This is an important and rather comprehensive look at the evolution of the UK national situation over the last several decades, with special attention paid to the current Brexit impasse. A few things strike me though:
1.) The notion that the EU is some kind of separate locus of soverign power, with its own interests above those of the competing national states that make it up appears in there. I am not sure if the ICC intended this or not, but it comes through in a few places. It may be the case that the EU as a set of institutional arrangments is prone towards advancing the interests of particular member states over others (Germany). But is it possbile for there be some kind of trans-national interest (or consciousness) in a world in which the nation-state is the "highest form of unity"?
2.) I continue to be troubled with how we talk about "populism." In several places, the report seesm to suggest that the bourgeoisie is confronting populism, as if populism is some kind of alien class force contesting a united bourgeois hegemony. This could be a rhetorical slip and perhaps what is meant is the "main factions of the bourgeoisie," but then there is the idea opening the report that suggests populism is not a creation of the bourgeoisie, but an emanation of "civil society." This implies that populism is itself some kind of social movement responding to the conditions of life in decomposing capitalism, rather than the effect of decomposition on the bourgeois state, producing more and more irrational factions of the state that capitalize on the disconent of the population for political and electoral purposes.
Further, there is the additional possibility that populism represents something rather different, which the report does not consider--the attempt by a certain faction of the bourgeoisie to reassert the soverignty of the nation-state against the neo-liberal wings of the bourgeoisie, who remain enthralled to the orthoodoxy of globalization, regardless of the deleterious effects on the political legitimacy of the national state. In this view, populism is not so irrational and may even be a kind of antidote to the politically destabilzing effects of unbridled capital's logic of "creative destruction."
3.) On the political blue water between the Tories and Labour: This is interesting and demonstrates that for all the chaos affecting the UK bourgeoisie, there have been some successes. In this respect, revitalizing the Labour Party as a viable "left" opposition to the Tories again, as a real social democratic party, has brought some measure of ideological stability to the domestic situation at the least, stealing some of the thunder from UKIP (but also from the SNP?). In this repsect, the UK bourgeoisie is in a better situation than its US counterparts, which have been unable to create a real left-wing opposition party to "populism in power," as the Democratic Party twists and contorts itself under the weight of identity politics, but also the power of the Democratic corporatist establishment. Still, there are key elements in UK bourgeoisie, including with the Labour Party itself, that seem determined to prevent a Corbyn government. If the situation is less dire in the UK at the moment, neither bourgeoisie seems able to prevent the increasing problematization of the traditional left/right divide and there remains no clear party in the ideological division of labour that represents the "party of the working class" or stands consistently for values that are "left-wing." The problem of anti-semitism in the Labour Party (which is now emerging in the Democratic Party as well) but also conflicting rhetoric about migration and national labour markets makes it less than clear which party is supposed to represent which values.
4.) It would have been good to see a little more attention to the question of the UK's national problem. The defeat of the Scottish independence referendum was an important moment in maintaining the integrity of the UK itself, but this clearly did not exhaust the issue as the Brexit result has opened the possibility of territorial problems not just in Scotland, but in N. Ireland as well. How realistic is the possibility of the territorial break-up of the union itself and what would the ramifications be if it ever happens?