Tissues and comments follow one another in these minutes around one of the biggest shocks that came to mother Europe since the signing of the Treaty of Rome onwards. From 5,30 this morning, since the poll of the British referendum has taken a clear direction, agencies and media centers have begun to bounce the news: Great Britain leaves the European Union.
Despite the clumsy attempt to influence the indecisive electorate by spreading tendentious polls, it must be said that the result is not surprisingly much: that Brexit was a more than concrete possibility, it was known for at least a year.
What is surprising, on the other hand, is the blindness with which the lines of power and large groups of political influence have continued to nibble despite the numerous premonitory signs. The red code of the Eurodisfatta has revolved around other electoral events, which, albeit in different ways, have followed one another for entire seasons in every corner of the continent. Without taking as an example the pathological scenario of Greece, the most significant indications have come from growing countries or in any case from those regions where the economic prospects are less desperate than elsewhere, giving proof of a lucid expression of preference, not always and not necessarily stained by hysterical provincialisms. From the regional ones in France to the political elections in Poland, from Denmark to Hungary, from Croatia to Spain, up to the controversial result of the Austrian elections a few weeks ago, a growing number of European citizens have spoken clearly for at least two years: of Brussels and this Europe can no longer stand it.
Political analysts and economists have outdone themselves in an attempt to predict scenarios in the event of a victory of leave or of reamain. We talked about bags, money, spreads, continuing to tread the hand on issues far from the common life of tens of millions of men and women, thrown for decades into the oblivion of statistics and the cold lists of digital detectors.
After all, nothing better explains the outcome of the British vote than the way it is commented on at this time. It is the demonstration of the now incurable gap between elite (of which the media circuit is part) and ordinary people: on the one hand power, understood in a semantic sense, on the other the anger and frustration of those who cannot; on the one hand S&P and the economic and financial consequences of the vote, on the other the simple sense of belonging.
However, the real comparison is not between anachronistic romanticism and enlightened modernity. The deep heart of Great Britain has sanctioned a more concrete polarization, declined on the incompatibility between real life and intellectual intoxication, destined to have value in ever tighter circles.
In Britain they voted leave le miss Marple of profound England, the unemployed pissed off by one working class white no longer represented, millions of anonymous people from provincial towns and remote rural counties. With the exception of Northern Ireland where the Catholic antibrit vote weighed heavily and for Scotland, where the fear of sinking with London was more than the vote for independence a year ago, they voted remain all classes not linked to identity and tradition, profound cradle of British and English culture in particular.
They voted remain precisely those who with sufficient arrogance continue to label the British identity vote as a "protest vote" produced by fear, demagogy and political propaganda.
The heart of the speech is right here. It is not as important as you think. Politics and ideology have something to do with pure utility. Let's talk about feelings, of belly. A slice that is no longer a minority of European citizens refuses to pursue a path without references and roots. In the face of large metropolitan areas that are culturally unrecognizable and left to default, whole pieces of silent homelands rebel. The ensuing upheaval will change many things.
(photo: web)
