Where your analysis might be flawed Mickeyfinn is your premise and generalisation that Brexiteers wanted to cut immigration without taking any account of them wanting to retain some CONTROL of that process such that the process should be MANAGED AND ANALYSED and take adequate account of the SPEED at which it is accomplished and the magnitude of movements.
Time and time again in open debates this was brought to the forefront of concern by British citizens, amongst other aspects associated with sovereignty and desire to retain control of their own destiny rather than be dictated to by a sadly unaccountable intransigent inflexibile elite.
Many wanted to regain control as they distrusted the EU bureaucrats who demonstrated on all too many occasions their unwillingness to listen to concerns, to review their policy etc. All of this played a major factor in Brexit.
Aspects requiring greater analysis and control were highlighted such as....
Analysis of national and regional shortfall of labour, skill sets, intellectual prowess, seasonal or longer term shortfalls, timeframes to realistically address the shortfalls and strategies to accommodate for such ( forward planning educational directives , skills development etc). Although it may be argued that this is a national requirement to address such matters it is essential to reflect upon the speed and magnitude at which the UK was being impacted by EU strategy for open and mismanaged uncontrolled migration.
Analysis of infrastructure, health system, educational system, penal system, housing and benefit systems etc and ability to cope. Again speed and magnitude of the inward flow of people played it's part without adequate or realistic analysis on the EUs part for the need to forward plan, control and manage in such a manner to adequately tailor unrest, disharmony, division etc rather than perpetuate/ exacerbate the problem.
Greater analysis of differentials between member states to take account of pull factors ( such as country's unemployment levels, wage differentials, country debt and austerity measures to manage debt, benefit system differentials, cost of living and spending power differentials, differentials relating to civilised and established caring structures, citizen psyche with emphasis on a desire to retain a caring and balanced structure, (developed over many decades but in the process of ongoing reform to incentivise work alongside fallback mechanisms to tackle poverty etc. )
By failing to recognise or demonstrate a willingness to respond to growing citizen concern, by failing to review and reform EU policy to reflect and allow adequate time to better accommodate and control swift large scale migration, by intransigent rhetoric on the part of EU Commissioners, all these factors only accentuated citizen distrust and alienation against the EU bureaucrats.
And in the interim the question was being asked has the EU effectively analysed and created policy for growth strategies to encourage greater self sufficiency within member states without undue reliance on other member states etc. Again what forward plans were in place to tackle large scale unemployment, the need to encourage diversity of economies, rather than exacerbate problems elsewhere?
Has the EU system failed to reflect such complexities into its policy decision making, has it effectively failed to analyse and establish fair "factoring mechanisms" and realistic timeframes, growth strategies to tackle unemployment, but most importantly has it recognised the impact on citizen and member state cohesion if it fails to do so?
I would suggest it has not and sadly the losers in this sorry saga appear to have been citizens of all member states.
But it doesn't have to be like this!
IMHO it's now time for reform, greater intellectual analysis, willingness to seek out mutual benefits, curb unfair or unjust practice, stem intransigent inflexible political ideological dogma that sadly has the potential to cause downward spiralling effects, division and unrest in its wake.
It's time for change post Brexit, and IMHO I suspect success will depend upon putting aside unrealistic ideological intransigence ( bullying and making scapegoats) and replace such negative divisive rhetoric with a more positive approach, a coming together of leaders intent on finding mutually beneficial outcomes.
I live in hope!
.
This message was last edited by ads on 04/02/2017.