If you think nothing more can be said about the Brexit Referendum read on! For it appears to me that the simplicity of the referendum question lead to a chaos of interpretations about what the question actually was.

For instance, the Scottish National Party believe Scotland was voting for whether Scotland should remain or leave the European Union.

Let us remind ourselves what the question was;

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

I would suggest that not only some good souls in Scotland but Wales, England and Northern Ireland also felt that how their individual countries voted was significant, although that was not in the referendum question.

There were others who thought the question contained their personal concerns. Here are some examples;

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or have control of it’s money?

These voters were concerned at how much money the UK paid into Europe. They were less concerned about how much it received through the Common Agricultural Policy, research grants, etc. and if the UK is ‘out of pocket’.

The United Kingdom is a wealthy nation and whether it should give to the poor had not apparently occurred to them. Being wealthy is a heavy cross to bear, for an individual and a country, and perhaps Robin Hood did have a point.

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or have control of it’s laws?

These voters cite some of the more absurd legislation from Brussels as indicative of all EU legislation. They were less concerned with the benefits of legislation such as the Human Rights Act, diversity and equality in the workplace, environment, manufacturing and food standards, working practices in the banking sector, etc.

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or have control of it’s borders?

These voters were concerned about immigration into the UK in general and felt that Europeans already in the UK were a problem. They believed that leaving the EU was the best way to solve all immigration related problems, rather than presenting more reasoned and focused solutions. The fact that most immigrants come from outside Europe is an obvious consideration. Respecting EU citizens working in the UK and contributing to society through work, taxes, cultural sharing, was lost in the generality of the perceived ‘problem’. Defining what an immigrant is, might also be the beginning of understanding which strings to pull to create a desired change.

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or become an independent Sovereign State?

The Victorian elite and ruling classes enjoyed the ‘good times’ and the consequences of their greed and exploitation affect our lives today. How nice it was to see the map of the world painted pink, without considering the blood sweat and tears of fellow human beings. Flag waving and Nationalism in general, contribute significantly to what you might term ’emotional politics’, the way of ‘feeling right’ that started World War II in Europe. Time to learn from history the importance of co-operation with other countries even if you have to grit your teeth!

What a huge advantage for business that English is the most widely spoken second language in Europe. What a huge advantage to the UK that it is connected to a continent by a tunnel. The same tunnel connects a continent to, well, mmm; England, Wales and Scotland. Not much of a come and visit us for Europeans, unless you like wet holidays.

In short, the referendum question was simplified so much, in the interest of being understood by everyone, that it became distorted by whatever personal perception interpreted it. A picture of a house for instance, will be understood by most as ‘a house’. A picture of a blank box could be interpreted as anything boxy shape; a money box, a bomb, treasure, grandpa’s ashes…

How many people know what the European Union and it’s various institutions is, and how the United Kingdom benefits or is disadvantaged by it’s membership? Very few, I suspect. Even political economists rarely agree, such is the complexity of running a Union as large as Europe, so how were voters ever meant to know?

There is an answer to the problem of leaving the EU that might appease both sides of the argument. That is, to join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and so be eligible to be part of the European Economic Area (EEA). The benefits would be providing for the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital while not being part of the European Union. Scared by the idea of Europeans working in the UK? Perhaps the one million illegal immigrants already in the UK might be a better place to start enforcing UK citizenship and residency laws. Follow that with policing the borders vigilantly unlike when so-called Teresa May was Home Secretary. As well as stick the UK waves a large carrot that has people living in camps over the channel. Changing new comers rights to benefits, such as health and accommodation, might stop those after a free lunch (not available in many other EU countries such as Spain) from joining the queue.

Now that the question has it’s final answer, we have to get used to the intercontinental sized car crash that is going to be Brexit. We all voted for different things because we brought our perceptions to the question. That said, progress on negotiations is painfully slow with few bridge-builders in evidence and many wall-makers.

Witness the Euro bank notes. Each features a picture of a bridge as a symbol of unity and cooperation between different nations. Unity and cooperation in a continent that started two world wars, in my view, must be continued in the twenty first century.  If it is not then future generations will be holding a referendum on whether to remain out or enter the European Union. It might read something like this;

Should the United Kingdom remain a non-member of the European Union or join the European Union?

(Do not write on both sides of the examination paper at once)