Brexit is upon us. The trigger-ing of Article 50 will be an important milestone in the history of the EU demanding serious reflection.

I write in that spirit and in despair of the coverage of Brexit in Malta that has become so shrill and lacking in balance that articles such as Martin Scicluna’s ‘2016 – a rough year’ (December 28, 2016) really should not go unanswered.

On the subject of Brexit, Scicluna, like so many others, appears to struggle and descend into an attitude that is as insulting as it is ill-informed.

He is sure the Brexit referendum was  driven by the “need to satisfy the whims of an internal [Conservative] party squabble”. This is patent nonsense. True, the timing of any political event in a representative democracy cannot be divorced from party politics but, surely, the referendum result itself shows a depth of feeling among the British public that could no longer be suppressed.

It should be obvious that demand for change asserted itself despite, not because of, the political establishment.

Another, I believe, mischievous point often made by critics of Brexit is that the British public did not know what they were voting for. Well, the EU refused to even countenance the possibility that any country might choose to leave and so it was simply not possible for the “leavers” to talk about the future in anything but the broadest of terms and at the level of principle.

The Brexiteers cannot be blamed for that.

It is also said that Brexit imperils Europe. Once again, such hyperbole does not stand scrutiny. The possibility that the EU might “topple” (Scicluna again) is not with us because one of its 28 member states decided it wants to organise its own affairs without reference to 27 others. If the EU does fall apart or, it is to be hoped, morphs into something fitter for purpose, it will be because the peoples of the remaining EU countries want it to. The credit or blame for that cannot be laid at Brexit’s door.

But what of that other union, the one that binds the UK together? Surely it will not survive the turmoil of Brexit, it is said.

It seems Scicluna knows something the rest of us do not. He says Brexit will “almost certainly break up the UK”. Such prescience.

Sovereignty is what mattered most with people putting the quality of their democracy above being a bit richer

Support for Scottish independence is no greater now than before the vote. Indeed, many nationalists argue the Brexit vote has made Scottish independence much more problematic.

Remember also that very many SNP supporters are pro-Brexit regarding membership of the EU as inimical to independence as much as Scotland’s current relationship with Westminster. Of course, Scotland may yet become independent but if it does its roots will go back much further than June 23 last year.

Those who seek to discredit the referendum also maintain the British people were misled, duped by cynical, careerist politicians. Not a word, of course, about the outlandish claims of the “remainers”, such as European council president Donald Tusk who said without a hint of irony that a vote for Brexit could mean “the end of Western political civilisation” (sic).

It is fair to say that extravagant claims were made on both sides, they were challenged, discussed at length and people made up their own minds. The electorate is not so easily fooled into taking politicians at face value. Most of those who voted for Brexit did so in the full knowledge there may be difficult times ahead for the UK but thought that, in the long run, it would be worth it.

Sovereignty is what mattered most with people putting the quality of their democracy above being a bit richer. They voted for control. Control over their own laws, trade, borders and money.

Those interested in the continuance of the EU institutions and the (ahem) ‘European Dream’ would do well to recognise the implications of a Britain that does not regret its decision and of similar discontent widespread across Europe.

Some brute truths need to be confronted, including considering such things as:

the repatriation of powers to national parliaments from EU institutions;

improving the accountability of a European Commission – currently a fundamentally undemocratic conflation of a legislature and executive;

providing greater protections for non-eurozone countries from the kind of political and fiscal integration that is absolutely required to give the euro even a fighting chance of survival, and

a more imaginative interpretation of the principle of the free movement of people.

I suppose it is easier to overlook the shortcomings of Brussels in a country that owes its influence over European affairs to its EU membership and from which it receives large amounts of money (mainly German and British, the German contribution the larger). But not all countries are in Malta’s position. Coming to terms with that reality rather than relying on lazy accusations of populism is surely, in large part, the responsibility of a free press and it is a heavy responsibility.

I am tempted to say that, so far, coverage of Brexit in Malta has been the epitome of the post-truth world that so many commentators flatter themselves they are pushing back against.

My hope for the excellent Scicluna is that, as the formal Brexit negotiations advance over the coming months, he and others rediscover an appreciation of other people’s opinion in their writings and remind themselves of the dangers of indulging their own prejudices.

As I nudge others, I remind myself. I voted to remain.

Adam Faruk is a former academic embracing libertarian tendencies.