Implications are not well understood because the web of interests are never fully disclosed.
There is no doubt that this is a game where only holders of high cards are allowed to play.
For instance, tangentially, the totally regressive
childish game played between Szoros and Trump are basically a throwback about who has more, and not about party affiliation. Could it be that the House of
Lords sees a double entendre here, for the same reason(s) that engender so much hoopla in the US between isolationism and openness? To simplify what
goes on in terms of simple popular belief, misses this.
If that a billionaire populist is not a contradiction in
terms, as cause appearent , is without question a
case at hand where, simplicity rules, yet without a
grasp on the total picture.
Same goes for Brexit. The argument does not start with basic foundations such as union versus isolationism in a fast evolving changing world,
instead goes to the periphery and instilled the most
obvious signature of social consciousness, that of class.
The populist will think of effecting their manifest social position as being the effectors by popular demand, whereas the opposite may be true, their
situation may worsen as a consequence of a general
isolationist policy.
If history can be any guide, the Wilsonian era may
have set the stage for a continuation of a hundred
year of conflict. Protectionism implies more cost in terms of tariffs, security arrangements, and treaties between similarly interested groups.
One may ask the question, of an economic seer as to the future economic effect of either scenarios, and it
all leads down the road to basic ideological
differences, which is at the moment a constant preoccupation.
The other day, on some station or another, the word ideology was hush hushed, as though in an effort to silence any reference to unmask the identity of those,
who may secretly try to hide their appear entirely
confusion, nay regret this way or that.
They just don’t want to go there, it’s too deep and
makes little sense to those populists to whom simple
answers are the only ones which are worth thinking about. They are questions without answeres. Cross referencing leads to a pathologically redundant effort
to stay with the ever deepening entropic trend.
Even in Hungary, Szoros -land, a university he heavily bequeathed, defunded him on account of the new trend in political point of view.
How ineffective and confusing are the resultant populist narratives when the words are dissected and tested for validity. I think perhaps, the House of Lords, is acting carefully, not to move too fast, in a process, which has already changed many things in Brit life, which may prove countereffective when looked at backwards.
The world is getting smaller, and as it does, unification, rather then its opposite seems to make more sense, generally. The idea that isolationism will favor the general social worldwide sensibility, is largely a questionable proposition, especially illustrative of the way the question was posed to Magsj, if she thinks the economy will improve as a result of withdrawal.
The variables are too many, the Pound is an overly highly retained value, and is bound to fall if ever there is a crisis with the dollar.
I predict a drastic lengthening of the exit process, at the very least, with caveats to augment or even reverse.