Another thing about undoing Brexit:

Boris Johnson & social media attack Tony Blair’s call for Brexit revolt

Relevant here too:

Riots Erupt in Stockholm: Trump Was Right, Just A Day Too Early

It sounds alarmist but at the same time you do have to take into account the current situation there, and in all of Europe. I am also for humanitarianism, but there are limits both on how much should be taken, and to those seeking asylum. I came to the US from a commie nation for a reason, and I assimilated pretty much, but if there are those (regardless of background) that do not, and you begin to accumulate more and more, well you are definitely going to begin to have problems, and the idea of somehow bringing this issue up and being shot down as 'bigoted' is just outright idiotic. The EU states really need to get their heads out of their assess, but I think it is already too late - Wilders most likely has a good chance of winning The Netherlands, and Le Pen is gaining ground too.

This is the proverbial pendulum swinging the other way at this point - you cannot have an uncontrolled amount of people entering into what is still essentially a sovereign nation and become a drain to the economy. Those politicians should have realised this, and now they have to deal with the rising hard line nationalists and populism movements, they only have themselves to blame.

-edit

https://www.rt.com/news/378151-stock...inkeby-debate/

In my view, all three of the mainstream populist "trade treaties" (EU, NAFTA, TPP) fundamentally got one thing catastrophically wrong:

"They failed to appreciate the intrinsic value of a 'Sovereign(!) Nation!'"

From the point-of-view of a so-called "global trader," of course, the following obvious inconsistency(!) should be: "why, no problem at all." To wit:

1. I should (of course ...) have "unfettered access" to any and all possible "markets," anywhere on Planet Earth, so that "I may enjoy the fruit of the land."
2. Meanwhile, I should be able to replace the (too expensive!) workers ... in any and in every one of my "markets" ... with cheaper labor.™
3. Nevertheless, I perceive no possible conflict between point #1 and point #2. "Why can't I burn this candle at both ends?"

However, it now seems to me that "people throughout the Planet are finally wising up."

• On the one hand: yes, "global trade is a very good thing ... a thing that helps to bind us all together."
• But on the other: "'Nations' are still important, too!"

Thus: "throughout the World, we humans need to talk."

We all need to realize that, although of course we have "common interests," we also (still) have "national identities." And... both of these things are, in fact, equally important.

By failed I think you probably mean refused to acknowledge the basic idea of sovereignty to the point of making it a taboo issue to discuss. The idea of open borders have clearly failed, and it is probably in it's dying gasps. This also may sound either politically incorrect or intolerant but as Styxhexen stated too, an uncontrolled about of migrants and the tying of law enforcement's hands like you see in Sweden and you have this sort of chaos. Had the authorities been allowed to properly do their jobs, maybe things may not have escalated - also the problem is migrants that have a completely different world view refusing to acclimate to their new home, cannot continue.

This sort of blindness is seen often, and seems like a one way street - sure if I go say to these migrant's point of origin - you do have to supplant yourself to their laws/customs, logical but thats the same the other way around and this isn't being bigoted or intolerant it is just the bloody truth.

The European kettle is beyond the boiling point, and pretty soon there is going to be a tremendous backlash - and I will feel very sorry for those who truly legitimately want to be there, and acclimate and are there legitimately because they are going to be pinned as all the trouble makers and sooner or later a violent backlash. I hope I am wrong, but...

As far as I can see (from this side of The Pond ...) "the basic error" was made several years ago, and now "the repercussions" will take some time.

The fundamental "multi-nationalist™ objective" is, and always was: cheap labor.

• In the USA, "non-immigrant visas" offered a very-attractive way to introduce "indentured servants" back into the work force, in complete defiance of the 13th Amendment.
• In Europe, the legal proposition was simply that "you couldn't exclude them," even though you clearly understood that, in the end, the business outcome would be the same.

However ... I hope(!!) that ... now, on both sides of The Pond™, we now fully realize that we have both been equally screwed we both have a common interest.

... and, I might add, that "our interest actually encompass(!) those of the so-called 'immigrants' who were to be caught-up in this mess that we have so-far made."

(After all, was it ever the intention that they (and their families ...) should ever have 'a future?') Uh huh. I think not.

That is one side of it. I am going to now make one more comment about assimilation from migrants or lack there of and the clear hypocrisy in general, this will again probably be seen as bigoted, but you know what this has to be spoken of and again the one-way street how the west seems to have bowed to other cultures in the name of political correctness - this will not be popular and I am open to any debate on this on the opposing side. This is an extreme case obviously, but I feel it is still relevant to this discussion to the main issue - the rise of populism, and what I view from my perspective.

Swedish feminists mock "sexist" Trump - but submit to Muslim Iran - or tl;dw - basically western women going into a certain country i.e. Muslim are requested/required to wear the hijab - fine groovy whatever, it is a different country with obviously different values and beliefs cool - but what I have issues with, and again what most are silenced via the political correctness/bigot argument which is no longer valid - you have migrants not say from Iran but general area coming into a western nation - but then expecting their new welcoming surroundings to essentially bend to how they conduct their lives.

I am now also going to be seen solely picking on a religious group - but I would the very least make the same criticism for any other culture/religion - the fact that it happens to be Islam - well I have no control over that - but this is the point:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/728...ittee-naz-shah - tl;dr - Sharia law can be used in parallel to the UK legal system - except that in any other sane country there is only the native laws of said country period. So again, this is the one-way street, the west is expected to essentially make a huge accommodation culture/religious on their own soil, as well as abroad?

Or one other question - how can a sovereign nation allow what essentially is a parallel legal system? Is that not a warranted question about one's own sovereignty?

Also this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6834836.html

Sorry, if that was so offensive to the Iranian president , he shouldn't have gone over there.

I realise that I am going too deep, and my intentions are not to pick on any one religion - so I will leave it at that - however again any rebuttal/criticism on me for this I am very open to. Again my intention is NOT and WAS not to outright solely demonise however I will recognise that it will be seen that way, to that I apologise.

And in Canada:

Jeebizz, "here, above all, you need not apologize." Neither fear that you will be made to do so.

Indeed, "above all, and around the world"" ... we ... n-e-e-d(!) ... to talk.

Because, I think, "on both sides of The Pond, and in our own respective ways," all of us have been hoodwinked!

"East of The Pond," the cheap slave indentured laborers" came on the pretext that (a) you could not refuse them, and yet (b) you also could not refuse them the same social benefits that you had previously set aside for your own citizens.

Meanwhile, "West of the Pond," the very same cheap slave indentured laborers" arrived with a proposition was much simpler: "we never considered them to be 'Citizens' to begin with, and, indeed, they never shall be."

But, in both cases, the same: "at the end of the day, it is compelling(!) for you to locate your factory anywhere else, and/or to staff it with people who, likewise, live anywhere else!"

Why?

...

Gentlebeings, the fact of the matter is that we all have been hoodwinked.

"We need to talk."

"Uhh, because that's what will look best on our next quarter's Annual Report, that's why!" ...

What do you mean, 'Nations?'" What the heck are those things, and why do we still consider them to be relevant?! Didn't that go bye-bye with the twentieth century? Oh, puh-leeuze ... we are ever so much smarter now ...!"

No, that's not bigotry and you're not the first person to have raised that point. My parents were refugees from Hitler, and my mother often said that when they came into the country, they were grateful to have found a refuge and accepted that the country was already occupied by people who had their own culture, ways and rules. They knew they had to fit in with the native people and not the other way around. She was always quietly furious that Muslims wouldn't do this but expected the country to change to accommodate them. In other words, the problem isn't immigration but multiculturalism. But the only public figure round here who dared to suggest that multiculturalism isn't such a good thing after all was Trevor Philips, and he only got away with it because he is black. If a white man had dared to say it, he would have been screamed down.

I don't object in any way to women wearing a hijab. I do object strongly to them wearing a niqab (face veil) because that is done as a deliberate challenge to us and a rejection of our culture. When I see one of these veiled women, it is as if she were saying: "I am so pure, so chaste, so holy, that you are not fit to look at my face. But just you wait! When we establish the Caliphate, we'll make you cover up too, you whore!" That shouldn't be allowed in a civilised country.
It's actually impossible to prevent that if there's a community consensus to accept rulings from an unofficial religious court. For example, orthodox Jews have always followed the rulings of the Beth Din courts. The difference is, of course, that no Beth Din has ever given rulings that specifically conflict with secular law. They're always about matters that the secular courts don't cover. That's the difference between Jews and Muslims! Jews have proved that they can be trusted with their own courts. Muslims have shown the contrary.

Sadly in Europe the political correctness nazis and the "positive discriminators" would have us tolerate the intolerable. That's all I have to say on the matter.

So, don't tolerate it. The people of the respective countries should insist upon a genuine improvement to trade conditions, but not at the expense of national sovereignty. Every nation must deal with other nations from a position of strength. They do continue to exercise control over who may enter their country and who may stay, and they don't adopt a "uniform system of laws."

It can be done. The organizers in Brussels simply over-reached. Maybe they over-reached when creating the initial treaty itself. The authors of other treaties such as NAFTA and the now-dead PPP did the same basic things. There are some good, workable ideas in those documents – and, there are some bad ones that don't work. We're all finding that out now.

"Sovereignty" and "national laws" are two foundation-stones of any nation. They're part of the fundamental definition of what "a nation" is, along with its borders and territory. These are critical ideas that must be preserved, even as nations trade with one another and seek to pass across the many borders more expeditiously.

Keep what's good about it, and fix the rest.