World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Brexit - ciao Britain? She doesn't go anywhere
I was surprised by the election, but in another way not.As far as what it means, there are perceptions too, and those are extremely important: Stay with the EU and the perception is that people are working together at least on some levels. Leave the Union, and what impression does that give? Scotland recently voted to stay with the UK. They also wanted to stay with the EU. Now they are likely to revote whether or not to stay with the UK. So the repercussions combined with the dissatisfaction that leads to something like this are far-reaching.
It will take several years or more for the separation to occur. Unfortunately time, energy, and money will be directed to the whole act of separation when they could be used in other ways to improve immediate conditions.
We live in interesting times. From a world-political standpoint this is huge. Business will still go on, it always does. But united we stand, divided we fall. There are many in the world who would like to bring about anarchy and it's done by disasssembling stability piece by piece.
For the upcoming US election: get the vote out!
Bad weather hampered the turn out for Brexit. Well . . . here, neither hell nor high water keeps the conservatives from the polls. So the Dems need to be every bit as staunch in voting or else that dangerous screwball with weird hair could (I shudder to even think of it) end up in the White House.
northern ireland also voted to stay. if scotland leaves the UK, then that give northern ireland impetus.here's a pretty good article by the BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-3...
Alex G wrote: "northern ireland also voted to stay. if scotland leaves the UK, then that give northern ireland impetus.here's a pretty good article by the BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-3..."
Alex G wrote: "northern ireland also voted to stay. if scotland leaves the UK, then that give northern ireland impetus.
here's a pretty good article by the BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-3..."
The immediate emotions are high in the UK and accross Europe right after what many consider a 'surprise'. They might die down a bit. If independence should depend on this vote, then Scotland may take London with it, as the city was heavily opposed to the exit in contrary to the rest of Britain -:) It's a bit of grotesque if Scotland wants to be in EU, but not in the UK
In all fairness to the Brits, last time they had a mass-flood of immigrants they took over the country in 1066...joking aside I can't really judge their decision, but seeing how the markets have reacted it is a rather telling sign of how interconnected every country has become. In a time where each ethnic group around the globe is celebrating their individuality and fighting for a voice on the stage as never before, maybe it's a warning that we shouldn't be making these kinds of deals and tangling ourselves so tightly with the rest of the world IF (and I'm not necessarily saying this on behalf of my own personal views) we all want to retain that individuality and maintain our growing autonomy.
I think it is too early to tell what the repercussions will be. In a way, Europe has not yet settled down from the Congress of Vienna! I think there were several effects at work. Those that had low paid jobs or no jobs voted to leave, on the basis that they were broke, so the system that put them there had to be as well, so break it. I think there was a genuine fear of immigrants from the East, and of Syrian refugees. I think trade will continue on much as before. For example, Germany sells a lot of cars in Britain. Is it going to cut off that trade just out of spite? Amusingly, many Scots probably voted to remain simply because they expected to lose, and then get a better deal from the EU after they left the UK!
J.J. wrote: "IF (and I'm not necessarily saying this on behalf of my own personal views) we all want to retain that individuality and maintain our growing autonomy..."I think that exactly this question is the borderline around which lots of tectonic processes are being swayed in the recent years. We witness both unifying and separation processes taking place around the world.. Canada (about separation of French speaking areas) and Scotland votes were held and by a certain margin voted to remain. There are movements across Europe and other continents that aspire(d) independence like Basques in Spain, for example.
On the other hand there are integration processes, like that of EU, Eurasian union promoted by Russian and so on. I was amazed to what extent countries go to preserve the unity of different communities, like in Belgium, where I was told they have 3 ministers of Education, each representing different ethnic community.
Apart from sheer economic deliberations, the desire for national identity, for homogeneous communities is still strong and I'm not sure it's a bad thing.
There are countries like the US, Australia and Argentina, where indigenous population nowadays is only a relatively small minority, while the larger parts of population are formed by immigrants and their descendants, where the notion of nation is not based on ancestral land or ethnic identification.
Not every community wants to open their doors to newcomers and the attempts to change often delicate equilibrium sometimes backfire...
Ian wrote: "I think trade will continue on much as before..."I also think that after the hysteria dies down and the long negotiations commence, the bottom line will not be that different from the current situation. It's not like Britain can make a dramatic emphasis on mutual trade or defenses with China rather than on EU... Norway is out of EU, but it's more semantic than essential, it seems..
I found this angle interesting:
http://debka.com/article/25502/Brexit...
A lot will depend on what kind of deals we end up with – however, we are unlikely to end up in favourable position. The more free trade, the more we have to give to get it – for instance, Norway had to agree to free movement of people in return for free trade. This is logical. However, it does mean that it's probably impossible to get the advantages of a close trade relationship without the "disadvantages" of free movement. There is also the possibility that given the desire for referenda in other EU countries, the UK may end up with a punitive deal: "you leave; we trash your economy." Pour discourager les autres, so to speak.As has been mentioned above, there is also the very real possibility that this will result in the disintegration of the UK, as Scotland votes for independence, and Northern Ireland joins EIRE. What will Wales do?
Then, of course, there is the petition for London to secede. Although I think most people view this as something of a joke, it's worth considering that London has a larger population than Finland. London is also one of the financial centres of the EU, and leaving the EU is likely to hit it particularly hard. I think it unlikely that London will secede from England, but there is a certain logic to it doing so. (And this isn't the first time such a thing has been considered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passpor....)
Then, of course, there is the aspect that the UK is seen as the English-speaking gateway to the EU. It's good place to put your company's EU presence, as English is a very popular second language across the world, and many of your staff may already speak it. With the UK out of the EU, a more logical place to invest is Dublin. If English-speaking isn't that important to you, then Frankfurt.
If we don't manage to get free trade concessions (which may require the maintenance of the free movement rules which the Brexit crowd so dislike) then the immigrants will probably leave. Immigrants like Tata Steel, the American banks, Toyota... The UK is a high wage country, and without the attraction of the EU there is much less reason to invest here.
The one thing I think will probably not happen is that Britain will adopt the Norway model relationship with the EU. The whole point of the exit was to stop immigration, and that means free movement of people to work would have to be a bottom-line no-no or the politicians will be gutted at the following election. I also rather suspect an immediate election will be required, so that the people can choose the negotiators, and an election is where the candidates can outline their positions.
T. K. Elliott wrote: "A lot will depend on what kind of deals we end up with – however, we are unlikely to end up in favourable position. The more free trade, the more we have to give to get it – for instance, Norway ha..."I hear a lot of panicky voices from my friends in London too and it's perfectly understandable, as pound went down and their planned trip to Canada became 10% more expensive overnight.
Yet, in the long run the grave consequences might well be exaggerated and it's not an Armaggedon. And yes, you are right a lot will depend on an exit deal, yet to be negotiated.
And who said the free trade is such a great advantage that you need to open your borders, lose self-identification and be so dependent on how Greece or Spain weather the financial crisis? If Mercedes wants to pay custom duty to sell in Britain, let it pay. Don't see any tragedy there -:) Some prominent economists attribute major detremental role to the free trade with China claiming it caused a lot of damage to the US economy. But I truly understand that incertainty/imminent change cause lots of fears...
Ian wrote: "The one thing I think will probably not happen is that Britain will adopt the Norway model relationship with the EU. The whole point of the exit was to stop immigration, and that means free movemen..."I also think that UK is a totally different league from Norway and has a much better bargaining position. I'm not sure, even if EU wanted, how 'punitive' they can afford to be at this stage
CNN was just playing an interview with a British politician spinning it into a trade issue, claiming the EU has been too slow to negotiate deals with nations outside the bloc, and he's trying to say the Brexit will actually allow Britain to negotiate trade deals more quickly.I find it hard to think this is going to be as seismic a shift as the media is playing it out to be. Clinton has rushed out an ad trying to equate the chaos to a Trump presidency. She's already out talking about how much Americans lost in their 401k because of the vote, and yet the shift we saw Friday and will likely see this coming week are nothing we haven't seen regularly in the last 8 years. In fact, the Dow Jones dropped to a lower level just a couple weeks ago than it fell on Friday.
I'm pretty convinced news like this is hyped up to intentionally frighten the mom and pops into dumping their stocks so the price drops and the professionals can buy them up cheaply and sell them back to the mom and pops at a profit when they've driven the price back up.
J.J. wrote: "I'm pretty convinced news like this is hyped up to intentionally frighten the mom and pops into dumping their stocks so the price drops and the professionals can buy them up cheaply and sell them back to the mom and pops at a profit when they've driven the price back up..."Could well be, as stock-exchanges and economics in general are too 'emotional' than they probably should be. Sometimes, the factor influencing the behavior of stocks has nothing to do with economic performance, but how some even barely related event is extrapolated by the media. This is something I tried to explore in the last book, I've released...
I'm in the 'Angela Merkel' camp - don't be in a rush for the UK to exit and be nice! :-)The day of the vote, the US market went up--assuming it would not fly--and then of course the market went into a swoon.
One thing I find surprising is that it was put up to a vote in the first place. And together with that, how wrong the polls were. It is advisory--Parliament does not have to go along with it. And it should not be a suicide pact after all!
I can't wait for the next John Oliver show! (!) He was, well, maybe not quite apoplectic before the vote, but definitely against exiting. (There was even a choral rendition expressing his opinion.) His next show should be interesting.
M.L. wrote: "I can't wait for the next John Oliver show! (!) He was, well, maybe not quite apoplectic before the vote, but definitely against exiting. (There was even a choral rendition expressing his opinion.)..."He might show a wrong exit
I would not worry too much about the markets short term. Too many of the players had placed bets, many of them shorts, on the basis that whenever there is uncertainty, markets fall, and of course they would encourage the bigger falls.In my view, the biggest problem for the UK is Cameron, who does not seem to realise how inept his position has been so far. He is even totally inept in quitting. When you quit that sort of job, you quit; you don't create some sort of "action vacuum".
Ian wrote: "I would not worry too much about the markets short term. Too many of the players had placed bets, many of them shorts, on the basis that whenever there is uncertainty, markets fall, and of course t..."I agree with you, Ian, about Cameron. He has turned out to be a very weak leader. Apart from his failure to reduce the numbers of people entering this tiny island (nothing to do with race but purely lack of capacity on many fronts) and failure to secure a decent deal with the EU, he should not have taken sides. Instead, he should have put both scenarios to the British people - pros and cons outlined clearly and concisely.
In addition, he and the govenment should have worked out plans and strategies to deal with whatever the result might be - not assume their recommendations would automatically be followed by the nation and then flounder around as they are doing now because the final vote was different. Expecting a new prime minister to sort it out is unacceptable. The elected government is supposed to.......govern!
News reported this morning the Asian markets were up...that was short-lived. I think we in the US see more fear in the market every time the Fed meets to discuss raising the interest rates. Heck, Hillary Clinton did more damage to the markets with a single Tweet targeting drug companies last year.
All right, my two cents' worth. Brexit: A tale of slacktivism, digital silos and post-factual politics. And the English breakfast.http://mikerobbinsnyc.blogspot.com/20...
Hey Mike, Enjoyed reading your analysis and the historical perspective. Thanks for bringing this. I'm not sure I agree with the predicted disaster consequences, but it can well be that you see it much better from the inside (even in NY-:)) than I, with my only superficial and external knowledge, from the outside. The time will tell and, if anything, I'd attribute more weight to your speculations over mine.
I'll refer to this part:
"All the information about the consequences of this vote were available beforehand; the threat to the Northern Ireland peace process, the fact that we would still have to have free movement of people (or limited access to EU markets), the fact that the UK would break up, that the pound would fall, that markets (and thus pensions) would have millions of pounds wiped off their value;"
I think it's too early to judge whether any of these, no doubt, grave consequences indeed happened. Will Brexit influence the peace process? We'll see in the furture. Will you need to allow free movement of people? Not necessarily and if you do, it'll be for EU citizens, while it's not clear whether EU countries will extend their citizenships to refugees.. Breaking-up of the UK is still far from being a fact and plunge of pound and markets may only be temporary. Lets look at them again in one-two years. BTW, pound is not what it used to be 10 years ago, and being an EU all these years hasn't solved this particular problem.
What would you say, if a year from now Spain defaults or other EU heavyweight? Thanks god, we are out? -:)
On a larger scale: is acceptance of refugees a better solution than creating a safety zone(s) at their home turf, for example?
Hi Nik. To take the latter point first, after Srebrenica, I am afraid I think it might be. But at the end of the day the solution needs to be deeper. Just been reading this: Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours. He doesn't always develop his argument that well - I think it was written quite quickly, as a polemic. But I agree with his basic thesis, that it is global inequality that drives instability - just as clashes between cold and warm air and water drive the weather.As to Brexit, predicting what happens over the next 2-3 years is a pretty inductive process; to misquote Donald Rumsfeld, you don't know what you don't know. There is absolutely no doubt that this will affect the Irish peace process, but what we don't know is how. If Northern Ireland did change jurisdiction, it could do so in two or three different ways. Alternatively it could maintain the status quo but remain outside UK border controls (not very likely). As to the free movement of EU nationals, if Britain wants access to the single market, it will have to permit this to some extent. There will be a trade-off.
Incidentally, yes, I am in NY at the moment but it's a work posting, I'm English, and I voted.
Mike wrote: "Hi Nik. To take the latter point first, after Srebrenica, I am afraid I think it might be. But at the end of the day the solution needs to be deeper. Just been reading this: [book:Against the Doubl..."Srebrenica is a tragedy and I hope the conclusions how to make supposedly 'safe areas' safe were made...
I think it's natural and enlightened desire to help all those people that suffer from war raging in their countries, but taking into account that in Europe itself the issue of whether they want and are capable to 'host' all these new settlers is pretty equivocal, it might be worthwhile to strive for concensus and to check alternatives how to help. My own opinion that giving asylum to a battered wife is only a partial solution, which additionally requires taking care of a battering husband and a solution for a safe environment.
Mike wrote: "But I agree with his basic thesis, that it is global inequality that drives instability - just as clashes between cold and warm air and water drive the weather..."
Looks like an interesting book... I agree that global and local inequality in potential is one of the major internal risk factros for modern capitalistic societies. Moreover, in my own opinion at least economic equality is unachievable under capitalist systems and most of theorems about 'equality of chances' and so on, is usually a disguise to a system where the global economy is ruled for years (centuries-?) by not so many families (from a few dozens to a few hundreds).
On the other hand, in my opinion, it would be too simplistic to view it as the only source of global turbulence. Each specific conflict has its own mental and traditional roots, which sometimes are misinterpreted or neglected. In many countries, where the wars are raging an 'equality' is not even a value in their culture...
Enjoy NY, Mike. I wasn't even slightly cynical refering to your 'inside' knowledge of the process...
Agree that every individual conflict has its own psychic drivers. They need to be understood. To be sure, I would argue that global inequality probably still underpins most of them; but that is a simple concept that cannot be always be applied to practical conflict resolution. Also agree in principle that capitalism has no answer to inequality because it will always be subject to elite capture... the challenge is to find an alternative that isn't.Would be interested to hear what you make of Against the Double Blackmail, if you do read it. (For reasons known only unto the publisher and their spiritual advisors, it is not available as an eBook here - though it is elsewhere.)
Mike wrote: " capitalism has no answer to inequality because it will always be subject to elite capture....."I like this one! I'm with capitalism (at least until another system is devised and passes 'proof of concept' stage). I think we just need to address its achilles heels like the one you've mentioned that it's susceptible to capture. Instead of a phoney equality, we might strive to a more achievable - fairness. Pursuit of enrichment, on which I focus in my books, is usually a very healthy driver but up to a point where it becomes reactionary. Addressing the problematic issues by, arguably, wider anti-trust measures, preventing syphoning of untaxed profits of big corps into off-shores, cap on enrichment (maybe), separation of politics/governance and big biz may result in a healthier system and societies.
Sure, if I get to read the Double Blackmail, I'll gladly share my opinion and offer it for a debate
In the context of our discussion here, I took a brief look at Norway's (has never joined EU, its citizens twice voted against) and Switzerland's (its population also rejected EU) economic overview.If anything, being out of EU didn't seem to affect their remarkable economic performance, standard of living and other achievements.
Can these examples be inspirational for Britain, or not so much?
This is much debated in Britain. They have full access to the single market, but in return have had to sign up to free movement of people and the whole raft of EU market-related legislation - and have little voice in its formulation. We may end up going their way, but if we do, this awful business will have been for nothing much.
Mike wrote: "this awful business will have been for nothing much..."To tell you the truth - this is my initial suspicion. The UK may pass a long (and maybe painful) process and still end up pretty much in EU's vicinity, provided EU itself stands....
Swiss voted recently for immigration quotas, which may result in their own collision course with the EU...
Nik wrote: "Mike wrote: "this awful business will have been for nothing much..."To tell you the truth - this is my initial suspicion. The UK may pass a long (and maybe painful) process and still end up prett..."
There would be riots here if there was even the slightest possiblity of a U-TURN, Nick and Mike. The EU inflexible policies on those special issues has caused devastating damage to many British people's lives. It has been a ticking time bomb for a long time.
With Brexit, there's a better road to take, however painful the journey. A positive view and faith in Britain's ability to navigate that road is what is needed now. We can do it and I bet others will follow. (What a shame Sir James Goldsmith isn't around to see what is happening).
I believe there won't be a u-turn, Melanie, at least not until enough time passes after the separation. However, the arrangements that shall replace current EU docs may not be essentially different from the current status.I understand where your concern is coming from and it's probably shared by half of Europe (a little more, a little less than 50%) and the UK, having a much better bargaining position than most other countries may negotiate a couple of major points that are important to her.
It might look like science fiction at the moment, but if Trump wins in US and EU won't be flexible, I can see UK drifting much closer to North American economic treaties...
The question for the EU, is how much are they prepared to lose by punishing the UK? My guess is not much. The immigration issue is almost certainly a bottom line for the UK, and the EU either has to accept the UK position, or enforce real trade barriers, but that will cost them quite a bit too. It might seriously lead to more break-outs.
Ian wrote: "The question for the EU, is how much are they prepared to lose by punishing the UK? My guess is not much. The immigration issue is almost certainly a bottom line for the UK, and the EU either has t..."It's true that the EU has quite a lot to lose itself if it gets this wrong. Eastern European countries likely get quite a high level of remittances from the UK, and Western European ones sell quite a lot of goods - especially cars - into the UK market. My guess is that even if the UK does leave the EU (still not a given), something will get sorted out. But Britain will have lost a lot of influence inside and outside Europe that it won't get back.
And there will certainly be some economic damage. I've just heard a discussion on the radio here in NY as to where the finance industry will go instead of London. The question of whether it would leave London wasn't even discussed.
I gather the UK is Poland's third biggest trading partner, so the Poles will not be happy. Equally, I am far from convinced that the UK influence in some things will decline. Unfortunately for Europe, currently the UK is still the strongest European country on defence. But I agree that it was a bad decision for the UK. The finance industry is interesting - I am not sure what will happen there. Part for it will leave London, but it remains to be seen how important that will be. Switzerland does OK out of finance without being in the EU, and I am not convinced that many of the countries want to give Germany more clout.
Like Ian, I'm also not that sure that for the finance industry it's crucial whether UK is inside or outside the EU. I think EU, encourages free movement of capitals with third parties anyway. UK has never switched to Euro. It became pretty obvious how vulnerable EU and its banking system may be, if one of the members doesn't feel good, so I'm not that sure banks would hurry to leave the Albion. For American banks, for example, the common language may be a more important factor, especially if the initiative to deny English the status of the official EU language continues...
I blogged about the whole EU referendum a couple of weeks ago before the result and have just added this:Brexit and Democracy
Irrespective of who voted for what, the EU has major structural weaknesses which it needs to address (with or without the UK). The failure to address these by the self interested leaders in the EU institutions is the problem. The EU often seems hapless and hopeless when dealing with world events from Srebrenica to the Greek Euro problems and now the Migrant crisis on its shores. It is far more interested in protecting its grand project then being efficient. It does not set taxes (except VAT ranges including recently imposed charges on e-books) but has no problem spending the member states' money - often without sufficient audit or accountability. Meanwhile its policies have led to greater than 50% youth unemployment in some Euro states, no wonder the young have fled to the UK and other states just to get hope! Still let's go ahead and fund another regional airport whilst insisting that the Greeks pay in austerity whilst the new loans are used to pay back German and French banks that lent the money.
If any of this had actually been fixed the UK might have voted to stay. The reforms were promised but never happened
Ian wrote: "I gather the UK is Poland's third biggest trading partner, so the Poles will not be happy. Equally, I am far from convinced that the UK influence in some things will decline. Unfortunately for Euro..."That brings up an interesting question for me. There has been speculation on other countries following UK's lead, but seeing the entire thing from this side of the pond, it does strike me as nothing more than sensational news reporting of something that isn't likely to happen. However the media has been reporting that the UK is the world's 4th (or is it 5th?) largest economy. As mad as the EU might be and as much as they might want to punish them for leaving, that is something that cannot be ignored. If some of the EU members are more dependent on trade with Britain than many of the other EU partners, could we see a serious effort to leave in other countries, not for the immigration issue, but for possible restrictions to trade outside the EU?
EU from UK net contribution to budget £8 billion but actually far more not flowing though Brussels' booksGermany car exports
French Champagne and cheese
Overall EU exports to UK far more than UK exports to EU
UK can replace most exports with other countries exports outside EU without having to impose EU designated tariffs
VAT if still used can be set completely by UK government
Overall there will be winners and losers just like any decision but at least it will be the UK's decision not conditional majority voting from 27 other countries. Single market in services (UK's biggest concern and export) has never been fully implemented
It will be difficult it may be economically challenging but its not the Blitz or Dunkirk. Nor is it 1066. Europe will be fine and much happier without us.
By the way my blog also has more facts not opinion
Now if we could only vote to leave the Eurovision song contest!
Philip wrote: "Now if we could only vote to leave the Eurovision song contest! ..."That's where European voters can punish you annually now -:)
Nik wrote: "Philip wrote: "Now if we could only vote to leave the Eurovision song contest! ..."That's where European voters can punish you annually now -:)"
Lol - How would we notice the difference?
Philip wrote: "Nik wrote: "Philip wrote: "Now if we could only vote to leave the Eurovision song contest! ..."That's where European voters can punish you annually now -:)"
Lol - How would we notice the differe..."
yeah right...
You probably won't as they've accumulated some advance in anticipation -:)
In respect of the Eurovision, the more fractured the original country is the more votes each fraction gets from the former partner nations in the union. So if Scotland, Wales, London check out, your chances of winning go through the roof -:)
Nik wrote: "In respect of the Eurovision, the more fractured the original country is the more votes each fraction gets from the former partner nations in the union. So if Scotland, Wales, London check out, you..."Nik, please keep this to yourself.
We do not want foreigners to know the truth: That it was all a plot....
No problem. Insensitive of me. Hope this plot never comes to realization..
Anything that makes Putin happy, is not in the West's best interests: he's all for discord in the West. Putin and Iran were both happy about Brexit--as was Donald Trump. Birds of a feather.
Could be that Putin is taming tigers, playing hockey and patting dolphins all at the same time from joy, Khomeyni's grin became a couple of mm wider. Even al-baghdadi might be throwing some evil party. Don't know about Trump. Their shared joy doesn't make them birds of a feather though and I truly hope they aren't
So, the emotions died down, some time passed and Theresa submitted the formal initiating note.Where do you see UK in the mid-, long-term perspective: still pretty close to EU with changes in relations mostly semantic, as an independent equidistant player or pulling the islands virtually or literally closer to the US?
My guess is depends on the EU's response. There are some fairly hard-liners there too, and of course Germany wants Britain's very substantial annual donation to EU funds, otherwise Germany might find itself the only payer, subsidising all the rest. I merely foresee some fairly strong discord for a while, although I suppose it depends to some extent on how Marine Le Pen does in the coming French election.
The dramatic developments in the UK beg to revive this thread, so maybe our friends from the UK and those who follow the situ closely can share some insights.What's with poor Theresa? Is Jeremy the next PM?
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
Thirty Years from Now (other topics)Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Nikolai Gogol (other topics)Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (other topics)
George Santayana (other topics)
With all the immediate repercussions and local turbulence and, unless more states follow suit and EU breaks up, I don't expect nothing much to change. Yeah, it weakens EU as a multinational global player, but it never rose to a prominent role anyway. UK never entered eurozone. With all the halo, the change may after all be in the nuances rather than drastic. After all, UK will keep its closest trading ties with EU and vice versa and it'll still want to have a say on continental issues and will seek dialogue and coordination with EU from the outside much like it was from the inside..
Or.... maybe I'm too narrow -sighted. What do you think?