Brexit – Resource Management Failure

Why am I on this topic here in the US? Well, i hear commercials on the radio about getting good deals on loans due to Brexit. This write up is a few months old, but gives an overview.

The occurrence of ‘Brexit’ can be attributed to the lack of proper internal resource management practices.

To simplify, the EU is a large, multi-national corporation with a vast amounts of resources encompassing finances, politics, humans, production/industry, information, technology, security and intangible items, like identity, that directly contribute the daily operations of the union. As a member nation, the UK has a responsibility to advocate for its citizens for each of these resources.

During a marathon set of negotiations in February, the UK attempted to renegotiate several terms within the EU agreement to help settle nerves and calls for an exit. These new terms centered on free trade, proper voting power amongst nations, migrant benefit issues, new EU law creation statutes and various other smaller terms. The negotiations had mixed results and, thus, a further spark for the Brexit vote.

In summary, the socio-economic, political and the lifecycle or oneness of the EU has been outwardly damaged by the inappropriate strategic life-cycle operations of resources internally by England.

Socio-economics

Class-Divides.

Voters were upset over economic security (resource).

Misinformation (resource) regarding immigration (resource), supporting smaller economies and the subsequent impacts on a nations economy (resource) (benefits, jobs, sources, etc.) spurred a requirement for change. Perhaps utilizing those deemed as ‘technocrats’ whom do not take into consideration the life cycles, demographics and simple nuances of economies may have also led to the decline.

Job (resource) loss within the lower and middle classes, higher costs of living, depression and critically injured economies (transfer of business, trickle effect of shut downs, ..- all resources), outside of London, led to frustrated, change seeking citizens (resource).

This imbalance resulting from post-industrial decline, neglect and disparities between the wealthy metro centers and the small towns, showcased the mismanagement of resources of community engagement, risks, education (resource), opportunities for collaboration and near- and long-term possibilities of life-cycle industrial change (resource).

A lack of focus on innovation, an inability to fully utilize a free- market economy and/or a strategic vision of the commercial and industrial benefits (resource) of EU inter-connections or symbiosis, led to lack of real growth and stabilization or security for these communities.

The misappropriation of the basic foundations of globalization. The EU is not perfect and this exit may lead to eventual reform of its business practices.

Politics

Deaf politicians. Willful blindness.

Fact-free Politics. Popularity / Ego vote.

The politics of anger (resource – emotions).

The British leaderships arrogance and ignorance of the people is also a catalyst for this exit.

Where was leadership (resource) when England and Wales needed a sense of direction, especially when focused on economics? Did leadership show the people the benefits of the EU marketplace to their citizens? Did the leadership really attempt to advocate for change within the EU that would benefit its citizens and other nations citizens?

Or did leadership focus on everything else instead? More focused on their power (resource) and how they were perceived on the international arena and which items they were involved within the EU (resource – ego).

So, a big contributor was British leaderships very apparent lack of solutions (resource) for the issues severely demoralizing its citizens.

Additionally, the EU did impose regulations (resource) on England citizens that were seen as a super state domination and were thought as detrimental to its sovereignty. This thought process has been in the minds of Britons since it first joined the EU during Thatchers term.

Lifecycle - Oneness

Emotions.

Many Britons felt a loss of control of their lives. They felt neglected. Thus skewing the views of British citizens. They were no longer being heard in the EU realm, so why not remove England and Wales from the EU and focus internally again?

Additionally, without true voices, their identity was being stripped. Who do they belong to? England, Wales, the EU? What about Scotland and Ireland, who are they? Britons were feeling extremely vulnerable and needed to regain a sense of control (resource). Their lack of and then their demand for a nationalistic sense of culture, identity and voice (resource) created a calling for once again knowing their tribe and regaining control.

Misinformation.

Advocators for the exit focused on these emotions and won the advertising campaign. The Remainers utilized and distributed information (resource) and data (resource) without the appropriate narrative (resource) to the people and thusly, were misunderstood. There was also a mixed used of social media (resource) which is now an invaluable asset when trying to relay messages; possibly the cause of the last minute surge of voting that put the ‘Exiters’ on the winning side. (The Exiters didn’t even think it would happen; just wanted to cause a stir and/or promote change.)

However, there is a chance that if England/Wales change and fix themselves, in tandem with fixes of lessons learned within the super state EU to the above mentioned problems or imbalanced areas; a reverse could be considered, as long as the exit isn’t fully executed within the 2 years or default on trade agreements.

Sources:

The Economist

Forbes

Fox

CNN Money

My Education and life

AON

Open Europe

Brookings

Oxford Economics

The Guardian