# data[].attributes.headline
General information on causes facts and consequences

# data[].attributes.subject
General information on causes facts and consequences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After months of negotiations, the UK and European Union finally agreed a deal that will define their future relationship, which comes into effect at 23.00GMT on 31 December.

It has. The UK voted to leave the EU in 2016 and officially left the trading bloc - its nearest and biggest trading partner - on 31 January 2020.

However, both sides agreed to keep many things the same until 31 December 2020, to allow enough time to agree to the terms of a new trade deal.

It was a complex, sometimes bitter negotiation, but they finally agreed a deal on 24 December.

The deal contains new rules for how the UK and EU will live, work and trade together.

While the UK was in the EU, companies could buy and sell goods across EU borders without paying taxes and there were no limits on the amount of things which could be traded.

Under the terms of the deal, that won't change on 1 January, but to be sure that neither side has an unfair advantage, both sides had to agree to some shared rules and standards on workers' rights, as well as many social and environmental regulations. You can read more detail on other aspects of the deal, including more on travel, fishing, and financial services, here.

Freedom to work and live between the UK and the EU also comes to an end, and in 2021, UK nationals will need a visa if they want to stay in the EU more than 90 days in a 180-day period.

Northern Ireland will continue to follow many of the EU's rules in order to avoid a hardening of its border with the Republic of Ireland. This will mean however that new checks will be introduced on goods entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK.

Now that it's no longer in the EU, the UK is free to set its own trade policy and can negotiate deals with other countries. Talks are being held with the US, Australia and New Zealand - countries that currently don't have free trade deals with the EU.

There may not be new taxes to pay at the border, but there will be new paperwork, and the potential for it to cause delays is a serious concern.

"This is the biggest imposition of red tape that businesses have had to deal with in 50 years," according to William Bain from the British Retail Consortium.

The UK says it will delay making most checks for six months, to allow people to get used to the new system, but the EU will be checking paperwork and carrying out checks from day one. So if businesses are not prepared, or do not fill in the new paperwork correctly, it could cause delays and backlogs at ports like Dover.

The government has known about this for years, and has made plans to divert trade to other ports around the country and has built lorry parks in Kent, to avoid gridlock on the roads.

It's difficult to predict what the scale of any disruption might be, but government minister Michael Gove has said that UK businesses should prepare for some "bumpy moments".

Sadly, no. Decisions are still to be made on data sharing and on financial services, and the agreement on fishing only lasts five years.

Also while the UK and EU have agreed to some identical rules now, they don't have to be identical in the future, and if one side takes exception to the changes, they can trigger a dispute, which could ultimately lead to tariffs (charges on imports) being imposed on some goods in the future.

Expect the threat of disputes to be a new constant in UK-EU relations.

What Brexit words mean

The last few years have seen many words and phrases enter our lives. We haven't used them here, but politicians do use them. Here's what some of them mean:

Transition period: The 11-month period following the UK's exit from the EU (finishing at the end of 2020), during which time the UK has followed EU rules, to allow leaders to make a deal.

Free trade: Trade between two countries, where neither side charges taxes or duties on goods crossing borders.

Level playing field: A set of rules to ensure that one country, or group of countries, doesn't have an unfair advantage over another. This can involve areas such as workers' rights and environmental standards. Free trade agreements like the Brexit deal often include level playing field measures.

Tariff: A tax or duty to be paid on goods crossing borders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit: What you need to know about the UK leaving the EU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK and EU begin a new relationship on 1 January 2021.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mr Winston Churchill speaking in Zurich (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UK's vote to leave the EU has already had a number of worrying effects. The strength of the pound is in question, and the leadership of the Labour Party and Ukip are still in disarray. For those in the Remain camp, this was all utterly predictable; it is the canary in the coal mine. Those who sided with the Leave campaign, however, are more sanguine.

The current political and economic turmoil will subside, they say, and with time the UK will bounce back with an even stronger economy and greater political autonomy - just some of the many positive by-products of reasserting the national power that had been lost to the much-maligned bureaucrats in Brussels. The logic is simple: although the UK was already in command of its foreign and military policy, by cutting the institutional ties that bound it to Europe it will regain freedom of action over that other major element of great power status - the economy. It will become sovereign once more, and thus able to chart its own course.

But the idea that the UK will gain power by removing itself from the EU is based on a profoundly mistaken understanding of where the UK's great power status comes from. While it is tempting to reduce state power to military capabilities and economic power, such a calculation fails to appreciate the other forms of power that states can accrue. But while harder to measure, less-tangible sources of power have been the foundation of the UK's great power status for much of the last 70 years.

Download the new Independent Premium app

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

In recent years, the maintenance of these sources of power was strongly dependent on the UK being in the driving seat of a continental political entity. So severely will these foundations of power be eroded by Brexit that their loss will far outweigh any putative economic benefits the UK may achieve by leaving. To put it another way, even if the UK's economy grew as a result of its decision to leave - an outcome few predict - Brexit would still mean the end of the UK as a major power.

It has long been acknowledged that the UK has been punching above its weight on the global stage, but people are less clear as to why this is. Since Anthony Eden's failed attempt at asserting neocolonialist control over the Suez Canal in 1956, the UK has commanded a declining share of the world's economy and a declining military budget, especially relative to other great powers. Yet, despite this material decline, it has retained an outsized influence on global affairs.

There are several reasons for this, such as the remnants of imperial relationships including a shared history and culture with the hegemonic US. But, we contend, a major reason has been due to its position as a key player, along with France and Germany, in the EU, a polity that could jostle with the US and China at the top of the global hierarchy. This position generated at least three different forms of political influence that it will now lose.

First, the most obvious benefit of being a senior partner in the EU was that the UK could help to navigate the shape of the European project in a way that met its particular foreign and economic policies. Leavers were certainly right that Britain sometimes had to take deals that did not suit it, but the reality was that the UK was able to set the terms of the EU's institutional structure. The UK's presence in the EU helped to steer the project towards being more market-friendly than it otherwise might have been.

UK membership also acted as a brake on the integrating tendencies of the EU, preventing the centralisation of too much power on the continent. Membership thus allowed Britain to help meet two of its longstanding strategic goals since the time of Napoleon: the promotion of European free-trade and the prevention of the emergence of a continental hegemon. Outside the EU, it can no longer meet these goals through institutional design and management. Instead, it must rely on its traditional power capabilities which, when arrayed against the market fortress that is the EU, will have far less impact.

Second, as a consequence of being the 'sceptical' member of the EU's leadership triumvirate, the UK also gained a number of followers inside Europe. Britain's suspicion of Brussels' authority and its preference for a more market-oriented union are shared by many other states in the EU, most notably the post-communist Eastern European members who acceded in the last 15 years. As the strongest representative of these shared interests, the UK could credibly act as spokesperson on their behalf. The ability to speak on behalf of many other states (either implicitly or explicitly) meant that the UK had to be listened to and courted by other states. Now that it is headed out of the EU, Britain cannot claim to represent a broader constituency of states.

Of which state is this post-EU UK representative, except itself? Eurosceptic states inside the EU will have to form a new bloc to meet their interests while Eurosceptic states outside the EU will bypass the UK entirely in having their concerns addressed.

This last point illustrates the final element of British power that has been shattered by Brexit - its position on the global stage. The UK's privileged position inside the EU meant that it was an important "plug socket" into the EU for outside states. Consider the much-vaunted "special relationship" between the US and the UK. The quid pro quo for this was reasonably clear: in return for American support of British interests, such as in Kosovo in 1999 and in Libya in 2011, the UK would act as an advocate for US ideas and policies inside Europe.

But this relationship was dependent on Britain's access to, and positions within, the decision-making apparatus of the EU. With its new found "freedom". the UK is a political outsider, with less political intelligence, fewer British personnel in key positions and less good-will with European officials. Thus it is less able to promote US interests in Europe.

Indeed, Washington is already moving its focus from London to Berlin. This is a dynamic we should expect to repeat itself in every international political relationship the UK has. Its important role as seasoned broker in the UN Security Council will be reduced (most likely in favour of France) when other diplomats realise that Britain will have a harder time bringing the other Europeans along. The same will be true in the G7, the G20, the WTO, the IMF, and of course, the EU itself.

Brexiteers claimed that by leaving the EU they would finally cut the ropes that tied the UK down and prevented it from achieving its potential. But they failed to realise that the UK had already far exceeded the political potential that its GDP and military capabilities suggested it deserved. Rather than binding its political power, the UK's close ties to the EU helped it to have an outsized influence on the continental and global stage.

Now the ropes have been cut, in this - and far too late - those ropes have been found to be the UK's political lifelines. For the first time since 1973, the UK will truly be on its own, forced to rely far more on its raw economic and military power than it has for a generation. This does not augur well. In the modern interconnected world naked power is an inefficient tool of statecraft and states more often meet their interests through subtler forms of influence.

Yes, Britain is free of one of the most complicated institutional structures in history. But political freedom can also mean political isolation. Just ask Russia.
David Banks is a professorial lecturer specialising in political history at the American University in Washington DC. Joseph O'Mahoney is a Stanton junior faculty fellow in the Security Studies Program at MIT and an assistant professor in the school of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
After Brexit, Britain is free - but it will never be a global power again

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK's vote to leave the EU has already had a number of worrying effects. The strength of the pound is in question, and the leadership of the Labour Party and Ukip are still in disarray. For those in the Remain camp, this was all utterly predictable; it is the canary in the coal mine.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By a 52-48 percent margin, the popular vote in the United Kingdom last night moved to detach the country from the European Union.

It's been a momentous event, building up for months with anticipation and anxiety domestically and abroad, marked by bitter campaigning, sharp regional disagreements and the murder of an anti-"Brexit" member of Parliament, Jo Cox.

But if you judge a country's interests only by prevalent Google searches, it was after the polls closed when British voters started to think seriously about the implications of their choice.

According to data from Google Trends, the searches for "what is the eu" and "what is brexit" started climbing across Britain late into the night. The polls closed at 10 p.m. local time.

Though of course searches for these questions were dwarfed by the general interest in "Brexit results," the question "what is the EU" spiked in popularity across all parts of the U.K., in this order: Northern Ireland, Wales, England, Scotland.

Google Trends, on Twitter, has highlighted a few local spikes, too, with "what is Brexit" a top search related to the referendum in both Northern Ireland and Scotland. Both of them voted in favor of remaining in the EU.

Londoners specifically did a lot of googling for "move to Gibraltar." ( Gibraltar is a British territory in southern Europe.)

Like many in the U.K., people around the world are starting to figure out what Brexit is and what it means. Driven in large part by concerns about immigration, Britain's unexpected decision to exit the EU won't be settled for a few years and leaves a lot of uncertainty about the future of trade and cooperation.

Read more of NPR's coverage of Brexit here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
After Brexit Vote, Britain Asks Google: 'What Is The EU?'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By a 52-48 percent margin, the popular vote in the United Kingdom last night moved to detach the country from the European Union. It's been a momentous event, building up for months with anticipation and anxiety domestically and abroad, marked by bitter campaigning, sharp regional disagreements and the murder of an anti-"Brexit" member of Parliament, Jo Cox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This noble continent, comprising on the whole the fairest and the most cultivated regions of the earth; enjoying a temperate and equable climate, is the home of all the great parent races of the western world. It is the fountain of Christian faith and Christian ethics. It is the origin of most of the culture, arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modem times.

If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and glory which its three or four hundred million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that have sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations, which we have seen even in this twentieth century and in our own lifetime, wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.

And what is the plight to which Europe has been reduced?

Some of the smaller States have indeed made a good recovery, but over wide areas a vast quivering mass of tormented, hungry, care-worn and bewildered human beings gape at the ruins of their cities and homes, and scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new peril, tyranny or terror.

Among the victors there is a babel of jarring voices; among the vanquished the sullen silence of despair.

That is all that Europeans, grouped in so many ancient States and nations, that is all that the Germanic Powers have got by tearing each other to pieces and spreading havoc far and wide.

Indeed, but for the fact that the great Republic across the Atlantic Ocean has at length realised that the ruin or enslavement of Europe would involve their own fate as well, and has stretched out hands of succour and guidance, the Dark Ages would have returned in all their cruelty and squalor.

They may still return.

Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene, and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is today.

What is this sovereign remedy?

It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom.

We must build a kind of United States of Europe.

In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living.

The process is simple.

All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong, and gain as their reward, blessing instead of cursing.

Much work has been done upon this task by the exertions of the Pan-European Union which owes so much to Count Coudenhove-Kalergi and which commanded the services of the famous French patriot and statesman, Aristide Briand.

There is also that immense body of doctrine and procedure, which was brought into being amid high hopes after the First World War, as the League of Nations.

The League of Nations did not fail because of its principles or conceptions. It failed because these principles were deserted by those States who had brought it into being. It failed because the Governments of those days feared to face the facts and act while time remained. This disaster must not be repeated. There is, therefore, much knowledge and material with which to build; and also bitter dear-bought experience.

I was very glad to read in the newspapers two days ago that my friend President Truman had expressed his interest and sympathy with this great design.

There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings.

There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact its main support.

And why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent and why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings in shaping the destinies of men?

In order that this should be accomplished, there must be an act of faith in which millions of families speaking many languages must consciously take part.

We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly united Germany to play the dominating part in the world.

In this last struggle crimes and massacres have been committed for which there is no parallel since the invasions of the Mongols in the fourteenth century and no equal at any time in human history.

The guilty must be punished. Germany must be deprived of the power to rearm and make another aggressive war.

But when all this has been done, as it will be done, as it is being done, there must be an end to retribution. There must be what Mr Gladstone many years ago called 'a blessed act of oblivion'.

We must all turn our backs upon the horrors of the past. We must look to the future. We cannot afford to drag forward across the years that are to come the hatreds and revenges which have sprung from the injuries of the past.

If Europe is to be saved from infinite misery, and indeed from final doom, there must be an act of faith in the European family and an act of oblivion against all the crimes and follies of the past.

Can the free peoples of Europe rise to the height of these resolves of the soul and instincts of the spirit of man?

If they can, the wrongs and injuries which have been inflicted will have been washed away on all sides by the miseries which have been endured.

Is there any need for further floods of agony?

Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?

Let there be justice, mercy and freedom.

The peoples have only to will it, and all will achieve their hearts' desire.

I am now going to say something that will astonish you.

The first step in the re-creation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germany.

In this way only can France recover the moral leadership of Europe.

There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany.

The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause.

The ancient states and principalities of Germany, freely joined together for mutual convenience in a federal system, might each take their individual place among the United States of Europe. I shall not try to make a detailed programme for hundreds of millions of people who want to be happy and free, prosperous and safe, who wish to enjoy the four freedoms of which the great President Roosevelt spoke, and live in accordance with the principles embodied in the Atlantic Charter. If this is their wish, they have only to say so, and means can certainly be found, and machinery erected, to carry that wish into full fruition.

But I must give you warning. Time may be short.

At present there is a breathing-space. The cannon have ceased firing. The fighting has stopped; but the dangers have not stopped.

If we are to form the United States of Europe or whatever name or form it may take, we must begin now.

In these present days we dwell strangely and precariously under the shield and protection of the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb is still only in the hands of a State and nation which we know will never use it except in the cause of right and freedom. But it may well be that in a few years this awful agency of destruction will be widespread and the catastrophe following from its use by several warring nations will not only bring to an end all that we call civilisation, but may possibly disintegrate the globe itself.

I must now sum up the propositions which are before you.

Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the strength of the United Nations Organisation.

Under and within that world concept, we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe.

The first step is to form a Council of Europe.

If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.

The salvation of the common people of every race and of every land from war or servitude must be established on solid foundations and must be guarded by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than submit to tyranny.

In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead together.

Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America, and I trust Soviet Russia - for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine.

...................

__________________

THE MAIN INDEX Search the web site. Contact the society. TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE CHURCHILL SOCIETY.

To purchase an 80 minute CD of
Churchill's War Time Speeches
(one is given free to new members)

To purchase a Bust of Churchill.

(All the profits go towards the society's educational work).

To purchase the Double CD (or Tape Cassette)
of
Rutherlyn's

THE CHURCHILL MUSIC. Reviews of The Churchill Music.

_________________THE CHURCHILL SOCIETY

Internet pages provide general information only.

Whilst we make every endeavour to check our facts, mistakes do occur.

The society cannot be held liable for any special, direct, indirect or consequential damages.

It is your responsibility to verify the accuracy of any information supplied by e mail
or contained on any of these pages.
__________DISCLAIMER

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Churchill Society London. Churchill's Speeches.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This noble continent, comprising on the whole the fairest and the most cultivated regions of the earth; enjoying a temperate and equable climate, is the home of all the great parent races of the western world. It is the fountain of Christian faith and Christian ethics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A woman who voted to Leave the European Union on Thursday has said that she is "very disappointed" by the results.

The woman spoke at Manchester Airport, saying that "reality" has now hit her and that given her chance again she would vote to remain.

The student said her decision was due to "the pressure of being told" by the two competing sides who she should vote for.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
leave voter 'disappointed' and wishes to vote remain. eu referendum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Leave voter 'disappointed' and wishes to vote remain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A woman who voted to Leave the European Union on Thursday has said that she is "very disappointed" by the results. The woman spoke at Manchester Airport, saying that "reality" has now hit her and that given her chance again she would vote to remain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
he rather patronising English joke used to be that whenever the Irish question was about to be solved, the Irish would change the question. And now, when the Irish question seemed indeed to have been solved, at least for a generation, it is the English who have changed the question.

Recklessly, casually, with barely a thought, English nationalists have planted a bomb under the settlement that brought peace to Northern Ireland and close cordiality to relations between Britain and Ireland. To do this seriously and soberly would have been bad. To do it so carelessly, with nothing more than a pat on the head and a reassurance that everything will be all right, is frankly insulting.

Just five years ago, when Queen Elizabeth became the first reigning British monarch to visit southern Ireland in a century, there was a massive sense of relief. It was not just relief that the visit went off peacefully and well. It was much deeper than that: it was relief from centuries of both British condescension and Irish Anglophobia. A long story - often nasty, sometimes merely tediously wasteful - was over. There was a dignified, decent, democratic settlement that allowed the natural warmth of a neighbourly relationship to come fully to the surface.

I never imagined then that I would ever feel bitter about England again. But I do feel bitter now, because England has done a very bad day's work for Ireland. It is dragging Irish history along in its triumphal wake, like tin cans tied to a wedding car.

All but a few diehards had learned to live with the partition of the island of Ireland. Why? Because the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic had become so soft as to be barely noticeable. If you crossed it, you had to change currencies, and if you were driving you had to remember that the speed limits were changing from kilometres per hour to miles. But these are just banal details. They do not impinge on the simple, ordinary experience of people sharing an island without having to be deeply conscious of division.

A 'money exchanged' sign at the border between Newry in Northern Ireland and Dundalk in the Republic of Ireland. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images

What will now happen is not that the old border will come back. It's much worse than that. The old border marked the line between neighbouring polities that had a common travel area and an intimate, if often fraught, relationship. It was a customs barrier. The new border will be the most westerly land frontier of a vast entity of more than 400 million people, and it will be an immigration (as well as a customs) barrier.

It will, if the Brexiters' demands to take back control of immigration to the UK are meant seriously, have to be heavily policed to keep EU migrants who have lawfully entered the Republic from moving into the UK. And it will run between Newry and Dundalk, between Letterkenny and Derry. The Dublin-Belfast train will have to stop for passport controls. (Given that the border could not be secured with army watchtowers during the Troubles, it is not at all clear how this policing operation will work.)

Meanwhile, the cornerstone of the peace settlement, the Belfast agreement of 1998, is being undermined. One of the key provisions of the agreement is that anyone born in Northern Ireland has the right to be a citizen of the UK or Ireland or both. What does that mean in the new dispensation? Can someone be both an EU citizen and not an EU citizen? Likewise, the agreement underpins human rights through the "complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights". Though not strictly required by Brexit, the leave leadership is committed to removing the convention from UK law - in other words to ripping out a core part of the peace settlement.

But the Belfast agreement isn't some minor memorandum. It is an international treaty, registered with the United Nations. It is also arguably the greatest modern achievement of British diplomacy, partly crafted by public servants and made possible by British politicians, especially John Major and Tony Blair. It is one of the most successful models for conflict resolution around the world. Messing around with it is an insult, not just to Ireland, but to Britain's international standing.

This fecklessness in turn is deeply unsettling for unionists in Northern Ireland. It suggests that the new English nationalism is completely indifferent to their fate. During the referendum debates, a few pro-remain voices, such as the TUC general secretary, Frances O'Grady (herself of Irish descent), tried to make a gentle plea to voters to think about Ireland and the Belfast agreement. They went unheard. English nationalists, it turns out, wouldn't give the froth off a pint of real ale for the Irish peace process.

And if they don't care enough even to talk in any serious way about the consequences of Brexit for Northern Ireland, what grounds are there to believe that when they come to power in their own little England they will care about (or pay for) a province they clearly regard as a closer, wetter Gibraltar, an irrelevant appendage of the motherland?

Northern Ireland desperately needed a generation of relative political boredom, in which ordinary issues such as taxation and the health service - rather than the unanswerable questions of national identity - could become the stuff of partisan debate. Brexit has made that impossible. Sinn Féin's immediate call for a referendum on a united Ireland may be reckless and opportunistic, but no more so than the Democratic Unionist party's failure to understand that Brexit is the best gift to Irish nationalists. It is the beginning of the breakup of the union and the rise of an independent England for which Northern Ireland will be no more than a distant nuisance.

When they take power, the Brexiters have a moral duty to think deeply and speak honestly about these effects of their victory. But the signs are that they will pay as much attention to them as gung-ho warriors typically give to any other kind of collateral damage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The English have placed a bomb under the Irish peace process | Fintan O'Toole

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
he rather patronising English joke used to be that whenever the Irish question was about to be solved, the Irish would change the question. And now, when the Irish question seemed indeed to have been solved, at least for a generation, it is the English who have changed the question.

# data[].attributes.body
Scotland and Brexit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scotland's first minister has said a second independence referendum is "highly likely" after the UK voted to leave the EU.

Nicola Sturgeon said it was "democratically unacceptable" that Scotland faced the prospect of being taken out of the EU against its will.

She said the Scottish government would begin preparing legislation to enable another independence vote.

Scotland voted in favour of the UK staying in the EU by 62% to 38%.

The UK as a whole has voted to leave, by a margin of 52% to 48%, prompting UK Prime Minister David Cameron to announce he would stand down by October.

The SNP manifesto for May's Holyrood elections said the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there was a "significant and material change" in the circumstances that prevailed at the time of the 2014 referendum, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against its will.

At a news conference in Edinburgh, Ms Sturgeon said: "It is, therefore, a statement of the obvious that a second referendum must be on the table, and it is on the table."

It looks "highly likely", says Nicola Sturgeon, that there will now be a second referendum upon Scottish independence.

Is she enthused by this prospect? Does she thrill at the notion? Is she buffing up her best lines from 2014? The answers to those questions would be no, no and, once again, no.

To be clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, Nicola Sturgeon remains rather keen on the concept of Scottish independence. Indeed, she yearns for it.

She knows that means another referendum at some point in the future. But not now. Not in these circumstances. Not in these troubled times.

Ms Sturgeon said the Scottish cabinet would meet on Saturday and she would make a statement to MSPs on Tuesday.

The first minister said there was now a significant divergence between Scotland and the rest of Britain which she "deeply regretted".

A majority of voters in all 32 council areas in Scotland voted Remain.

Speaking at her official residence, Bute House, she said: "I intend to take all possible steps and explore all possible options to give effect to how people in Scotland voted - in other words to secure our continuing place in the EU, and in the single market in particular."

Asked if there were any other options available to the Scottish government, she replied: "I think an independence referendum is now highly likely but I also think it is important that we take time to consider all steps and have the discussions, not least to assess the response of the European Union to the vote that Scotland expressed yesterday."

She also revealed she had spoken to London Mayor Sadiq Khan since the result and that he shared, for London, the desire to remain in the EU. "There is clear common cause between us," she said.

BBC Scotland took to the streets of towns and cities across the country to find out what people felt about the decision to leave the EU.

Ms Sturgeon said: "After a campaign that has been characterised in the rest of the UK by fear and hate, my priority in the days, weeks and months ahead will be to act at all times in the best interests of Scotland and in a way that unites, not divides us.

"Let me be clear about this. Whatever happens as a result of this outcome, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will always be Scotland's closest neighbours and our best friends - nothing will change that.

"But I want to leave no-one in any doubt about this. I am proud of Scotland and how we voted yesterday.

"We proved that we are a modern, outward looking and inclusive country and we said clearly that we do not want to leave the European Union.

"I am determine to do what it takes to make sure these aspirations are realised."

Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said she shared Ms Sturgeon's disappointment at the result - but she did not believe it justified holding another independence referendum.

In a statement she said: "Like the first minister I want to see stability prioritised in the days ahead. Scotland will open for business next week in the same way as it closes today.

"But I do not believe that a second independence referendum will help us achieve that stability nor that it is in the best interests of the people of Scotland."

Ms Davidson added that addressing the challenges of leaving the EU should not mean "leaving our own Union of nations".

She said she believed in Scotland's place within the UK "today as much as ever."

'Time for calmness'

Scottish Labour Leader Kezia Dugdale said the result was bad for jobs and the economy in Scotland and across the UK.

She added that she would be ready to work with Ms Sturgeon in the "best interests of the people of Scotland".

However, Ms Dugdale said she did not want to see a second Scottish independence referendum.

She explained: "On the question of independence, many of the fundamental questions that were unresolved and unanswered in 2014, remain so. Not least the question of currency. What we don't need today is more turmoil, more upheaval and more economic chaos."

Secretary of State for Scotland, David Mundell, said he would meet the Scottish government to ensure it was "fully involved" in negotiations surrounding the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

Responding to suggestions that the result could trigger a second independence referendum, he said now was "a time for calmness and deliberation, not pushing other personal or political agendas".

Scotland's only UKIP MEP David Coburn said it was "fantastic" that "we're out".

He added: "Whatever nonsense Nicola is coming out with, all this nonsense of another referendum, another neverendum - she's talking through her hat - because 40% of the population don't want anything to do with the EU."

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie said he was "angry that we have lost our place in Europe".

He said: "It is bad for our country and the people who live here. It means cutting our ties with our biggest economic market despite the consequences for trade, business, jobs and incomes."

Scottish Green co-convenor Patrick Harvie said Scotland "must keep open every option for protecting ourselves from this threat".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit: Nicola Sturgeon says second Scottish independence vote 'highly likely'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scotland's first minister has said a second independence referendum is "highly likely" after the UK voted to leave the EU. Nicola Sturgeon said it was "democratically unacceptable" that Scotland faced the prospect of being taken out of the EU against its will. She said the Scottish government would begin preparing legislation to enable another independence vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If you want to read 's sophisticated analysis of how the U.K. ending up voting "Leave" and what it will mean going forward for Europe, the United States, and the world, click here. If you want to laugh bitterly about "Leave" voters who just woke up, saw that the global economy is cratering, and have realized that they deeply regret their impulsive choice to cast a protest vote without fully considering its consequences, continue reading this post. (Above: Arrested Development 's Gob Bluth, a frequent maker of huge mistakes.)

Leave voter on BBC: "I'm shocked & worried. I voted Leave but didn't think my vote would count - I never thought it would actually happen."
- Laura Topham (@LauraTopham) June 24, 2016

Womp.

I voted leave to help our economy. However the £ has plummeted and I immediately regret my decision 🙄. Plus Farage is a lying tosser! 😡
- Ryan Richardson (@RyanRich_) June 24, 2016

Womp.

With leave voters in Manchester for BBCNews -most told us they woke up thinking "what have I done?" & didn't actually expect the uk to leave
- Louisa Compton (@louisa_compton) June 24, 2016

Womp.

A Leave voter tells @5_News that she regrets her choice: "This morning the reality is actually hitting in." https://t.co/1WusOhxtPg
- BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) June 24, 2016

Womp.

Womp.

Womp. ( Source.)

Womp. ( Source.)

Womp. Womp. Womp. WOMP WOMP WOMP WOMP WOMP WOMP. WHY DIDN'T YOU THINK ABOUT ALL OF THIS YESTERDAY, GUYS???

Read more of Slate's Brexit coverage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Best of British "Leave" Voters Realizing They've Made a Huge Mistake

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you want to read 's sophisticated analysis of how the U.K. ending up voting "Leave" and what it will mean going forward for Europe, the United States, and the world, click here.

# data[].attributes.body
UK's time in the EU - BBC News

# data[].attributes.headline
Doc 3 0:08 / 6:05Explaining Brexit in 6 Minutes

# data[].attributes.subject
Doc 3 0:08 / 6:05Explaining Brexit in 6 Minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Consumer affairs

This issue covers pricing, safety testing and ensuring customers are treated fairly.
Why this issue matters
The debate

The EU legislates on consumer protection issues and regulates on trading standards

The stated aims of the single market are to stimulate competition and trade, improve efficiency, raise quality, and cut prices

Campaigners disagree about the overall effect on household costs

Leave

EU red tape makes goods and services more expensive

The recent row over the "tampon tax" shows the EU has too much power, Britain should be able to set VAT rates itself

Consumer protection laws existed before the EU and would remain after Britain left

Remain

People in Britain save an average of £450 a year because prices are lower as a result of EU membership

Flights and mobile phone charges are among the goods and services that are cheaper

The EU ensures that imported goods meet European quality standards

Cost of membership

This issue looks at the costs of membership and what the UK receives from the EU.
Why this issue matters
The debate

The UK is a net contributor to the EU budget

The gross contribution in 2015 was £17.8bn but the UK rebate was worth £4.9bn

£4.4bn was also paid back to the UK government for farm subsidies and other programmes

Leave

The gross cost works out at £350m a week

If the UK left, billions of pounds would become available for other priorities

The UK would also be able to decide how to spend the money that the EU transfers back to it

Remain

Economic benefits of EU membership easily outweigh the cost

Other countries contribute more per person than the UK does

After Brexit, the UK would still have to contribute to the EU budget to retain access to the single market

Education and research

How education and scientific, technical and medical research relate to membership.
Why this issue matters
The debate

National governments are responsible for education but the EU promotes co-operation between member states

The EU plans to spend €80bn on research between 2014 and 2020 under the Horizon 2020 programme

Leave

Only 3% of total R&D spending in Britain is funded by the EU

The UK will be able to increase funding to science out of savings from not paying for EU membership

Britain could set its own immigration policy which could fast track scientists and graduates

Remain

UK universities receive millions in research funding from the EU

Many of the UK's top scientists come from elsewhere in Europe with the help of EU grants

The Erasmus programme allows British students to study abroad

Energy and environment

This issue covers energy availability and environmental protections.
Why this issue matters
The debate

The EU is in the process of developing an integrated energy market

There are several EU-wide policies to tackle climate change including the Emissions Trading Scheme

It also legislates on issues such as water quality and air pollution

Leave

EU environmental regulation can be an unnecessary burden on business and push up energy prices

Other European countries would still want to sell their electricity to the UK after Brexit

Most of the UK's gas imports come from Norway - Britain is not dependent on Russia

Remain

Leaving the EU would see energy bills rise by £500m

Britain's energy security is stronger as part of the EU because it negotiates as a large bloc

The UK has cleaner water and air, and lower greenhouse gas emissions, thanks to EU action

Farming and fishing

How the UK is affected by the Common Agricultural Policy and EU fishing policies.
Why this issue matters
The debate

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) remains the EU's biggest area of spending although its share of the budget is falling

EU subsidies account for 50% of British farm incomes

The EU's Common Fisheries Policy sets rules for the amount of fish each country's boats can catch

Leave

Britain pays more for the CAP than it gets back so leaving the EU would make more money available for UK farmers

The CAP also wastes lots of money on bureaucracy

The Common Fisheries Policy has devastated the British fishing industry

Remain

Many British farmers would go out of business without the support of the CAP

73% of UK farming exports go to the EU

It was the EU that forced France and Germany to lift bans on British beef

Fisheries have to be managed to prevent over-fishing

Global role and defence

This issue covers defence and the extent of Britain's influence in the world
Why this issue matters
The debate

The EU's role in foreign affairs has grown in recent years

Its foreign policy is led by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs who is assisted by the European External Action Service

Individual member states retain a veto on foreign policy proposals

Leave

Membership of Nato and the UN Security Council are more important to Britain's defence than the EU

The EU interferes with defence procurement and wants to set up its own army

Britain would have more influence on the world stage as an independent country

Remain

UK needs to be in the EU helping to take big decisions, not sitting on the sidelines

Leaving the EU would diminish Britain's influence on the world stage

Working with EU neighbours to tackle shared threats has helped keep Britain safer

Immigration

This issue covers immigration and free movement within Europe.
Why this issue matters
The debate

Total net migration to the UK is running at over 300,000 a year despite the government's target of cutting it to under 100,000

The most recent official figures put net migration from EU countries at 184,000 a year and non-EU at 188,000

EU citizens have the right to live and work in any member state

Leave

It is impossible to control immigration as a member of the EU

Public services are under strain because of the number of migrants

High immigration has driven down wages for British workers

Points-based system for migrants to the UK should be extended to include those from the EU

Remain

Immigrants, especially those from the EU, pay more in taxes than they take out

Cameron's EU deal means in-work benefits for new EU migrant workers will be limited for the first four years

Outside the EU the UK would still have to accept free movement to gain full access to the single market

Immigration is good for the economy

Policing and security

Cross-border policing and security collaboration but also freedom of movement.
Why this issue matters
The debate

Terror attacks in Paris and Brussels have brought security to the centre of the debate

The UK is not part of the Schengen borderless travel area but EU citizens have the right to free movement

Entry to Britain can be blocked if public security is at stake

Leave

Being in the EU makes it easier for terrorists to come to the UK

Supremacy of EU courts makes it harder to deport violent criminals

Britain would still co-operate with other European countries to fight terrorism after Brexit, as currently happens with the US

Remain

Britain does not have open borders because it is not in the Schengen area

Europol membership allows the UK to share intelligence and fight cross-border crime

The European Arrest Warrant has returned over 1,000 criminals to face justice in the UK

Sovereignty and laws

How far the UK has the ability to make its own laws and decide how it is governed.
Why this issue matters
The debate

The UK has to apply EU directives. EU regulations are binding across all member states

EU laws are proposed by the European Commission and most of them must be agreed by at least 16 national governments representing 65% of the EU population as well as the European Parliament

EU laws are enforced by the European Court of Justice (ECJ)

Leave

Most UK laws are made in Brussels

Other member states can force through decisions against the UK's wishes

The British government has repeatedly been defeated in cases brought to the ECJ

Leaving the EU is the only way to regain full sovereignty

Remain

Only a minority of UK laws derive from the EU

Britain retains a veto in many important areas

Cameron's EU deal allows national parliaments to block legislation

Some sharing of sovereignty is crucial to enable fair trade across Europe

Trade and economy

How trade and the UK's economy are affected by membership of the EU.
Why this issue matters
The debate

About half of UK overseas trade is conducted with the EU

The EU single market allows the free movement of goods, services, capital and workers

Trade negotiations with other parts of the world are conducted by the EU, not individual member states

Leave

UK companies would be freed from the burden of EU regulation

Trade with EU countries would continue because we import more from them than we export to them

Britain would be able to negotiate its own trade deals with other countries

Remain

Brexit would cause an economic shock and growth would be slower

As a share of exports Britain is more dependent on the rest of the EU than they are on us

The UK would still have to apply EU rules to retain access to the single market

Travel and living abroad

This issue covers travel for leisure or work, and living in other EU countries.
Why this issue matters
The debate

Over a million Britons live in other EU countries and millions more visit each year

Membership of the EU allows citizens to live and work where they like

The EU also makes rules which affect tourists travelling around Europe

Leave

There is no reason that leaving the EU would make it harder to go on holiday in Europe

International law means current expats could not be forced to return to the UK

The UK has deals with lots of other countries to help Britons living abroad

Remain

Flights to Europe and using mobile phones on holiday are cheaper thanks to the EU

British tourists enjoy free or cheaper healthcare in other EU countries

There is no guarantee that expats in the EU would be able to stay after Brexit

Work and pay

How working conditions and pay rates are affected by EU membership.
Why this issue matters
The debate

Unemployment is over 10% in the EU, almost double the rate in the UK

Some workers' rights are guaranteed by EU laws but tax rates, benefits and the minimum wage are down to UK government decisions

Leave

Less regulation in the workplace would create more jobs

Maternity leave and holiday pay would only change if Britain decided to change them

The UK could get more investment from countries outside the EU

Lower migration would push wages up

Remain

Three million jobs in the UK are linked to trade with the EU

The EU has delivered guaranteed holiday pay, paid maternity leave, and increased protection in the workplace

The UK gets £66m investment every day from the EU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This issue covers pricing, safety testing and ensuring customers are treated fairly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Areas with high immigration wanted to stay in the EU

Considering how the Leave campaign adopted immigration as one of its key arguments, claiming that the current level of net migration is too high, it is unsurprising that the Remain campaign resonated more strongly with Britain's immigrant population.

London, where immigration is massively higher than the rest of the country, voted overwhelmingly to Remain - by 60 percent to 40.

But it's the areas in the South East and the East Midlands, where immigration has made a bigger impact only recently, that Ukip and now the Leave campaign have most resonated with.

Map of immigrant population share

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EU referendum: How the results compare to the UK's educated, old and immigrant populations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Considering how the Leave campaign adopted immigration as one of its key arguments, claiming that the current level of net migration is too high, it is unsurprising that the Remain campaign resonated more strongly with Britain's immigrant population. London, where immigration is massively higher than the rest of the country, voted overwhelmingly to Remain - by 60 percent to 40.

# data[].attributes.headline
0:15 / 5:44Brexit could end the age of "Cool Britannia" 

# data[].attributes.subject
0:15 / 5:44Brexit could end the age of "Cool Britannia" 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit could end the age of "Cool Britannia" | The Economist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EU referendum explained: Brexit for non-Brits | Guardian Animations

# data[].attributes.headline
0:08 / 6:05Explaining Brexit in 6 Minutes

# data[].attributes.subject
0:08 / 6:05Explaining Brexit in 6 Minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Explaining Brexit in 6 Minutes | Vanity Fair

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Where did Brexit come from? | CNBC Explains