion into British life by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels through an endless stream of directives and regulations in a bid to impose on all its member states a regime to harmonise and control trading standards throughout the EU.

The Single Market was designed to help free trade and free movement of labour and capital, but critics contend that overpowering centralised control stifles business, increases manufacturing and production costs and, by its nature as a customs union, it is protectionist. Its creation also represented a major step towards political union.

What is more, the supremacy of EU laws and directives - enforced by the European Court of Justice which was given sweeping new powers by the Lisbon Treaty in other areas as well as commercial disputes - was a major issue which in the lead-up to the referendum took a back seat to the purely economic arguments. But, as it turned out, a majority of voters became convinced that the UK should not participate in moves toward closer political integration and needed to take back its parliamentary democracy from an undemocratic and failing EU.

None of this means, however, that Britain will suddenly become an insular and isolationist country. On the contrary, ministers in the new government have emphasised that ‘Brexit’ does not indicate a break from Europe as such because Britain is linked to its European partners geographically, commercially, culturally and in so many other ways and it will remain a key player in inter-governmental co-operation including co-ordination of defence, foreign and counter-terrorism policy as well as in other major areas like the environment. However, they say, the time has come for the nation to be more outward-looking and open-minded as well as more engaged and active on the world stage without the constraints of EU membership.

Mr Johnson has acknowledged that the UK’s key immediate aim will be to do a deal with the EU, in the interests of both sides, combining the benefits of free trade with curtailing immigration. This will mean striking a balance between access to the Single Market and its rules requiring free movement of labour. That said, under World Trade Organization rules the UK has the right of access to this market subject to paying tariffs which would presumably be offset to some extent by the ending of its huge net financial contribution as an EU member.

There is a palpable mood of optimism as the UK seeks to seize the opportunity of becoming a global nation again with various new trade deals already in the offing. In his new role as the minister responsible for Britain’s exit, Mr Davis has warned of the complexity of the negotiations to leave. How these are handled will ultimately determine the public’s reaction to ‘Brexit’ in the longer term. But the performance of the domestic economy in the coming months will also shape attitudes.

Mrs May and her new government are faced with a daunting task which will test them to the full. It remains to be seen how all this will turn out, but the portents so far are good.

• Peter Young is a retired British diplomat living in Nassau. From 1996 to 2000 he was British High Commissioner to The Bahamas.