A Non-Populist Case for Brexit

The U.K. will no doubt face challenges ahead, but its departure from the EU is a victory for sovereignty and democracy.

By
39

Ever since the Brexit debate began, the case for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union has been dominated by arguments about immigration and about the cost of membership. In the U.K., the Vote Leave campaign famously claimed that “We send £350 million to the EU every week.” This slogan demonstrated what many considered to be the misleading nature of the Leave campaign. Supporters also claimed that Turkish membership in the EU was imminent, a move that would have meant a serious increase in immigration from Turkey.

However the £350 million price tag did not take into account that the U.K. also received money from the EU, and Turkey has never come particularly close to joining, especially since Recep Tayyip Erdogan became president.

The U.K. officially left the EU as of January 31, 2020. But the parties set up a transition period for the sake of negotiating a trade deal and other outstanding issues. That transition period ends today, December 31, so Brexit is, finally, officially official. While many of the arguments for it over the last four years have been populist in nature, there are plenty of reasons for more traditional conservatives to support the U.K.’s separation from the EU.

Conservatives believe in local government. We believe that as much power as possible should be relegated to individuals and families to make their own decisions, and that power that cannot be vested in households should be vested first and foremost in local governments, such as school boards, city councils. and state legislatures. 

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
39
By
Comments (39)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    John your last article caused me to debate you a bit. (I appreciate your being willing to do so) This is the best article I have read in some time. I have been waiting for someone to make this case. (I posted a request for Scott Lindicome to give it a go). This is exactly what I have been wanting to see. A bit more wonkish then we used to get from my hero roger scruton.....which is exactly what I have been looking for. You really do a pretty deep dive on all the relevant problems. GREAT GREAT GREAT work and I thank you so much.

    Collapse
  2. Michael

    With respect to 'local government' and 'laboratories of democracy', I don't see where the big difference is between the EU and the US federal system. Does the US constitution require its laws to be experimented with at the local level before they are enacted at the federal level? Does the US constitution allow local laws to override federal laws? Does the EU treaty prevent individual countries from complementing EU laws -- or from having their own laws in areas not covered by EU laws? If the answer to these questions is no, then I don't see how the first two points in the article can stand.

    Note also that the EU has a very small budget (i.e., spending). According to the EU's website, its budget was less than 1% of EU GDP in 2019. The budget of national governments, on the other hand was around 46% of GDP (with some variance across countries). In the US, by contrast, federal spending is more than state/local spending.

    Regarding 'democracy': The repeated referenda mentioned in the article are concerning, at first glance (and perhaps a second one). But "EU disregards democracy" is too strong a statement for a number of (obvious, I suppose) reasons. Those cases can also be seen as a symptom of the fact that the EU did not have a constitution and an amendment process like the US -- because unlike the US, the EU did not start from scratch, but its evolution had to respect the existing national institutions. Had the Lisbon Treaty been a number of "amendments" (as a rough analogue to the US paradigm) on the Nice Treaty, ratification by three quarters of the countries/states would have sufficed to adopt each of them, and the process would not hang at 2-3 countries.

    Collapse
  3. P Satter

    Thank you for an informative article on some points supporting the conservative case for Brexit. As well as fairly pointing out some of the populist assertions that were questionable in their accuracy. I did not know about the secret ballot for MEPs, for example. That seems to insulate them too much, and points to the concern the EU does not have a clear mechanism to decrease its powers if necessary.
    Personally knowing some (non US) people with differing views on this, I have thought there were fair points on both the Brexit and Remain sides and wished that there was some "middle way' where the UK could alter their relationship (as some European states already seem to have differing levels of involvement in the EU) without the more drastic divorce. Perhaps the nature of the EU itself does not allow for this flexibility?
    While outside the topic of your article, one point of concern I have heard is that if Brexit is successful it might not be the last "exit," thereby changing the certainty of the union for the remaining countries.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      John Kramer

      There were a bunch of middle paths for Brexit which moved toward the sort of relationship with the EU that Norway or Switzerland have, for example, but none were palatable to the Conservative party as they felt that the regulatory alignment that free trade within EFTA is conditioned on is a denial of sovereignty, and free movement of people would alienate the xenophobic part of the Leave voter base. As such, the costs of customs inspections, and the reduced opportunity for free movement imposed on Britons were baked into the outcome for as long as the Conservatives retained power.

      There was a chance to avoid that had Labour won either the 2017 or 2019 election, but they had their own issues with a Brexit policy that was part highly-nuanced, and part nonsense, and polarising leadership. Likewise the LibDems' had rendered themselves non-credible to their own voters during their period of coalition with the Tories from 2010-15, and didn't present coherent or credible policies.

      And so the Conservative (lack of) vision won the day, and here we are.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Tyler Williams

    This is a decent defense of Euroskepticism, but not of Brexit.

    My problems with Brexit are more practical than ideological. The UK clearly went into this without thinking it through and has spent four years wasting money trying to make it not a disaster, all while creating new problems for itself whether it be in North Ireland or in Scotland.

    Maybe there is a smarter, more practical version of Brexit they could have tried. Too bad they didn’t.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tyler Williams

      That said, I appreciate this post. It made a lot of points I can agree with, even if it’s in only a theoretical way (apart from their implementation in Brexit as we know it).

      Collapse
  5. rob

    The problem with the EU is that they want to act like a country but they don't have enough of the shared ties that are needed to make a nation. They don't have a shared common language and more importantly they do not have an army. They have nato, but that is really just the US. You have to have a common language to help foster the shared values that are needed and you to be willing to fight and die for a country.

    As it is they are just an economic treaty that instead of doing anything important parrots left wing talking points about climate change and racism against the United States.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      John Gustavsson @Nationstatist

      True. Although, just to be clear, establishing an army would not make anything better. The morale in an army that fights for an area that has no common identity would be terrible. Not to mention every country has its own military tradition and culture and they would be difficult to mix.

      Collapse
  6. Scroop Moth

    This paean to local control ignores the glaring fact that remainers also had their ideas about self-governance, based on distinct interests.

    To some extent, residents of greater London looked to the EU to protect them from their conservative countrymen. They wanted to “remain” in control of their destiny, and they saw the EU as their ally.

    Everyone, conservatives included, wants the potential to control others. Having trans-local power insures self-determination. Conservatives, despite their praise for the concept of subsidiarity, actually want power to remain in the strata of government that they can control.

    Conservatives do want power to devolve from Washington to the statehouses where they run the shows, but not to California or New York, nor further down to city hall. The Wisconsin legislature wouldn’t let Milwaukee set a minimum wage. This is to defend country norms as much as for the sake of political power. Urban residents, on the other hand, look to Washington the way imperial free cities looked to the Holy Roman Emperor. Stadtluft macht frei. The empire wasn’t transparent or democratic but, like the EU, it was good for cities.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      John Gustavsson @Nationstatist

      I honestly don't think the EU has "protected" London very much. The UK doesn't really have a social conservative movement like in the US. The Conservative party themselves legalized gay marriage. It is true that Londoners may identify more as Europeans and on average they certainly benefit a lot more than the rest of the country from the EU membership. I cannot however think of a single example when the EU intervened to protect something Londoners cared about from something the rest of the country wanted to take away from them (or impose on them).

      Collapse
    2. Butch Kamena

      Ahem. It's sometimes hard to be a fan of federalism, but some of us try to stick to the principle. If something should be at the state level, it should be there. I think cannabis legalization is lousy policy, but I'm more than supportive of states doing as they please on it. And I have no issue with local governments setting minimum wages.

      And we should note, there is at least one 21st century politician who really did decentralize, he just wasn't American. A legacy of Stephen Harper being Canadian PM was transferring a great deal of spending power from Ottawa to the provinces with very few strings attached. Sadly, Mr. Trudeau, who thinks he knows everything because he has a theatre degree, hasn't followed this.

      Collapse
      1. Scroop Moth

        The problem with federalism in the US is that state lines don’t demarcate cogent state interests. What should happen at what level of government is contested in practice, wherever it matters. Our constitutional structure doesn’t bring peace. A resident of Houston has more in common with a resident of Atlanta (or London!) than with the Panhandle. Houston once wanted municipal WiFi, and might want an abortion clinic when SCOTUS overturns Roe, but the legislature is a big no. Naturally, Houston votes for D.C. to increase and Austin to decrease. Our cultural and economic conflicts are organized by population density. Subsidiarity for most Redstate conservatives goes no further than the statehouses they dominate.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Farhall

    Any time I read this kind of article I have to stop and really ask, what's the game behind it. Because, yes, the EU has flaws. But so has any form of government; in fact, many of the same arguments in the article could be applied to Sweden's own counties, or the laughable Skånepartiet. (For anyone reading this without context, Skånepartiet is a tiny political party in southern Sweden advocating for the independence of the southern region of Sweden.)

    But that's really missing the forest for the trees.

    Any central government entity will have inefficiencies. Furthermore, it will pass laws that overrule local legislatures, and will attempt to make a level playing field across its entire sphere of influence. In fact, the US constitution, if we're going to discuss it, has an explicit statement (the "Supremacy Clause") that establishes that both the US constitution and federal laws take precedent over the state constitutions. So if the US federal government passes a federal minimum wage, it has to be at least that much no matter what any state may say. How is that different from the Sweden example?

    Within the EU framework, just like in the US, any member state is free to pass more laws, more generous leave, or stricter regulations. Indeed, this is not only stated in the Lisbon treaty but also in EU directives I've seen, which explicitly state some variation that they can at any time have stricter limits. The main limitation is they can't have less strict limits -- but I fail to see how that is any different from the US federal system. The entire point seems disingenuous at best.

    (Besides, if there's any argument to be had here it's that EU's power is too weak, given the authoritarian streaks and media censorship going on in member states. If the author really thinks it's a homogenous blob, they are free to try to convince Hungary of that)

    The author's remaining points are less misleading, but again extremely selective on what case they're making.

    Is there a European identity? While the EU may have existed in some form or another for a long time, I, personally, would start the pin at the Schengen treaty's effective date (26 March 1995), at which point free travel between the different member countries started to become feasible and effective. Before then, border checkpoints and tolls made abundantly clear between "ours" and "others", so why would there be a shared identity? Heck, Texas joined the United States in 1845 and still retains a unique identity. So how can we equate a few decades' time with a few centuries time? That's a false equivalence -- a European identity can't emerge as long as artificial borders are in place, and so far there's only been less than half a lifetime's worth of border integration in Europe.

    The author is, of course, free to argue for or against secret voting. Like any other scheme, there are benefits and drawbacks to it. However, the whole matter is a red herring; while the statement is factual, the implication is one of "take it or leave it". The EU has changed drastically since it was the "coal and steel pact", and there is no reason to state it cannot continue to change. To use any instantaneous form of it to say "this is a case against the EU" is to say "if it's not perfect to my liking, I'm leaving!". However this, again, is true for any central government.

    But enough about the author's nitpicks. My main issue with this article, as most other pro-Brexit (or any EU member) articles is that they completely gloss over what benefit the EU bloc actually provides to its member states. And no, I'm not talking about farming subsidies, which seems to be an ever-present crowd favourite in any federal government...

    The EU zone is one of the world's largest economies. By sheer market size, it should be an extremely tantalizing target, a lucrative, rich base for companies to market products and innovations. Pre-EU, the individual countries would get products marketed there later, or more expensive, or both. The EEC single market has somewhat abated this problem, though many issues still remain. But what's the alternative? Returning to pre-EU and having individual states pass individual laws again, driving prices up and choice down?

    Scale is important. The world's largest economies have the same item in common: scale. The EU is there to scale up the continent's market and trade in the same way the US federal government enables a company in New Mexico to address an enormous market. The same is true in the EU single market. There's no customs check or delay on items, nor fees to buy from another member state. But I guess the author doesn't even consider this a factor in Brexit.

    The EU massively liberalized air traffic within Europe. The rise of RyanAir (think Spirit Airlines or Southwest) provided direct, low cost and cheap travel from many points within the EU to other points. Normally, this doesn't happen (e.g. Air Canada cannot legally fly JFK-SFO), but the EU single market opened it up so an airline based in any EU country can fly from any EU airport to any EU (or non-EU) airport. This enabled a metric ton of summer vacations that all of Sweden is fond of, though again it seems that enhanced travel isn't worth mentioning as an EU benefit and tradeoff for a consideration on a case for Brexit.

    I could go on, but this essay is long enough already. The summary is the same; this article, while thumbing its nose at the Brexit campaign, in fact uses the exact same strategy. Point out the EU's flaws, pretend it has no benefits, and that leaving is a complete victory and not a mixed bag of trade-offs.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    That’s one of the major flaws of the EU: why should someone in Brussels know what is good for a pizza parlor in Nottingham? The answer is they neither know the demographics of the area or what the locals want.

    But let’s get back to Brexit for a second. The fact that it took years after the referendum, and that they had to have a second vote with Borris Johnson being elected, just shows how nasty sometimes elites are willing to be to thwart democracy. The “stay” camp did every political and parliamentary trick in the book to overturn the will of its voters, and lost. No, I am not excusing some of the tricks the “leave” party did, but when you have to vote twice on an issue that should have been settled the first time, and then the EU for years threatened to severely punish the UK for leaving, trying to make an example of it to scare other EU members from leaving, I think the EU needs to take a backseat to the national sovereignty of individual nations and shut up. The EU is not sovereign over any nation, and no one should treat it as such.

    Best to England, and feel free to hit us up for any new trade deals. We Americans love good trade deals that open up new markets. I would love more fish and chips.

    Cheers.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      John Kramer

      How do you think EU regulations overstep on a pizza parlour in Nottingham?

      It's a serious question, because often grievances of this type are more imagined than real, and I'd love to give you a fair hearing based on any real concern that you might have.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    The “primacy of European law” is enough to leave Europe's glorified homeowner’s association without any other sentence being necessary.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      John Gustavsson @Nationstatist

      Agreed, but then the article would have been a bit too short.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        The Bell Tower

        These editors and their words!

        Kidding. Indeed this is an insightful article.

        Collapse
  10. eoncarlyle

    At the end of the day Brexiteers were not realistic about the amount of regulatory autonomy that leaving the EU would provide. About 50% of the UK's trade (import and export) is with the EU. That is unlikely to change all that much post Brexit, meaning that UK firms will be at least in part subject to EU rules without having a voice in them. There are a lot of issues with the EU and a lot of legitimate grievances that conservatives should have with the institution. But I fear that the United Kingdom is about to learn how little leverage it has on its own when it comes to negotiating bilateral trade agreements with larger economies: a United States trade deal might require concessions on access to healthcare markets and food standards. I'm sure that's not what most leave voters had in mind!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      John Gustavsson @Nationstatist

      Actually, it is very likely to change post-Brexit, and one of the goals of Brexit is to reorient the UK economy away from the stagnating European economy and towards the growing developing economies. This will take time of course.

      As for being subject to EU rules, it's a relatively small number of companies that export in the first place. Most businesses are domestic only, or have very few exports, to the EU or otherwise. Furthermore, when you export, you are always subject to the rules of whoever you export to. Be that the EU or somebody else. The difference is that the domestic market will no longer be governed by EU rules.

      Collapse
Load More