The past year of living in the UK has been an interesting experience. Like many others in Europe I have felt over many decades a general consensus on the benefits of exchange and integration, of experiencing the other and living together while being free to be different. This is part of the promise of the European model.

The challenge by the UK to the way the European Union functions has often been unnerving, but also refreshing. The criticism of bureaucratic inertia and distance of its institutions from citizens usually had a point.

Yet the UK’s positions towards the EU have always been more than just a fair measure of British eccentricity. Self-interest has characterised British engagement with the EU and other international parties for a long time. The often short term tactics resulting from domestic politics have led to a limited ability to understand long term impact, or maybe even carelessness about it.

To give some examples: 25 years ago it was the UK that pushed hardest for the rapid expansion of the EU into Eastern and central Europe to compensate for an anticipated growth of German influence in Europe. Today one of the key arguments for leaving the EU, is that the EU has become too large to deal with its diversity, and that it produces too many immigrants from the once desirable expansion countries, who are now accused of being unwanted gold-diggers.

The UK has been generous in its criticism of the Eurozone’s alleged lack of solidarity with some of its economies which imploded in the wake of the global financial crisis. Never mind that this crisis was rooted in the deregulation of the global financial system, allowing reckless speculative practices by global, and mostly UK or US based banks and investors. This was not the model aimed for by the EU with integrated banking and fiscal control. Yet after the house of cards collapsed Britain has constantly argued that it did not wish to be burdened with obligations of solidarity. The latter have led the EU to spend multiples of the UK’s GDP on salvaging crashed economies. Most of this support will eventually be written off.

A similar careless attitude shows in the UK response to the refugee crisis in the Middle East. For many recent years (and also historically) the country has intervened militarily in the region (Iraq), then hesitated (post Blair), gone for it again (Libya), stalled (Syria), all the while clamouring about the tragedy of people in distress because of the wars. The not insignificant UK investment in refugee support in the region remains at odd with a very limited willingness to take in only a smallest number of people affected in the UK itself. Meanwhile EU member states, some of them in precarious situations themselves like Greece, are bearing the brunt of the crisis, especially at the frontline.

And now BREXIT. For the UK and its citizens the European Union has always been a utilitarian vehicle for the advancement of economic development, first and foremost of Britain, but recognising the benefits of interaction. The political driver of integration, working towards ever closer union to overcome deep cultural and political divisions, has never been strong in the UK, especially not anymore from the 70s onwards when the UK joined the EC. Yet just 70 years ago these divisions in Europe, including Britain, were so deep that they resulted in the worst catastrophe ever experienced by the continent if not the world. Arguably Britain suffered at least as long as many other winners and losers of the war to overcome its impact. That should give rise to thoughts about integration and bridge-building as part of long term conflict prevention.

As a foreigner in the UK one may be forgiven to think about collective amnesia as one of the reasons for the BREXIT vote. In many ways that would be sad, but understandable. People live today, rightly so, and today’s world, including the contribution of UK politics to it, has disappointed many. Time for change.

The result of the BREXIT campaign and vote has been the vilification of foreigners in the UK, including many who have made and make a significant contribution to the country’s welfare. Local hotspots aside, the biggest challenges to public services in the UK stem from chronic underfunding and the decades old lack of will of national politicians to engage in fundamental reform of finances and efficiency of public administration and services.

The biggest emotional challenge for many of us who have lived in this country for years, built homes and lives in different communities, is to see how the respect previously shown for this contribution is suddenly replaced by hostility in the bureaucracy and key segments of the media.

My overwhelming feeling is that all of this stand-off is unnecessary and unproductive. I cannot understand the deliberate willingness by leading politicians to allow the harm to society it causes. BREXIT itself does not require the introduction of social division and denigration of long standing or more recent immigrants. Whatever relationship with the EU results from the BREXIT, it can and should be socially inclusive for all those who are a part of society today, and offer options for integrating new arrivals willing to make their positive contribution to society tomorrow. It is the job of politics to ensure that this happens. It will greatly help with the negotiation of the economic relationships with EU members going forward. It will also help with relationships with other intended chief trading partners such as India or China. Everything else will set fire to international relationships in ways that have been the cause of downfall before.

The country has made its choices and the UK will be able to run a successful society outside the EU. There will probably be a bit less fuel available in terms of money in the public coffers, and the UK will find itself more dependent on other powers which are not as benign as the EU. It will also face big challenges of adaptation when trying to relate to its greatest trading partners from a less privileged position. Fair redistribution of wealth and opportunities will be key to make it work without the poorest falling victim to the change.

I respect the decision although I believe that it is wrong. My grievance is more about how the political debate is currently seeking to scapegoat foreigners as the reasons to leave the EU, as being a major problem for the future success of the UK in its external relations, and for UK opinion-leaders rolling over the burdens and impacts of short term interest driven UK politics onto others in Europe. The problem are not foreigners or immigrants and EU dynamics. It is the lack of leadership to fail for a long time to address existing national structural problems, and now face a new challenge the UK has set itself from the strengths of its society, rather than referring to its weaknesses.

I can see one benefit of the UK being outside of the EU in the future. Without the EU at hand to help Britain’s political class to escape the outcomes of its own failures to address the fundamental challenges its society faces, it will have to become more accountable to its own electorate. With less cash to spare, facing major challenges of adaptation, and greater dependency on powers less benign than the EU, Britain may go to war less and become more considerate in the management of its international relations.