# data[].attributes.headline
How is Brexit a rejection of globalisation?

# data[].attributes.subject
How is Brexit a rejection of globalisation?

# data[].attributes.body
The Brexit campaign is a rejection of globalization in the sense that it focuses on reclaiming national sovereignty and control over significant lifestyle aspects such as immigration, trade, and lawmaking. A large majority of Brexit supporters were dissatisfied with the UK's integration into the EU and viewed it as an erosion of British identity. They viewed EU membership as a representation of the negative impacts of globalization, particularly the loss of control over borders and economic decisions. Additionally, Brexit was a pushback against deeper international integration and a reassertion of national independence.

# data[].attributes.body
The idea of Brexit that it rejects certain aspects of globalisation, the decisions of UK leaving the EU. The vote to leave was fueled by a desire to reclaim national sovereignty, in areas like immigration control and law-making, which many believed were being influenced too heavily by EU regulations. They blamed immigration for their financial problems like taking their job opportunities.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Brexit is a rejection of Globalisation

# data[].attributes.subject
How Brexit is a rejection of Globalisation

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit refers to the United Kingdom withdrawing from the European Union, after 51.89% of the British population voted to do so. The UK were mainly rejecting unwanted immigrants, who were able to join the UK fairly easier with the European Union allowing anyone to join the UK without permission, and rejecting immigrants is essentially rejecting globalisation.

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit rejects globalisation as it rejects the assimilation of cultures. Brexit argues for protectionist ideas - that immigrants are a burden, that they are taking job opportunities, and overwhelming the housing market. Support for Brexit grew because financial global crisis led people to blaming migrants.

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit was the title given to the event of which Britain chose to exit the European union. Overall, roughly 52 percent of the population chose to leave. Reasons for this was the rejection of immigration and European trade policies. By doing so, Britain rejected globalisation, through being connected to a union of countries.

# data[].attributes.body
Ultimately, i believe that Brexit is a rejection of Globalisation because Brexit represents a movement outside of the EU towards an independent culture, economy and politics. some main points that globalisation thrives in. By separating itself from the EU, they become completely independent and have to globalise themselves this is because the EU can be seen as an example of globalisation. The UK want to stop immigration in their country which is another prime example of globalisation and causes things like cultural diffusion and cultural hybridity.

# data[].attributes.body
It is a rejection of globalisation because it is controlling immigration which is an example of a globalisation. They also felt as though they were loosing there national identity and it was being diluted by other cultures which they viewed as bad, Brexit was a way to stop this and take back British values.

# data[].attributes.headline
How is Brexit a rejection of globalisation

# data[].attributes.subject
How is Brexit a rejection of globalisation

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit is often seen as a rejection of globalization because it reflects the UK's desire to reclaim control over its own borders, laws, and economy, distancing itself from the interconnectedness that globalisation encourages. Many supporters of Brexit believed that being part of the European Union limited Britain’s ability to make independent decisions, especially regarding immigration, trade, and regulations. They felt globalization, represented by the EU, led to negative consequences like job losses, reduced national sovereignty, and pressure on public services. By leaving the EU, the UK aimed to prioritize domestic issues and regain full control over its own affairs, rejecting the shared policies and economic integration that globalization promotes.

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit represents a rejection of globalization by pushing back against economic interdependence, political integration, and cultural openness. Many supporters viewed the European Union as undermining British sovereignty, particularly in areas like trade policy, immigration, and regulation, which they believed disproportionately benefited metropolitan elites while neglecting working-class communities. The free movement of people, a core aspect of globalization, was linked to job insecurity and pressure on public services, fueling nationalist sentiments and calls to reclaim control over borders and identity. Politically, Brexit was a response to dissatisfaction with supranational governance, as voters sought to reassert national sovereignty and reject the influence of distant bureaucratic institutions. In essence, Brexit reflected growing discontent with the uneven distribution of globalization’s benefits and the desire to restore economic and political autonomy.

# data[].attributes.headline
How is Brexit a rejection of Globalisation?

# data[].attributes.subject
How is Brexit a rejection of Globalisation?

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit is the exit of Britain from the European union. This is an example of rejection of globalisation because Britain are leaving the EU, hence forfeiting their opportunity for favourable trade deals and free travel. Overall, Britain are rejecting the EU's control and favourable trade deals in order to maintain full control over the ocuntry.

# data[].attributes.headline
How is Brexit a rejection of Globalisation

# data[].attributes.subject
How is Brexit a rejection of Globalisation

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit is an example of rejecting globalisation, as they wanted to be in charge of their own borders, make their own laws, and be able to trade with the whole world. They also wanted to control immigration which is a great part of globalisation.

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit is a rejection of globalisation as they voted to reject general laws created by the EU that would take them forward as nations. Brexit was a movement that aimed to let Britain be an independent nation however it negatively affected them as their GDP decreased, there were labour shortages and they lost EU funding.

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit is a rejection of globalisation. This is because the United Kingdom made the decision to go away from the European Union which was a globalised organisation. The United Kingdom has rejected the global culture and economy of Europe and isolated their own economy and culture which is an example of rejection of globalisation.

# data[].attributes.body
The emphasis on national sovereignty over international integration in Brexit is a rejection of globalisation. The UK decided to exit the EU because to issues with cultural identity preservation, economic inequality, and immigration restriction. For many, local businesses and customs were threatened by globalisation, and membership in the EU diminished their authority over border and trade regulations. A pushback against interconnected global markets is indicated by Brexit, which demonstrates a shift towards putting national interests ahead of international cooperation.

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit is an example of rejecting globalisation as the UK is pushing away diversity, migration, travel and job opportunities in return for freedom and power. In 2016 the UK voted in an optional referendum to leave the European Union, as majority voted 'yes' the UK made to leave the EU and left in 2020. The reason behind the leave was so that Britain could have more control over their borders and economy, they also saw the leave as a way to improve their sovereignty which rejects globalisation and diversity.

# data[].attributes.headline
How is Brexit a rejection of Globalisation? - James

# data[].attributes.subject
How is Brexit a rejection of Globalisation? - James

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit rejects globalisation in many ways. It allows the United Kingdom to control various political aspects which were previously dictated by the European Union (EU). For example, the United Kingdom now has to manage it's own foreign policies and trade agreements.

# data[].attributes.body
The overall idea of Brexit rejects globalisation through the development of independent economies and Britain removal from the EU and the rejection of cross-national rules and regulations

# data[].attributes.headline
How is Brexit a rejection of Globalization

# data[].attributes.subject
How is Brexit a rejection of Globalization

# data[].attributes.body
Globalization is 'the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale.'

When the UK left the European Union (Brexit) it was initially due to their need to be independent and follow their own laws instead of the European union. The idea of globalization in reference to developing influence and trade with other countries is rejected because of the UK's need for independence.

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit, the UK's decision to leave the European Union, is a rejection of certain aspects of globalization. It reflects a desire for more national control over policies like immigration and trade, as well as a protest against the economic model that has been in place for many years, this movement signals a shift towards a more nationalist empire.

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit rejects globalization because the UK want control over their borders, trade and seek control over immigration rather than the EU choosing and controlling everything.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Illustration by Gary Waters / Ikon Images

There has been much fuss about last week's gathering at Ditchley Park to discuss the UK's relationship with the EU. "The full sell-out of Brexit is underway," tweeted Nigel Farage. David Frost, the former Brexit negotiator, said that the conference was "a further piece of evidence that many in our political and business establishment want to unravel the deals we did to exit the EU in 2020". Frost, of course, has long been calling for the unravelling of one aspect of the deal we did to exit the EU, namely the Northern Ireland protocol. Briefings from the government suggest that a deal will soon be reached but there may be insufficient unravelling for Frost's taste.

The event at Ditchley Park, a country house, involved both those who favoured Remain and Leave in 2016. If any consensus emerged from the discussions, it would have been along the lines of wanting "incremental improvements" to UK-EU relations, to use the phrase of the former Conservative Europe minister David Lidington, one of the participants. To the extent that there is any significance to the event, it is the possibility of a Brexit truce, rather than a Brexit betrayal, that should concern us.

It has long been the case that the Labour Party is nervous of reopening the issue of Brexit. It needs the votes of Red Wall leavers and fears a Tory campaign to "keep Brexit done". David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, who was present at Ditchley Park, has set out ways in which UK-EU relations can be improved but these very much fall into the category of incremental improvements.

The most intriguing attendee was Michael Gove. He was a senior figure in the Leave campaign but was also a pragmatist during the Brexit quagmire of 2018-19. Gove's thinking then (and I assume now), was that the biggest risk to Brexit was for it to demonstrably do harm to the UK. He was determined to avoid inflicting a no-deal Brexit not just because of the immediate damage it would do but because he believed that the ensuing chaos would have put Brexit as a whole at risk. Better, in Gove's opinion, to take the long view and for the UK to diverge gradually from the EU, taking advantage of the "benefits of Brexit" as and when such benefits became clear.

There is no reason to think Gove's approach has changed. His view is that to secure Brexit, therefore, the priority should be to mitigate the problems created by leaving the EU, not rush into delivering Brexit purity.

It is in this context that one can start to see how some common ground can be found between the government wanting to avoid further economic damage and the opposition wanting to neutralise a political vulnerability. Both sides know that the current arrangements are not working; both sides believe that incremental improvements are in their political interests. A Brexit truce looks in the offing.

Compared with everything that we have gone through in the last seven years, it is welcome that there is an acceptance of trade-offs and compromises and a cooling of the temperature. A bit more of this four years ago and our recent history may have turned out very differently. As Martin Fletcher pointed out, those involved in the Ditchley Park exercise, and Gove in particular, deserve praise.

Content from our partners

But will it work? Is it possible that incremental improvements - a deal on the Northern Ireland protocol and (assuming the EU agrees) greater co-operation on science and financial services - will win sufficient cross-party support that a new consensus can be formed? And will any Brexit truce last?

The immediate threat to any truce, of course, comes from the Brexit hardliners. Their reaction to the Ditchley Park reports shows that they will always be quick to cry betrayal. They reject Gove's gradualist approach. Their view is that the EU's gravitational pull is strong and if the UK is not determinedly escaping its orbit it will be pulled back. This explains the support for the ludicrous Retained EU Law Bill, which would review or revoke around 4,000 European laws. It creates uncertainty for businesses and grants the executive extraordinary legislative powers but, they hope, also makes it harder for future UK governments to converge with the EU.

There is also a political calculation. For some constituencies, a Brexit truce is the last thing the Tories need. Never mind convergence with the EU, it is Conservative convergence with Labour on this issue that will concern many Tory MPs reliant on Leave voters. A new pragmatism on Europe requires Rishi Sunak to confront some of his parliamentary colleagues.

Keir Starmer's problem is likely to emerge over a longer period. The Labour leader's challenge is not that a truce involves too close a relationship with the EU but that it is not close enough. However sensible these incremental improvements may be, they will not be economically transformative. Trade will still involve greater friction than it did, the UK will still be a less attractive location for investment than it was, the point of Brexit will, if anything, prove to be even more elusive.

The UK-EU relationship will cease to deteriorate and there will be small but tangible improvements on the current circumstances. But, after Starmer has won office, this is unlikely to be good enough for those truly ambitious for the UK economy. It may be the Brexiteers who will try to prevent a truce being declared but, assuming they fail, it will be those who want a closer relationship with the EU that will bring any truce to an end.
Read more: This Brexit truce was inevitable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Labour government would face inexorable pressure from Remainers to pursue a far deeper relationship with the EU.

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit shows a complex connection with globalisation. On the one hand, it expresses worries about sovereignty and immigration, emerging as a response to certain features of globalisation. On the other side, it demonstrates the globalised world's interconnectedness. Brexit's trade consequences, financial market repercussions, difficulties to global supply chains, and the need to redefine global diplomatic relations highlight how regional actions may have far-reaching global consequences, highlighting the intricate web of global interconnectedness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the United Kingdom continues to be gripped by the great Brexit debate, and will be so for many months to come, a surprising statement comes from the chief economist of the Bank of England, Andy Haldane. It is the Haldane view that leaving the European Union single market will have little material effect on the British economic growth - at least for the next three years.

But how can this be? Surely the whole debate has revolved round the damage that would supposedly be done to British business and exports by being denied access to the single market, with all its protective tariff walls, its standards and regulations. Will not the daily flow of goods, components, processes and personnel between Britain and the rest of the continent be fatally interrupted and penalized, cutting off British exporters from what is said to be the world's largest single market area?

Or is it possible that this highly esteemed expert has perceived something about the nature of modern trade which has escaped the more excitable politicians and their advisers?

Certainly there are some changes in the very nature of modern international trade between the Group of Seven advanced nations and the so-called developing countries that have not been much noticed. The first is that since about 1990 a huge shift has taken place in the respective shares of global GDP as between the North and the Atlantic west on one side and in favor of the South and the Asian east on the other.

As information and communications costs have spiraled down to near zero, and as information storage capacity has grown at an exponential rate, the pattern of production by the world's manufacturing giants has become heavily internationalized and dispersed. Processes and stages in the production of a single item or piece of machinery or consumer product have become spread between a dozen separate economies. The back-and-forth trade between richer countries of the 21st century has been replaced by a much wider flow of trade in goods, in components and above all in services between the richer North and a number of very fast developing but hitherto "poorer" countries. Suddenly production processes almost everywhere have become many times more internationalized.

This is what Richard Baldwin, in his groundbreaking book "The Great Convergence," describes as a new kind of globalization - over which governments have far less control than before, and which puts a question mark over the whole economic doctrine of nationally based comparative advantage, as proposed by the famous British economist David Ricardo.

The change has led to a turbo-charged growth in the flow of know-how, information packages, data and services of all kinds - financial, legal, design-related, instructional, managerial, human resource-linked, scientific, research-based, covering marketing systems, accountancy, insurance, creative industries of every kind, tourism facilities, travel organization. McKinsey & Co. estimates that data and information flows now generate more wealth than all global goods trade. Just for the record, for those who like mind-boggling figures, the world now generates 2.5 quintillion bytes of data every day. This is the boundless digital ocean soup in which international trade is now conducted.

It so happens that all of this kind of export commerce, now becoming totally dominant in global exchange, is extremely favorable to the British economy, of which no less than 80 percent lies in the services sector. Almost half of British overseas earnings come directly from services, and, on top of that, official figures confirm that 37 percent of the total value of manufactured goods products also consists of services. Categories of services and manufacturing are becoming inextricably blurred.

Now here is the key insight, which may have triggered the chief economist's remark. These huge digital export flows, so central to British prosperity and growth, cannot be caught by any tariffs, whether their source is inside or outside the single market. They know no national boundaries. They have certainly been subject to endless local and national marketing restrictions throughout the EU, preventing, say, free selling of financial or insurance products or consultancy services. As a member of the EU for the past 40 years, the U.K. has struggled in vain from within the club to get these restrictions eased and a genuine European market in services established. Perhaps it will have better luck from outside.

As for manufactured goods, 80 percent of the global traded total are already tariff-free, while if the EU were to impose tariffs against a departing Britain they would be mostly insignificant, especially if offset by a low pound. Meanwhile, in the former developing world tariffs have been dismantled and barriers to inward investment lifted, China being the classic example.

Either way, the bottom line is that this revolutionary and disruptive new pattern of trade that has recently emerged is barely touched by the single market or the EU Customs Union. Hence the conclusion that whether the U.K. is in or out of the existing EU single market makes very little difference. Haldane puts a three-year limit on his estimate. But the trends described above can only get stronger.

Complex global value chains, now slicing up different stages of production in different countries - again with little global control - make the old-style protected single market even less relevant (and harder to police), and the new pattern of globalization ever stronger.

It seems fair to suggest that Haldane's three-year time frame may turn out to last very much longer. It could be that robots and artificial intelligence are going to be a far more serious challenge to jobs and growth for millions than any exclusion from, or inclusion in, a protected zone like the single market. In that case the priority for a modern economy to prosper becomes skills, education, creativity and innovation.

Nothing else is going to matter very much.
David Howell is a British Conservative politician, journalist and economic consultant.
LATEST COMMENTARY STORIES

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit versus the new globalization | The Japan Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the United Kingdom continues to be gripped by the great Brexit debate, and will be so for many months to come, a surprising statement comes from the chief economist of the Bank of England, Andy Haldane.

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit is considered a Rejection of Globalisation because it implements the UK's decision to reject and leave an international organisation, the European Union as part of a broader shift away from supranational cooperation and global integration. It is a protest against the economic model and needing independence. Additionally, Europe has had a negative impact on the improvement of jobs, living standards and welfare states. The primary goal of Britain was to regain sovereignty and control over its laws, borders, trade policies, and immigration, therefore a rejection. - Zara

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the United Kingdom continues to be gripped by the great Brexit debate, and will be so for many months to come, a surprising statement comes from the chief economist of the Bank of England, Andy Haldane. It is the Haldane view that leaving the European Union single market will have little material effect on the British economic growth - at least for the next three years.

But how can this be? Surely the whole debate has revolved round the damage that would supposedly be done to British business and exports by being denied access to the single market, with all its protective tariff walls, its standards and regulations. Will not the daily flow of goods, components, processes and personnel between Britain and the rest of the continent be fatally interrupted and penalized, cutting off British exporters from what is said to be the world's largest single market area?

Or is it possible that this highly esteemed expert has perceived something about the nature of modern trade which has escaped the more excitable politicians and their advisers?

Certainly there are some changes in the very nature of modern international trade between the Group of Seven advanced nations and the so-called developing countries that have not been much noticed. The first is that since about 1990 a huge shift has taken place in the respective shares of global GDP as between the North and the Atlantic west on one side and in favor of the South and the Asian east on the other.

As information and communications costs have spiraled down to near zero, and as information storage capacity has grown at an exponential rate, the pattern of production by the world's manufacturing giants has become heavily internationalized and dispersed. Processes and stages in the production of a single item or piece of machinery or consumer product have become spread between a dozen separate economies. The back-and-forth trade between richer countries of the 21st century has been replaced by a much wider flow of trade in goods, in components and above all in services between the richer North and a number of very fast developing but hitherto "poorer" countries. Suddenly production processes almost everywhere have become many times more internationalized.

This is what Richard Baldwin, in his groundbreaking book "The Great Convergence," describes as a new kind of globalization - over which governments have far less control than before, and which puts a question mark over the whole economic doctrine of nationally based comparative advantage, as proposed by the famous British economist David Ricardo.

The change has led to a turbo-charged growth in the flow of know-how, information packages, data and services of all kinds - financial, legal, design-related, instructional, managerial, human resource-linked, scientific, research-based, covering marketing systems, accountancy, insurance, creative industries of every kind, tourism facilities, travel organization. McKinsey & Co. estimates that data and information flows now generate more wealth than all global goods trade. Just for the record, for those who like mind-boggling figures, the world now generates 2.5 quintillion bytes of data every day. This is the boundless digital ocean soup in which international trade is now conducted.

It so happens that all of this kind of export commerce, now becoming totally dominant in global exchange, is extremely favorable to the British economy, of which no less than 80 percent lies in the services sector. Almost half of British overseas earnings come directly from services, and, on top of that, official figures confirm that 37 percent of the total value of manufactured goods products also consists of services. Categories of services and manufacturing are becoming inextricably blurred.

Now here is the key insight, which may have triggered the chief economist's remark. These huge digital export flows, so central to British prosperity and growth, cannot be caught by any tariffs, whether their source is inside or outside the single market. They know no national boundaries. They have certainly been subject to endless local and national marketing restrictions throughout the EU, preventing, say, free selling of financial or insurance products or consultancy services. As a member of the EU for the past 40 years, the U.K. has struggled in vain from within the club to get these restrictions eased and a genuine European market in services established. Perhaps it will have better luck from outside.

As for manufactured goods, 80 percent of the global traded total are already tariff-free, while if the EU were to impose tariffs against a departing Britain they would be mostly insignificant, especially if offset by a low pound. Meanwhile, in the former developing world tariffs have been dismantled and barriers to inward investment lifted, China being the classic example.

Either way, the bottom line is that this revolutionary and disruptive new pattern of trade that has recently emerged is barely touched by the single market or the EU Customs Union. Hence the conclusion that whether the U.K. is in or out of the existing EU single market makes very little difference. Haldane puts a three-year limit on his estimate. But the trends described above can only get stronger.

Complex global value chains, now slicing up different stages of production in different countries - again with little global control - make the old-style protected single market even less relevant (and harder to police), and the new pattern of globalization ever stronger.

It seems fair to suggest that Haldane's three-year time frame may turn out to last very much longer. It could be that robots and artificial intelligence are going to be a far more serious challenge to jobs and growth for millions than any exclusion from, or inclusion in, a protected zone like the single market. In that case the priority for a modern economy to prosper becomes skills, education, creativity and innovation.

Nothing else is going to matter very much.
David Howell is a British Conservative politician, journalist and economic consultant.
LATEST COMMENTARY STORIES

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit versus the new globalization | The Japan Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the United Kingdom continues to be gripped by the great Brexit debate, and will be so for many months to come, a surprising statement comes from the chief economist of the Bank of England, Andy Haldane.

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit is a rejection of globalization as it entails Great Britain maintaining control over its national policies and embraces British patriotism. Examples include:

Britain's desire for:

Free trade

Self-produced laws (immigration, border control)

Democratic control

Access to better healthcare

More investments into British amenities

# data[].attributes.body
Brexit is an example of rejection of globalisation because as a community, Britian wanted to become more independent and seperate themselves from views, laws etc that didn't aline with theirs. Some felt threatened by the obligation required to the EU and as though Europe were putting them in a position where they had to comply to things not agreed upon. The 'yes' vote for the Brexit referendum looked towards more nationalist ways of life such as limiting immigration.

# data[].attributes.body
Ultimately, Brexit is a rejection of globalisation as it puts the living conditions and lifestyles of the citizens above everything else. Rejecting globalisation has positives and negatives for the people of Great Britain as they lose the high interconnectivity between other regions within the EU, in order to create a society with stronger control over its own laws and systems. (Miles)

# data[].attributes.body
How is Brexit an example of rejection of globalization?

the meaning of Globalization is; the trade and technology have made the world into a more connected and interdependent place. By the United Kingdom leaving the EU, for reasons of wanting independence with their money, decision making, and their rejection of assimilation, contradicts the idea of globalization purpose of connecting countries and cultures. Brexit broke ties with trade, easy/accessible transportation, and broke the sense of unity and identity in the EU, rejecting the fundamental qualities of Globalization.

# data[].attributes.body
(ben) Brexit is considered a rejection of certain aspects of globalization because it involves the UK's decision to regain control over its national policies, trade agreements, and borders, which is a move away from the European Union and by extension certain elements of globalization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Globecartoon - Political Cartoons - Patrick Chappatte

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A post-Brexit world

July 6, 2016

Topics : Brexitland, Putin's war

Keywords : Border, Brexit, Democracy, European Union, Far Right, France, Globalization, Great Britain, Independence, Marine Le Pen, Nationalism, Putin, Trump, Russia, United Kingdom, USA, Xenophobia

Boris Johnson at the top

December 13, 2019

Theresa May vows to stand down

March 29, 2019

Will Britain leave the European Union?

January 25, 2013

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
globecartoon - political cartoons - patrick chappatte

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A post-Brexit world July 6, 2016 Topics : Brexitland, Putin's war Keywords : Border, Brexit, Democracy, European Union, Far Right, France, Globalization, Great Britain, Independence, Marine Le Pen, Nationalism, Putin, Trump, Russia, United Kingdom, USA, Xenophobia December 13, 2019 March 29, 2019 January 25, 2013

# data[].attributes.body
The desire to obtain control and keep their laws

High rejection of migration as some claim has negatively impacted the housing market and employment.

seeking independent trade and not being part of the larger apparently globalized eu

The idea people speaking other languages makes people uncomfortable, brexit ideal

The idea brexit does not want to deal with people who dont assimilate