Theresa May has sent her six-page letter to the European Union headquarters in Brussels, filing the beginnings of the end of Britain’s 44-year membership within the EU. With 50 per cent of its exports going to Europe and its convenient location and status as the financial centre bridging the Americas and Europe, Britain is most certainly chomping at the bit in preparation for a marathon.

The Brexit vote was not a well thought-out decision; rather, it was an emotional decision as a reaction to globalisation, which resulted in anti-invasion populism. No need to cry over spilt milk, the position is irreversible and the UK is forced to forge a new reality while dodging the hostilities of the 27 nations that May has divorced by leaving.

Britain has over its lifetime benefited from its own ingenuity and the little nation, which has been the leader for the world for the past 200 years, followed by her offspring United States of America since the Second World War, is set to take its place in the history books as the former dominant and leading force on world affairs and influence.

Regionalism and hemispheric co-ordination as stated international goals formerly topped the rhetoric of national politics in the 1990s and was leading nations towards the idea of one world order. The West was the foremost promoter, as science and population growth intellectually demanded a collective approach given all the environmental issues necessary just for global sustainability.

What does all of this mean to Bermuda whose existence is like a remora hitched to a shark? Britain will not disappear entirely, nor will the United States. In fact, some aspects of the diminution of Britain’s role as an intermediary business jurisdiction between the continents may be of benefit to Bermuda because of the island’s existing trade relations with Europe. Notwithstanding China is ascending to the throne and, with the Brics nations of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa forming an economic bloc as partners comprising more than 60 per cent of the world’s populations, represents a powerful new nexus whose resourceful landmass’s material strength as an emerging world power cannot be ignored.

As a small country, we cannot undo, let alone influence, the direction of the US or the UK. Nor can we, like them, go it alone. For 400 years, our existence has been nourished because we were on the main desk — from the very inception, almost as an umbilical cord of the Atlantic relationship between Britain and America. Without severing our ties or relinquishing our present role, is it time we extend our dependency beyond sucking on the hides of the only two sharks we have truly known?

The truth, in spite of this lapse of reason by our major overlords, is that the world will of necessity become as one diplomatic circle of lawful relationships because globalisation is also irreversible. Nations may live in a narcissistic bubble of self-delusion, but they will change in the fullness of time. Individual rights and liberties are also set on an irreversible course of progress, as the populations of the earth become more educated and put pressure on the walls of justice.

So perhaps it is time for Bermuda to assert its need, if not desire, to become a part of the new realities of global positioning. We do not have weapons or the population to be a part of any international military operations. In that regard, we fit within the Nato framework, and Russia and China are too big to go to war with each other — or with the United States and the European alliance. The only thing left on the table is trade and the dynamics for the human relations it causes.

We do not need to go independent; in fact, we need to become dependent on a greater variety of countries. We need to develop the kind of jurisdiction that is fully transparent, accountable with proper checks and balances, and worthy as an example of a modern government that respects and honours all its people and the world.

Detractors will say this means we must go independent because Britain will not allow us. Britain is not our obstacle; we are our own obstacle because our sights are set too low. Many of our proponents are looking for a 1960 “flag independence”. They want to start with the premise of how to “rule” and not with the art of truly democratic governance.

Without the proper framework or greater idea of purpose, all that can be achieved is a glorified fiefdom masquerading as a democracy. There is a new world emerging and the question is: will we be at the head of the movement like headlights, or will we spin out of the tailpipe of a global movement as particles of exhaust with bygone ideas.