On June 23 the United Kingdom held a referendum regarding whether or not it wanted to remain a part of the European Union. With a high national turnout of 72.2%, the population voted to leave the EU by 52% to 48%.

The legal process of leaving the EU begins with triggering Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon which came into effect on 1 December 2009. The article, which expounds the process by which member states could leave the EU, suggests a two-year negotiation period which can be extended if there is a unanimous agreement between all EU members.

On the day the results of the referendum were concluded, David Cameron, former British PM, announced his resignation which led to an intriguing contemplation regarding who would occupy the position at 10 Downing Street. Political uncertainty grew as two of the top politicians who fiercely campaigned to leave the EU, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, distanced themselves from the post-Brexit qualms. Mr Johnson, former mayor of London, who was largely expected to run for office, ruled himself out of the race after perceiving diminishing support from within the Tories. Mr Farage, leader of UKIP, resigned from his position citing that his political ambition had been achieved.

Amidst this sociopolitical ambivalence, Theresa May, former Home Secretary, was appointed the new British PM.

While the public had their warranted reservations regarding these initial developments; a month after the EU referendum, the political scenario has started to take a clearer shape, but quite a few challenges remain to be tackled with for Mrs May’s cabinet.

Boris Johnson, often called out for his undiplomatic attitude and ignoble rhetoric, was appointed the new Foreign Secretary. As he prepares to direct the British foreign office through a delicate post-Brexit environment, there is a considerable amount of scepticism regarding the vision that he might formulate, specially from the French foreign minister who has accused Mr Johnson of “lying” to the British public during the leave campaign.

On the other hand, Mrs May faces a serious challenge in the form of Scotland’s willingness to hold a second referendum regarding its independence. As it is clear after the recent meeting held in Edinburgh between Mrs May and Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, Mrs May wants Scotland to remain a part of the UK and is willing to involve the Scottish government in future policymaking, while Ms Sturgeon feels that she and Mrs May are from “very different places on the political spectrum” and supports a second referendum.

As things stand, Mrs May’s cabinet, which is optimistic regarding future relationships with European nations, consists of a Foreign Secretary, International Trade Secretary, Brexit Secretary, and an International Development Secretary who voted to leave the EU.

While these are political affairs and can only be contemplated upon, the article actually aims to examine three voter trends that emerged during the EU referendum.

Although the very practice of holding a referendum sustains the principle of popular sovereignty, it must also be brought into consideration that in some instances popular opinion might not be as incontrovertible as it may seem.

In the case of the EU referendum, this issue can be accentuated by looking at the composition of the United Kingdom.

The UK consists of four countries, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and fourteen other overseas territories. With significant cultural differences between the four countries, perhaps it was imprudent to hold a regular referendum.

In order to acknowledge such differences and provide relief to all the varied interests, perhaps the referendum should have demanded a majority from all the countries, or at least a three-fourths majority. While such special majorities were not used, territories that voted to remain are likely to experience a certain degree of aversion towards the idea of a ‘united’ kingdom.

The second voting trend points towards the educational qualification of voters. Naturally, people who have acquired higher education are more likely to apply for and find work in other European countries as compared to those who left formal education after their GCSEs.

Realising the ease of travelling within Europe and the absence of a work-permit requirement, individuals with higher education clearly preferred integration over isolation.

Individuals who are highly unlikely to take advantage of such arrangements between EU member states might have ignored such contracts while forming their opinions, or even worse, were completely oblivious to them. If this is true, then the above graph can be seen as a reflection of abandonment of rationality.

The third and last voting trend that this article will look at is one that deals with different age groups. Soon after the demographics of the EU referendum were released, the idea that one generation had failed the other began doing rounds in Britain. While such a trend does not come as a surprise, it paints a haunting picture of the future.

The conflict that arises here is that, in the decades to come, the age groups that would actually have to live in and cope with a future based upon isolation rather than integration, voted to remain in the EU.

With the minimum voting age of eighteen, perhaps a case of tyranny of a contrived majority has manifested itself in the UK, which will be translated into a tyranny of the minority as nature takes its course.