The British people have decided the EU is not beneficial to them and they are better off completely independent of foreign intrusion, despite the negotiations PM David Cameron concluded on their behalf. But that is a generalised statement.

In any political and economic union there are advantages and disadvantages. The majority of the British were inclined to say there were more disadvantages. It is possible also to consider that they were purposely misled by the Brexit leadership. Nigel Farage retracted the promise of a £350m weekly bounty from quitting the EU, money that would be spent on the NHS. Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative leader, showed Boris Johnson “lying” about the cost of leaving by quoting his “there might or might be”.

Johnson’s declaration after the results were published that “leaving Europe need not mean pulling up the drawbridge”, must have infuriated the EU leadership. That may be why a number of EU leaders are requesting that the UK leave as early as possible, because they have perceived how the Brexit leadership fooled the people. But EU leaders have to take into consideration that people must not suffer the consequences of deceit.

It is important to examine what most bothered the British with the EU’s policy implementation. If I were to state it in a single word, it was immigration, with its economic, social, cultural and religious consequences. The message conveyed to the EU leadership is that the immigration problem has not been thoroughly tackled and it is burdening countries, particularly the UK in this case, with new consequential problems.

This verdict shows that the Commission is not perfectly cognisant of the ground opinion of the people in its member countries and it will surely have ramifications in other areas of the EU. British concerns are not isolated, and the decision they took tends to be contagious, as it will encourage other members, particularly those affected by EU immigration policy, to show their disapproval of EU policies. If such a situation arose, it would potentially lead to complete disintegration.

I do not believe the Commission will allow this state of affairs to prevail. It has to listen more to what the people believe and uphold their openness, understand their concerns and attempt to reassure them by adopting policies for each member’s interest, try hard to identify underlying trends in public opinion and take adequate measures to provide solutions.

If the Commission were to follow this line of thought, it would have to embark on new negotiations with the government, with the view of offering concessions to answer people’s concerns; then it would ask the government to go back to the people to see whether they approve the new policies.

Repeat referenda have taken place in other countries in the past. I am positive that they will be approved, because they meet people’s needs and concerns.

Nevertheless, the immigration problem will not go away. It has to be tackled, because immigrants are people who need help. Two new mechanisms have to be set up, possibly similar to the International Court of Justice.

One would deal with financial matters. It would see that the financial aid given to economically deprived countries reached people and was not pocketed either by a clique within the donor countries or by the leaders of the poor countries in receipt of aid. This new mechanism would examine and investigate whether corruption prevails. The process has to be fast and not drag on for years.

The other mechanism should deal with the political situation prevailing in a country beset with people having to flee for their lives. This mechanism will be empowered to examine and investigate whether the countries’ leaders are following what they promised, implementing the rule of law and ensuring that each citizen enjoys freedom and rights.

Admittedly, these proposals may be difficult in practice. However, if these two mechanisms were modelled on the International Court of Justice, without long delays in arriving at a final decision, the problem of immigration should be substantially eased.

Manuel Borda holds a PhD in economics.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.