Once the referendum was promised, if you lived anywhere other than in London or the majority of home counties or in Scotland, it was almost inevitable that the vote would be to Brexit. This is because there was a complete failure by the Government to register the mood of the country and by the ‘remain’ campaign properly to extol the virtues and positives of EU membership.
The impact of globalisation has been to drive an ever larger wedge between those whose jobs are progressing and assets are increasing, and those who are unemployed or whose income is reducing in real value, and whose available income or assets (pensioners and their capital, for example) at least appear to be declining.
Yet again the pollsters and pundits got it wrong, as witnessed by the steady increase in the value of the pound sterling in the last week before the referendum from £1= $1.42 to £1=$1.50, only to drop to as low as £1=$1.29 almost immediately after the poll. Actually, if people had cared to study the data from the bookies, they would have found out that the betting by value of money placed was heavily ‘remain’ while the bets by number were heavily ‘exit’.
It was therefore a foregone conclusion that David Cameron would resign and, even though it has seemed surprising that his successor is not directly in favour of Brexit, the composition of Theresa May’s cabinet appears to lean more towards a liberal, almost centre-left approach recognising the need to capture the support of those who feel disenfranchised. Perhaps the genius of Mrs May’s cabinet is that she has given the Brexit negotiations to Brexiteers (Johnson, Davis and Fox). However, Mrs May is the boss: the buck stops with her.
The fact that one important uncertainty has been removed by the rapid formation of a new Government should not instil too much confidence in the immediate outlook. Article 50 is likely to be invoked sooner rather than later, albeit probably not much before the Spring of 2017, so that the UK can try to take the initiative in negotiations with its European counterparts. Beforehand, we may expect to see Mrs May test the water with several of her European counterparts. Her first meeting, with Angela Merkel, appears to have gone very well. So it should! Mrs Merkel is a pragmatist. Like many other European leaders-probably-she did not expect a vote to Brexit. She must be shaken, others must be shaken, the European tree has been shaken.
The negotiations will start, stumble and finally stratify. What the result will be is difficult to predict. In my view so much depends on whether all sides fight an aggressive divorce or appreciate the value of a mediated settlement. The ‘guru’ Stephen Covey wrote: ‘start with the end in mind’. What should the end in mind be? I can be an optimist when I so choose (where Lloyd’s is concerned I always try to be a realist). So, I look at the EU, I consider the attitude of several leaders-other than Mr Juncker for whom I have no time-and conclude that what the majority should want is for the UK not to leave!
If Europe is to find a way of clearing a path through the mass of bureaucracy, personal pride and arrogance, then negotiators must recognise the value of change and enhancement. Much clearly needs to be done within European structures not least relating to sovereignty and the rule of law, at least that is the UK perception. However, the issue of migration is almost certainly the thorniest of problems. How about tackling that problem at its roots? Solve Syria and more, and encourage potential migrants not to leave and others to return home.
There is an inherent similarity with Lloyd’s. It wasn’t until the chips had nearly been exhausted in the early 1990’s that everyone recognised the need to pull together. Europe is in a similar state now. That situation goes way beyond the UK’s decision to Brexit. It’s about the movement of people, the failure to pay close attention to the legitimate concerns of those who are disaffected and the need to address the varying cultural differences and priorities of all the peoples who make up the European Union.
Some thoughtful and intelligent observers believe that there should be a second referendum to revisit the outcome of the first. But first we need a period of serious negotiation. As below, re Lloyd’s, the analogy may appropriately be: individually there are countries, together there is Europe. It wasn’t at all easy to achieve Reconstruction and Renewal but it was essential, vital to the survival of Lloyd’s. If Europe is to survive and prosper, never before has so much depended on constructive leadership. I hope, I believe that Mrs May is the right person to represent the UK’s interests. It might therefore be that the Brexit vote turns out to be fortunate by enabling a fresh and effective route to achieve critical changes in European structures, changes which Mr Cameron could not obtain.
As for Lloyd’s, we are just one of many pressure groups which will be fighting to retain its personal identity and status. Of one thing I am very confident: Lloyd’s will survive and prosper. I remind myself of the long standing maxim: individually we are members, collectively we are Lloyd’s. There has always been a great deal of ingenuity in the Lloyd’s community. Add to that the level of professionalism which is a large multiple of the 1980’s and it’s reasonable to conclude that individual agents will solve their own problems. So collectively Lloyd’s will continue to be the Lloyd’s of the 21st century which has earned so much international respect and support.
I don’t suppose the snap election called by Theresa May for June 8 will change anything. However, just suppose that enough MPs vote against the Government so that combined with the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn ends up as Prime Minister. After all, the Americans have got Trump and the combination of those two could be more than entertaining. Can you imagine?