A more sensible way

The Brexit referendum held on June 23 was an internal UK policy move to gauge public opinion on the country’s future relations with the European Union.

What the government of Prime Minister David Cameron or, it appears now, the next government will do with the result of the vote is the business of the UK and not the EU.

Yet, EU officials are already acting on the result of the vote — in favour of quitting the EU — as if it were their business or, worse still, as if the referendum had been an EU plebiscite.

That is obviously not the correct way to deal with Brexit. 

It was a bit of a precipitous decision for EU leaders to exclude the British prime minister from their recent meeting, as if Brexit were a done deal. It is not official or legal yet.

Cameron and his government might decide to shelve the referendum results or hold another one. Yes, that could be unorthodox for a democratic nation, but it remains within the realm of the possible, an event that the EU cannot and must not foreclose.

What if the mood in the UK swings from leaving the EU to staying in the union at the end of the summer, when Cameron is expected to act upon Brexit and invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon agreement that established the EU?

This provision for setting in motion the UK withdrawal from the EU has not been activated. So why the rush?

People have a right to change their opinion. And opinions are never static, but amenable to change.

The difference between the pro and against the EU has not been wide. The people of the UK should be permitted to exercise their right to self-determination.

Scotland is against leaving the EU. Scotland is an important part of the UK and has a right to determine its fate.

The Scots’ future cannot and must not be determined by the British people. So why is the EU jumping to conclusions and treating the Brexit as if it were a done deal?

Now that the results of the vote are out — withdrawal from the EU by a slim majority — people are better prepared to exercise a more sober judgement on which direction their nation should take on this pivotal and critical issue.

The future of nations cannot and must not be irrevocably determined by a simple majority. A two-thirds majority would be a much more sensible basis for that.