Although I agreed with a lot of what Billon-Galland and Bergsen said in this article, I was struck really negatively by this comment:
[D]espite Asia becoming the world&rsquo;s new centre of gravity, the main threats to Britain are still relatively close by; think of Russia, nuclear threats, organized crime and terrorism reaching Britain via its neighbourhood.
I don't know what they mean by this sentence, but to me using the words "reaching Britain" seems like they are pointing to immigration and foreigners are the cause of crime and terrorism. If that is what they are trying to say, shame on them and the journal. If it's not, they really should have found a different wording for this before publishing. I read this in the morning with my tea and was very dissapointed to start my day off with reading (what I understood as) a rascist nationalist agenda. They should try to acknowledge this is a subsequent issue.

Billon-Galland and Bergsen reflect on Britain's relationship with Europe since WWI. They argue that it has always been economics that has tied Britain to the continent. Even though Britain might doesn't want to be bogged down by EU regulations and customs unions in order to pursue more global trade, they say that one of "the iron laws of international trade is that countries tend to do more of it with countries close by, in the case of Britain that is the EU."