Why Brexit was a mistake, from a libertarian perspective
29 January 2024
SUGGESTED
Society and Culture
29 January 2024
Society and Culture
Transport
Many libertarians supported Brexit, believing it would reduce governmental layers and bring power closer to the British people. They saw it as an opportunity to escape the control of Brussels’ technocracy, expecting increased autonomy and economic freedom. However, this article argues that Brexit, rather than decreasing government control, intensified it in the UK. Some libertarians supported Brexit due to a misunderstanding of the European Union’s essential nature and role.
The libertarian argument for Brexit was centred around the idea of eliminating the perceived excessive interference by the EU. Moreover, Brexit was seen as a form of secession, which is often favoured to promote a libertarian agenda. Supporters of Brexit envisioned a rejuvenated Britain, regaining sovereignty and experiencing fewer regulatory constraints. They imagined a country liberated from Brussels and Luxembourg, able to independently navigate its future, potentially leading to greater liberty and economic efficiency. However, this perspective failed to understand the EU’s function and the implications of breaking away from it.
The critique of the EU often portrays it as an overreaching superstate, taking over national sovereignty. This perspective, fuelled by the rhetoric of the EU Commission’s technocrats and the broader Brussels establishment, erroneously suggests ambitions for a European superstate – a misconception that played a role in the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU. This interpretation overlooks the true nature and purpose of the EU. Contrary to being an emerging superstate, the EU essentially operates as a collection of regimes designed to check excessive state power. The notion of the EU as a nascent absolute state is a misinterpretation of its real function: to regulate and balance state powers, particularly in economic matters.
The EU originates from the principle of vertical separation of power. Significantly, the EU allows for member withdrawal, underscoring its distinction from absolute states, which are characterised as indivisible. Membership in the EU involves states mutually restricting their arbitrary power – for example, of limiting international trade or controlling the movement of people. These are areas where government policies typically spill over from extensive domestic intervention. In an era where state power is more extensive than ever, the primary method for curbing such power is through a balance of power among states themselves.
The European Union’s foremost goal is to diffuse and limit power, rather than centralise it. This approach is evident in the EU’s efforts to curtail excessive state intervention in trade, capital movement, and the flow of people. In monetary matters, the creation of an independent European Central Bank (ECB) following the Maastricht Treaty was aimed at imposing restraint on monetary debasement – a common strategy of overreaching states. The EU’s mechanisms are structured to balance and regulate, rather than to amass power over economic activities.
The extended quantitative easing (QE) programme undertaken by the ECB does, indeed, mark a hiatus in EU policy. However, this issue primarily arose from the fiscal irresponsibility of national governments, rather than from an overambitious EU. QE was initiated as a reaction to economic challenges at the national level, rather than as a product of EU expansionism. Recognising this distinction is key to understanding the EU’s actual role versus the impact of national policies that frequently dominate the conversation.
After Brexit, the United Kingdom’s policy direction did not follow the libertarian ideal of limited state intervention. Competencies that were once shared with or checked by European Union institutions have been reclaimed by the UK, but not delegated further to the regional or local level, let alone to individuals.
Brexit, contrary to being a move towards greater liberty, was primarily driven by the desire to protect the British welfare state. This goal conflicts with libertarian ideals, which favour minimal government intervention. In the context of the EU – an open economic space – maintaining a universal welfare system presented challenges. The withdrawal from the EU thus reflected a preference for state-driven solutions, diverging from a libertarian vision of a deregulated Britain with limited state duties.
Moreover, after leaving the EU, the UK continues to collaborate with it in areas often criticised by libertarians. This includes participation in European research funding and immigration control. Such ongoing involvement indicates a selective withdrawal from the EU. The UK retains connections in areas that challenge the libertarian goal of minimal state interference and free movement.
The EU’s method of centralising research funding is from a libertarian perspective an example of excessive bureaucratic control. In this system, decision-making regarding funding is concentrated in the hands of a select group of bureaucrats. These individuals necessarily lack the comprehensive understanding required to effectively distribute resources across a wide spectrum of research areas. The absence of an efficient economic calculation mechanism results in a politically motivated allocation of funds. Typically, this favours projects that are sympathetic to government intervention, while neglecting research that questions its merits. The UK’s decision to maintain its involvement in this framework post-Brexit is indicative of a state-centric approach, which deviates from the anticipated libertarian path.
When examining the outcomes of Brexit through a libertarian lens, there is a noticeable divergence from the expected results. Libertarians had hoped for a reduction in state involvement, greater economic freedom, and a move towards decentralised power. However, the reality has been quite different, marked by state control and policies that contradict libertarian ideals. This situation underscores the importance of critically re-evaluating the libertarian viewpoint on Brexit and understanding its implications.
A reassessment of the European Union’s role in the aftermath of Brexit highlights its capacity as a stabilising agent against excessive state control, especially in economic matters. The EU’s policies governing trade and human mobility, while not flawless, act to curb the solitary powers of individual member states. In the wake of Brexit, the United Kingdom shifted even further away from the libertarian ideal of minimal governmental intervention in these areas.
The Brexit saga offers essential insights for the development of libertarian policies. It illustrates the challenges of detaching state authority from international cooperation and underscores the dangers of augmented state centralisation in the quest for national sovereignty. Libertarians should heed these lessons in their future policy proposals, emphasising a better comprehension of international affairs and the delicate equilibrium between national self-governance and the restraining influence of supranational organisations like the EU.
Currently, the discussion surrounding the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights is becoming increasingly critical. Should the UK decide to withdraw, it would likely lead to a more extreme stance in the state’s policies towards migrants, as well as cause potential disruption in the decentralised judicial competencies within the UK.
In retrospect, the libertarian argument supporting Brexit appears to have been fundamentally flawed in its understanding of the European Union’s nature and functions. This misunderstanding has contributed to an increased centralisation of power within the UK and to policies that contradict libertarian principles. These developments highlight the need for a re-evaluation of libertarian views on national sovereignty and international economic cooperation, particularly in a context where state regulation is almost without limits.
As libertarians reassess the lessons from Brexit, the priority should be to formulate policies that truly embody minimal state intervention and promote individual freedoms. This requires an analysis of international cooperation dynamics and the possible unintended effects of withdrawing from cooperative frameworks. A key aspect of the libertarian perspective should involve acknowledging the importance of the vertical separation of power and the role of checks and balances that states can exert on one another.
Dr Emmanuel Comte is a Senior Research Fellow at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP).
The libertarian argument for Brexit was centred around the idea of eliminating the perceived excessive interference by the EU. Moreover, Brexit was seen as a form of secession, which is often favoured to promote a libertarian agenda. Supporters of Brexit envisioned a rejuvenated Britain, regaining sovereignty and experiencing fewer regulatory constraints. They imagined a country liberated from Brussels and Luxembourg, able to independently navigate its future, potentially leading to greater liberty and economic efficiency. However, this perspective failed to understand the EU’s function and the implications of breaking away from it.
The critique of the EU often portrays it as an overreaching superstate, taking over national sovereignty. This perspective, fuelled by the rhetoric of the EU Commission’s technocrats and the broader Brussels establishment, erroneously suggests ambitions for a European superstate – a misconception that played a role in the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU. This interpretation overlooks the true nature and purpose of the EU. Contrary to being an emerging superstate, the EU essentially operates as a collection of regimes designed to check excessive state power. The notion of the EU as a nascent absolute state is a misinterpretation of its real function: to regulate and balance state powers, particularly in economic matters.
The EU originates from the principle of vertical separation of power. Significantly, the EU allows for member withdrawal, underscoring its distinction from absolute states, which are characterised as indivisible. Membership in the EU involves states mutually restricting their arbitrary power – for example, of limiting international trade or controlling the movement of people. These are areas where government policies typically spill over from extensive domestic intervention. In an era where state power is more extensive than ever, the primary method for curbing such power is through a balance of power among states themselves.
The European Union’s foremost goal is to diffuse and limit power, rather than centralise it. This approach is evident in the EU’s efforts to curtail excessive state intervention in trade, capital movement, and the flow of people. In monetary matters, the creation of an independent European Central Bank (ECB) following the Maastricht Treaty was aimed at imposing restraint on monetary debasement – a common strategy of overreaching states. The EU’s mechanisms are structured to balance and regulate, rather than to amass power over economic activities.
The extended quantitative easing (QE) programme undertaken by the ECB does, indeed, mark a hiatus in EU policy. However, this issue primarily arose from the fiscal irresponsibility of national governments, rather than from an overambitious EU. QE was initiated as a reaction to economic challenges at the national level, rather than as a product of EU expansionism. Recognising this distinction is key to understanding the EU’s actual role versus the impact of national policies that frequently dominate the conversation.
After Brexit, the United Kingdom’s policy direction did not follow the libertarian ideal of limited state intervention. Competencies that were once shared with or checked by European Union institutions have been reclaimed by the UK, but not delegated further to the regional or local level, let alone to individuals.
Brexit, contrary to being a move towards greater liberty, was primarily driven by the desire to protect the British welfare state. This goal conflicts with libertarian ideals, which favour minimal government intervention. In the context of the EU – an open economic space – maintaining a universal welfare system presented challenges. The withdrawal from the EU thus reflected a preference for state-driven solutions, diverging from a libertarian vision of a deregulated Britain with limited state duties.
Moreover, after leaving the EU, the UK continues to collaborate with it in areas often criticised by libertarians. This includes participation in European research funding and immigration control. Such ongoing involvement indicates a selective withdrawal from the EU. The UK retains connections in areas that challenge the libertarian goal of minimal state interference and free movement.
The EU’s method of centralising research funding is from a libertarian perspective an example of excessive bureaucratic control. In this system, decision-making regarding funding is concentrated in the hands of a select group of bureaucrats. These individuals necessarily lack the comprehensive understanding required to effectively distribute resources across a wide spectrum of research areas. The absence of an efficient economic calculation mechanism results in a politically motivated allocation of funds. Typically, this favours projects that are sympathetic to government intervention, while neglecting research that questions its merits. The UK’s decision to maintain its involvement in this framework post-Brexit is indicative of a state-centric approach, which deviates from the anticipated libertarian path.
When examining the outcomes of Brexit through a libertarian lens, there is a noticeable divergence from the expected results. Libertarians had hoped for a reduction in state involvement, greater economic freedom, and a move towards decentralised power. However, the reality has been quite different, marked by state control and policies that contradict libertarian ideals. This situation underscores the importance of critically re-evaluating the libertarian viewpoint on Brexit and understanding its implications.
A reassessment of the European Union’s role in the aftermath of Brexit highlights its capacity as a stabilising agent against excessive state control, especially in economic matters. The EU’s policies governing trade and human mobility, while not flawless, act to curb the solitary powers of individual member states. In the wake of Brexit, the United Kingdom shifted even further away from the libertarian ideal of minimal governmental intervention in these areas.
The Brexit saga offers essential insights for the development of libertarian policies. It illustrates the challenges of detaching state authority from international cooperation and underscores the dangers of augmented state centralisation in the quest for national sovereignty. Libertarians should heed these lessons in their future policy proposals, emphasising a better comprehension of international affairs and the delicate equilibrium between national self-governance and the restraining influence of supranational organisations like the EU.
Currently, the discussion surrounding the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights is becoming increasingly critical. Should the UK decide to withdraw, it would likely lead to a more extreme stance in the state’s policies towards migrants, as well as cause potential disruption in the decentralised judicial competencies within the UK.
In retrospect, the libertarian argument supporting Brexit appears to have been fundamentally flawed in its understanding of the European Union’s nature and functions. This misunderstanding has contributed to an increased centralisation of power within the UK and to policies that contradict libertarian principles. These developments highlight the need for a re-evaluation of libertarian views on national sovereignty and international economic cooperation, particularly in a context where state regulation is almost without limits.
As libertarians reassess the lessons from Brexit, the priority should be to formulate policies that truly embody minimal state intervention and promote individual freedoms. This requires an analysis of international cooperation dynamics and the possible unintended effects of withdrawing from cooperative frameworks. A key aspect of the libertarian perspective should involve acknowledging the importance of the vertical separation of power and the role of checks and balances that states can exert on one another.
Dr Emmanuel Comte is a Senior Research Fellow at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP).
13 thoughts on “Why Brexit was a mistake, from a libertarian perspective”
Leave a Reply
SHARE
Overreaching super state: look at how countries which do not align with the official policy of the Commission are treated: witholding of development funds (Poland, Hungary), monetary blackmail (Greece).
As far freedom to leave, clearly it has to be at a cost.
The Lisbon treaty allows the Commission to seize itself of any topic, provided it is in the greater interest of the Union. A concept loose enough to open the door to all sorts of overreach.
What about overreach during the Covid 19 pandemic response?
Which planet has the author been living on…?
Is this representative of the level of research and insights provided by the IEA?
BREXIT ,coming on the heels of the Banking Crisis was the forerunner of instability,tumult and volatility led by Cameron in his personal turmoil overthe death of Ivan, and an unhealthy historical ambition. The milatary adventurism was launched against Libya,Syria, Yemen,Afghanistan and Iraq with secondary displacement against Merkel and the EU in Greece,Italy,Spai,. A truce for Olympic Year and then as denied a referendum for the sake of the Conservative Party with attacks from UKIP.
Rees -Moggs array of seperate nations ,competing with one another may have libertarian appeal,but depends on brute force.Latvia would neve be able to challenge Germany or theUK ,outside of the EU. Less about liberty more bullying
Uliitmately undemocratic,mainly though disenfranchisement,-17.42m LEAVE, 29.089 million NOT LEAVE.Does not comply with Emery,Rooker and Cunningham thresholds as in’75 Fraudulent annd a cheat.
“Brexit, contrary to being a move towards greater liberty, was primarily driven by the desire to protect the British welfare state. This goal conflicts with libertarian ideals, which favour minimal government intervention. In the context of the EU – an open economic space – maintaining a universal welfare system presented challenges. The withdrawal from the EU thus reflected a preference for state-driven solutions, diverging from a libertarian vision of a deregulated Britain with limited state duties.”
Really? Not if the authors of “Britannia Unchained” are to be believed. Whilst it might have been sold to a gullible public as a way to protect the welfare state particularly the NHS the reality is very different with Brexit “freedoms” being cited as the reason for removing many environmental protections as well as allowing such developments as free ports inside which many protections are abandoned.
As for the NHS it is struggling for lack of funds just like many other public services whilst local authorities are having to retrench the services they provide in order to stay afloat. “Extras” like libraries and locally funded theatres are fast becoming a thing of the past.
Whilst Brexit might not have achieved all that a libertarian might have wished, should the Tories manage to retain power post the next GE they might still use it to satisfy the most ardent libertarian.
Maybe you could have realised it was going to be a sh!tshow before you pushed for it to happen, what with the sh!tshow that inevitably happened all that?
Get some Brasso for your fuc|<ing necks.
It’s a start coming from the IEA in challenging the nonsense of a looming EU superstate, but fails to acknowledge free trade & the economics of the EU’s Internal Market & Customs Union is what really drives EU unity & success. The economics are driven by complexity of cross-border trade & reality of increasingly regulated supply chains – not catchy slogans. Something those on the populist right in England struggle to understand despite the mounting evidence of Brexit damage through new trade barriers & a bizarre internal NI-GB customs border. Winning a binary plebiscite on a complex issue followed by a FPTP gift in 2019 on the back of a protest was tempting to those on the right, but owning the consequences will be far tougher.
Short version – we’re so obsessed with cutting stuff, we never stopped to think we might be cutting ourselves off!
You don’t understand why many people voted Leave, then (or how the EU works, but that’s for another time). It was not so much to get the EU off our backs as to expose where regulation really comes from which, as you note, appears mostly to be domestic. By taking the EU out of the equation, this leaves British lawmakers and politicians exposed and unable to obfuscate or hide behind the EU. These things take time, but people can now see more clearly what the problem really is.
Just because Brexit didn’t signify a transition towards a more libertarian approach to politics (was it ever going to, as long as we continue with the 2-party system where both parties are corporate socialists?) – I don’t think this means that leaving the EU was the wrong decision, if you are a libertarian with the viewpoints that you summarised in paragraph 2.
The EU project will undoubtedly continue towards its objectives of regulation and control, and the UK outside the EU will probably continue along a similar path. But at least we now *technically* have the ability to vote us out of that trajectory. Plus, saying that the EU’s function isn’t to centralise control – but to limit state control – is still an example of a super-government’s overreach that is fundamentally at odds with the libertarian approach.
You can convince me that Brexit hasn’t delivered a more domestic libertarian kind of politics, but it will take a lot to convince me that Remaining in the EU would have been the libertarian preference in the long-term.
Will the IEA now make a public apology and campaign for the UK to rejoin the EU?
Have you not realised yet that all trade deals involve agreement over regulation. We have now had to make serious compromises in order to achieve deals outside of the EU that are not beneficial in a number of areas. The real irony here is that the EU is more Libertarian than the UK!
What a total load of BS! Brexit has turned these islands into wasteland all for the exception of Northern Ireland! This part of the UK use to come last in how any regions economy was going now it’s top of the list? Hum maybe just maybe it’s because they are still aligned to the EU! Stop pretending that you are writing an honest article because you are the dark money of the country! absolutely disgusting! Wait and see how the people get really angry now that custom checks are in. Place from today. The will of the people will want their pound of flesh when there’s food shortages! I for one hope that your organisation and the Tory’s get torn to shreds!
It is difficult to believe that the author has read and understood the Lisbon Treaty. The Commission is paid to implement Lisbon T. in full and is doing so slowly and carefully. The full implementation is the creation of a superstate with no issues specifically reserved to the States if the Commission, rubber/stamped by the Council, wishes to interfere. Defence, Foreign Policy and International Trade are reserved to the centre. Since Germany is and will be the dominant economic EU power this is heading in one direction.
So, according to the libertarian’s comment, it is ok to be in favour of ‘something’ that will never materialise, rather than opt for something that may benefit thousands of people albeit that it does not emanate from one’s own government or country? How bizarre and twisted indeed.