If you are living in Hudur, a town in the South Western Bakool region of Somalia, probably you don’t care that much about the Brexit drama unfolding. One does not need to bother learning who is playing for the Remain and who for the Leave. Being so hard to make the day, perhaps you would rather investing your intellectual energy to escape fear and uncertainty.

 

If you are a twenty-something living in Bartoszyce, a town in North-Eastern Poland, a heart-breaking elimination from the EURO 2016 has embittered frustration for lack of opportunities and desolation. Almost certainly, despite misery, Brexit spreads throughout neighbourhoods and cafes.

 

For now, it is not a problem whether or not the sound of plates, and the voices of a broken-love, brought the imminent divorce to your attention before. What matters is that we are handing you another lemon. Brexit will affect you a lot. Frankly, Brexit has already had an effect on your life, and prospects.

Since the 23rd of June, critics have been blaming a large portion of British politicians on being feckless, short-sighted, racist, opportunistic, and the like. Although all these attributes seem to offer quite a good picture of today’s party politics in the UK, debates overlook a key element of Brexit.

 

By focusing mainly on the political and economic consequences that the referendum has for the EU, we provide a cover for the subject matter. Brexit implies a significant repositioning of human and material resources, not to say burdens and benefits across states and individuals, which are for the worse of the long and ambitious process towards sustainable development. In other words, Brexit is a problem of global justice.

 

 

We know that the reassertion of border controls to meet the demand of leave voters for reduced migration may involve the appalling expulsion of European (and non-European) workers from the UK. If this is not the case, people are to expect piles of papers and a lot of bureaucracy.

 

The concentration of talent (and wealth) around the Thames may evaporate. But also the next European development community may have less expertise and know-how than their Millennial counterpart, while international development becoming a battlefield for affluent elites.

 

As simple as it is, amongst the top 20 Development Studies Department in the world, the UK features seven academic institutions. University of Copenhagen, which ranks 13th, is the only place waving a continental flag.

Of course, we have to take these rankings cum granus salis. However, we know that the most prestigious academic institutions attract more investments. Moreover, international organizations and agencies have a preference for graduates from top-tier universities. Often, scholars and students from high ranked departments are taken to be better equipped to consult and assist global decision-makers.

 

If this becomes an even more exclusive circle, with a small number of places available for foreign students, only some scholarships, higher fees and more bureaucracy, the whole development sector will be more elitist and less plural, without the vast and diverse ideational space that is indispensable to wipe bad ideas away.

 

 

Media worried about shoppers, British expats, holidaymakers and businesses, when the value of sterling slumped to a 31-year low on currency markets. Of course, with the pound falling, sweaty boys and girls shaking their hips in a lovely holiday town in Southern Europe as much as a generation of skilled British graduates living in the South of Delhi are facing a dramatic reduction of their purchase power.

 

For migrants who live in the UK, things are also bad. Evidence shows that, in 2011, remittances from the UK to Poland and Somalia, for example, amounted to $1.2bn and between $1bn and $2bn respectively. The true size of remittances flows could be much larger than official records suggest, since people bypass banks and money-transfer companies.

 

If, with quite a degree of simplification, we assume that you are a waiter, we know that in London a waiter earns approximately £14600 yearly. We also know that your 2015 salary was equivalent to US$ 18764,869, while, consistently with today’s change rates, your 2017 salary will be something like US$ 16333,677.  In Polish Zloty this means that you have lost something like PLN 9773,5 equal to 698,107 litres of domestic beer, if we keep the cost of a half-litre pint at PLN 7,00. In Somali Shilling, this means that you have lost something like SOS 1419732,2 equal to 303,899 litres of domestic beer.

 

If, with another pinch of generalisation, we consider that you send a consistent part of the salary to friends and family back in your home country, we must add also other costs to the bill. A GBP 120 transfer to Poland costs GBP 10.33 using Western Union, World Bank says. For Somali, in turn, mounting concerns concerning lack of compliance with international regulations brought Barclays to close the bank accounts of Somali money transfer operators and to the establishment of the UK Action Group on Cross-Border Remittances, which is a multi-agent effort to support the flow of remittances to Somalia.

 

To say it better, you are paying for Brexit but you have not even casted you own vote. However thirsty your families and friends might be in Hudur and Bartoszyce, you have to know that you can guarantee them less beer than you used to do once month ago, while working the same amount of time.

A first and immediate consequence of Brexit, then, is a sensible cutback of remittances. A falling pound may be an issue for British people living abroad. However, it is a more stringent problem for migrants bearing the onus of their communities from the UK. Polish and Somali people, like many other minorities, see their economic and social rewards reduced significantly.

 

 

Aid budget is one of the policy areas in which Brexit may be harmful for the UK, the EU and the Global South. To start, a 10% devaluation of pound means a considerable cut to the real value of British aid.

The pastiche around Number 10 erodes British leadership in the global efforts to achieve Sustainable Development Goals, especially in areas like LGBT rights and gender equality where British political leadership have often gone together with European money.

At the European level, the outcome of the referendum means that campaigns to spend 0.7 percent of gross national income on aid will lose force. On the one side, at a time where only five member states follow the prescription, Britain would be a much-needed negotiator to push the issue inside and outside Brussels. On the other side, need for cash may encourage the next Government to take money away from aid budget.

Brexit also isolates the UK. Evidence shows that, by channelling around 10% of its aid budget through the EU, Britain has a better and larger reach in areas where it was not present before. Britain acting alone will rely on bilateral agreements mostly. DFID will concentrate all the decision-making power, with gains in terms of accountability, but without the same economic potential to support Commonwealth countries, which today are major beneficiaries of EU aid.

 

 

So, after Brexit, anger ensued as political leaders thought that was better to jump ship after such a massive victory. Simultaneously, people took streets and a remarkable exchange of ideas and thoughts has adorned the public sphere. However, by enlarging our perspective, we can admit that the British referendum was not a revamp of popular sovereignity, or a revenge of a largely neglected and deprived social mass. Brexit is first and foremost an example of ethical irresponsibility, where politicians speculated on the social disenfranchisement of their own constituency.

Politicians should not be blamed on their lies, promises and arrogant rhetoric. This is part of the game during campaigns. Politicians should be blamed on the very ideas of delegating such a decision to those people they are thought to represent. Those who have made the referendum happen are hugely responsible for its consequences, inside and outside Europe. With the tangible evidence of massive social, political and economic loses for the poorest ones, Brexit is not only about politics, but also it is an ethical fact of a global scale.