That's the point. The politics seemed to be purely exploiting populist disatissfaction. Aside from personal political gain, the "plan" seems to be rolling the dice on negotiating better deals from an inherently weaker position while following the exact same economic ideology.
Well, yes populist dissatisfaction is exactly what it was? That's democracy. Somehow populism has become this four letter word, democracy is rule by populism. In this case they happen to be right (as they are the vast majority of the time).
I am confused as to exactly what your looking for? What kind of plan? Did you expect them to negotiate with the EU before they won the vote? Do you think there is littearlly any chance that the EU would have participated in such a negotiation?
The UK also isn't in a weaker position. Independence movements are sprouting across the EU, and with damn good cause. Do you really think the EU is going to want to go head to head with that movement? Of course not, they will want to soften and adjust. Taking a hard line against these nationalist groups would be beyond stupid.
There is also the fact that the UK is a net importer from the EU, why would the the EU want to stop that? So that the UK can start dealing more with the US? How does that help the EU? The reality is that the EU will maintain as much of their connection to the UK as possible.
The point was more that they aren't offering a different approach. They want to do exactly the same thing they started 30 years ago, and somehow expect that to produce different results? The reason I brought up Korea is because protectionism is regaining a populist backing, and there are examples of it working, but despite the Leave leaders hinting at it, they don't actually seem to advocate it. Trump is a similar phenomenon.
How is this not a different approach? They want the mechanisms of power to move from Brussels to the UK, they want the decisions made to reflect their will instead of the will of a united Europe. They want a stop to mass immigration. But yes the aims of the group are to "get the country they once had back". That is a pretty major change from the progressive advancement.
Trump backs protectionism to a huge extent. So I don't think that is a good parallel, and I honestly don't know to what extent the leave proponents want protectionism. I don't really consider the leave side to be a united group on anything other then anti-open borders.
Well Farage seemed to be the figure people looked to for their Eurosceptic ideology. Certainly he was one of the most vocal on the topic. Mostly a list of greivances. Still lacking any substance.
Nothing better from Johnson or any of the other vocal proponents that I've seen.
I don't disagree, but I don't see how that is substantially different then most demagogues. The function of a demagogue isn't to rule, its to initiate popular change. In this case the population of England felt abused and they acted. In this case it was the right choice.
Globalisation could theoretically be a decentralising process, the means of production in the hands of every man. I'm not counting on it though. Historically, as the scope of communication and transportation has increased, so has the scope of central authority. I'm open to alternatives.
Yes, but much of that was based on efficiency. As micro manufacturing (not just 3d printing btw) begins to become more efficient and effective, the roll of cities will dissipate. Imagine a world where you don't need to go into town to build a car, you simply harvest some corn, puree it and throw it in a device, come back in a few days and you have a car. That may sound crazy and fantastical, but its really not as far into the future as you would think.
The only thing that will really drive the old world methods are, the military necessity of a world with a massive population and the need for rare earth metals (which might even be solved by nano shifted polymers in the future).
It is entirely possible that small communities of a few hundred people become very popular.
Aside from the markets it doesn't look too chaotic to me. It just looks like sacrificing tangible economic benefit for a protest vote and a bit of marketing mythology about "freedom".
First off, freedom isn't mythology or marketing. I don't know how old you are, but as someone who has seen just how much less free the western world is then it used to be, I can tell you there is a tangible, real life difference.
As for the economic benefits, there aren't any benefits economically to the UK remaining in the EU. The UK isn't a monolithic entity, whats good for some in the UK is bad for others, and the EU period was not good for the majority of the UK population.
