Political matters related to divorce from Europe have been going on for five hundred years at least. When Henry and Catherine married in 1509, both were Roman Catholics. Everybody in England was. The penalty for heresy was death; a clear statement of the power of the Roman Catholic faith in Tudor England and the strength of the tie to Rome. The annulment of Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon led to disagreements with the Pope, causing Henry to separate the Church of England from papal authority. This resulted in making himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England and the Dissolution of the Monasteries. He used the proceeds from the Dissolution of the Monasteries and acts of the Reformation Parliament to convert into royal revenue money that was formerly paid to Rome. Vote Leave’s battle bus said: “We send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead”.

In fact, we don’t have to look so far back into history to find reasons for the British being reluctant Europeans. The Second World War still vivid in some people’s memories was a strong reminder that anything on the other side of the Channel was bad news, especially in the form of the German Luftwaffe. More recently, Lady Thatcher participated in an acrimonious marriage with Europe. She initiated a very British perception (fuelled by the media) of a European super-state wanting to exercise a new dominance over Britain from Brussels. Has anyone really asked what Britain does not control? Housing, welfare, health, defence and foreign policy are all in British hands. The British have always had that great pleasure of holidaying in Europe knowing that the pound buys more euros; something that is being rapidly lost ever since the Leave campaign won the referendum.

In the early 1950s, when the original six countries (France, West Germany, Italy, and the Benelux – Belgian, Netherlands and Luxembourg) formed the European club, it was deemed the best way to put behind the memory of a war that had damaged their economies and societies. The British, however, emerged from the war as winners and still considered their country to be a world power with a large empire, not just a medium-sized European country (albeit one punching above its political and economic weight). There was and there still is a British belief that Britain has a global role and responsibility, which has meant that, in Britain’s eyes, there is no need for any retreat to a position built around Europe alone. There is also a belief that the British are somehow more honest, more democratic, more upstanding than their European counterparts. For decades, the British media have revelled in cases of corruption around Europe (only if to sell newspapers). British media and social media have a lot to answer for when it comes to Brexit. When voters do not have the facts, and are regularly targeted with misinformation and propaganda — and when they lack the critical-thinking skills and media literacy required to determine what is legitimate and what is not — democracy is indeed in trouble. Brexit is far from a populist movement as the media would like us to believe. It is the result of history, true, but also the manipulation of the English and Welsh people (the Scottish didn’t fall for it).

In the early 1970s, Britain was the “sick man of Europe”. The EEC in the 70s very much reflected French interests in its spending programmes and protectionist instincts. After joining the EEC in 1973, Britain has helped to transform Europe, in ways that suit Britain and other members very well. Britain has kept out of Schengen and the Eurozone, grown faster than most of the others, created more jobs than them, and have up to now faced the prospect in the next 20 years of becoming the most successful economy in the EU. All that has happened despite the nonsense about being held back by Brussels bureaucracy and red tape. Britain is in fact one of the least regulated economies in Europe; in our labour market, we are on a par with Australia, Canada and the US.

So why would we want to turn our back on an economic success story and on our biggest market, the European Union? There is hardly a reputable economist or economic institution in Britain or anywhere else who thinks of this as other than crazy. The British people seem to have ignored or never had any notion of proportionality in this matter: 44% of our exports go to them; 7% of theirs come to us. Who are you going to sign a trade agreement with or want to favour in trade terms? A country with 65 million consumers or the European Union with 508 million potential customers making up a GDP on par with the USA and China. I bet many British people don’t know that Britain’s GDP is less than Indonesia’s and represents only 14% of the EU’s total GDP. That doesn’t mean Britain doesn’t do things well.

The UK has historically recorded a significant deficit as regards trade in goods  with the EU. Its trade in services balance with the EU is much more favourable, running a surplus in each year since 2005, which reached £15.4 billion in 2014. This is in no small measure due to the financial and banking sector and, more particularly, the City. But the Brexiteers apparently have no fears of undermining the City’s position as Europe’s dominant financial hub. Again, we don’t seem to have any sense of proportionality. London dominates across multiple niche areas of finance. It does 78 per cent of the EU’s foreign exchange business and 74 per cent of over-the-counter interest rate derivatives; 59 per cent of international insurance premiums are written in London; and 85 per cent of the EU’s hedge fund assets and 64 per cent of private equity assets are managed in the City. Furthermore, the City employs over 1 million workers (not all admittedly British). However, they all pay taxes as do the institutions they work for. What follows is the Total Tax Contribution (TTC) of the UK banking and financial sectors. In 2015, the UK banking and financial industry paid £71.4 billion in tax which overall accounted for 11.5% of government receipts. You may ask why other countries deposit their money with us or use our financial services. A few cynics would say that perhaps we turn a blind eye to proceeds. However, the historic reason is trust. British institutions and people are trustworthy.

The margin of majority was minimal and would have been overturned if British citizens living and working in Europe had been allowed to vote (there are 1.3 million of them). The referendum appears to have been thoughtlessly planned, no parameters such as an established margin of majority needed (a 10% victory) or a 75% turnout for the vote to be valid. Something so complex and with such large consequences should not have been decided by a simple in/out vote. A mockery has been made of representative democracy. Theresa May seems to be following in David Cameron’s footsteps. She neither has a plan nor seems to want to concede the huge economic cost to the UK of Brexit. It looks as if Britain is destined to tear down bridges to Europe, only to unnecessarily have to rebuild them at great cost and effort.

And don’t be fooled. Brexit is not that popular. Brexit was rejected by Britons in cities such as Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Exeter, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich, Oxford and Reading as well as London, plus Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have clearly stated that they want to remain in the European Union (see BBC referendum results). Note particularly the results in Cambridge and Oxford (Leave 26.2% and 29.7%; Remain 73.8% and 70.3%, respectively).

What is popular is not always best and what is best is not always popular.