As the UK prepares for Tuesday’s key parliamentary vote on a deal for leaving the EU, the country continues to stumble over the illusions that Brexit advocates sold to voters. Among the ideas that Brexiteers presented to British voters — well, to the English and Welsh publics, as neither Scottish nor Northern Irish voters supported Brexit — were delusions of imperial grandeur. Brexit leaders such as Boris Johnson suggested that, once freed from EU constraints, the UK would have exciting opportunities to sign new trade deals with many countries. The likes of Nigel Farage tapped into feelings of nostalgia for empire — a time when the British felt that they knew their place in the world, and it was on top. Of course, many British voters wanted to remain in the EU. Many were crushed by the Brexit vote; especially educated, younger people, who felt that Brexit was taking away an identity and opportunities that are closely linked with the EU. Also, many British citizens have long been willing to question their imperial history. I once watched a UK news program discussing Britain’s history in India — citizens from different parts of the country called in to highlight problems with the empire’s actions, and the only caller who defended it was an American. Those who voted for Brexit did so for a range of reasons, including frustrations with economic inequality, opposition to then-Prime Minister David Cameron, grievances related to immigration and cultural change, and an embrace of anti-elitism. Some worried about problems with the National Health Service (NHS) and listened to Brexiteer claims that withdrawing from the EU would mean more money for the NHS. Nostalgia for the British Empire and the idea that a post-Brexit UK would be able to pursue a new role in the world also appealed to many people. For many years prior to Brexit, many Britons — especially the English — had felt a loss of identity. While some, who tended to be younger, better educated and living in metropolitan areas, embraced dual identities as English and European, others felt lost amid Europeanization, globalization and the devolution of powers to the other nations within the UK. Perhaps some longed for the career opportunities abroad that the old British Empire offered to many British men. Brexit will badly damage the British economy and leave the country with less to offer on its own than it can as part of the EU. Kerry Boyd Anderson Grievances regarding inequality, lack of opportunities and a loss of identity are all understandable and deserve attention. Sometimes, however, such sentiments cross the line into a longing for superiority and a sense of entitlement. A desire for a place in the world is one thing; a desire to be on top of the world is another. The desire for a new global role for the UK is part of Prime Minister Theresa May’s challenge in negotiating a Brexit deal. For many Brexiteers, the idea that an unfettered UK will be able to negotiate new trade deals and further diversify its trade relationships is essential and is a key reason why they oppose any Brexit deal that leaves the country inside the EU Customs Union. They are intent on pursuing a “Global Britain,” as Secretary of State for International Trade Liam Fox has put it, or an “Empire 2.0,” as Whitehall officials reportedly said. The Global Britain proponents, however, face serious obstacles. In most cases, a post-Brexit UK will have less leverage negotiating trade deals. Brexit will badly damage the British economy and leave the country with less to offer on its own than it can as part of the EU. After Brexit, the country’s need to quickly expand trade relationships will weaken its negotiating position. The UK also lacks the technocratic capacity to quickly negotiate a new trade relationship with the EU and negotiate many new bilateral deals. While Brexiteers might love the image of a strong, attractive Britain merrily signing new trade deals, the reality is that many former colonies and Commonwealth members do not feel so fondly toward the UK. Some would be happy to discuss trade opportunities, but their view of the relationship is more cautious. Most Commonwealth members opposed Brexit, as many have benefited from the UK serving as a point of entry for them to the EU. As already seen with India, it is likely that many Commonwealth countries might seek an easing of British visa regulations as part of new trade negotiations, which would run directly counter to the anti-immigration sentiment behind Brexit. Leaders in Commonwealth and other countries also understand that many passionate Brexiteers hold onto a sense of English superiority. For example, Johnson once publicly characterized Commonwealth citizens in racist, disrespectful terms. Fox has said that the UK “is one of the few countries in the European Union that does not need to bury its 20th century history” — a stunning claim to people in former British colonies and British-dominated territories. Such attitudes do not encourage many countries to develop deeper relationships with the UK. Britain could have pursued a more impactful global role as part of the EU, but the Brexit vote is partly based on the illusion that the country can regain some sense of power and pride that feels more like its old empire. The world has changed, and the clock cannot be turned back. Many British citizens understand that, and their leaders should too. Kerry Boyd Anderson is a writer and political risk consultant with more than 14 years’ experience as a professional analyst of international security issues and Middle East political and business risk. Twitter: @KBAresearch Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view