The Tendency for a Conflict between Electroneutrality and Conduction

When a potential gradient, i.e., electric field, exists in an electrolytic solution, the positive ions drift toward the negative electrode and the negative ions drift in the opposite direction. What is the effect of this ionic drift on the state of charge of an electrolytic solution  

This tendency for gross charge separation has an important implication electroneutrality tends to be upset. Furthermore, the separated charge causing the lack of electroneutrality tends to set up its own field, which would run counter to the externally applied field. If the two fields were to become equal in magnitude, the net field in the solution would become zero. (Thus, the driving force on an ion would vanish and ion migration would stop.) 

It appears from this argument that an electrolytic solution would sustain only a transient migration of ions and then the tendency to conform to the principle of electroneutrality would result in a halt in the drift of ions after a short time. A persistent flow of charge, an electric current, appears to be impossible, hi practice, however, an electrolytic solution can act as a conductor of electricity and is able to pass a current, i.e., maintain a continuous flow of ions. Is there a paradox here  

Resolution of the Electroneutrality-versus-Conduction Dilemma Electron-Transfer Reactions 

The solution to the dilemma just posed can be found by comparing an electrolytic solution with a metallic conductor. In a metallic conductor, there is a lattice of positive ions that hold their equilibrium positions during the conduction process. In addition, there are the free conduction electrons which assume responsibility for the transport of charge. Contact is made to and from the metallic conductor by means of other metallic conductors [Fig. 4.48(a)]. Hence, electrons act as charge carriers throughout the entire circuit. 

---