BREXIT!!!!!!!

Scrolling through relevant posts on Medium, it’s clear that other authors on this site were hoping for a different outcome. From rage posts filled with nothing but gibberish and profanity to some claiming that government by the people is an old-fashioned notion to some more thoughtful pieces, I don’t think I found a single one that actually wanted Britain to leave.

Well, here’s a retrospective look into why I think Britain leaving is a good thing and what I think the future will hold for it. This is going to be a little long, but I’ll try to make sure that it’s all interesting and relevant.

2017 will be the year of the United States of Europe

I want to emphasize that this is not even remotely hyperbole. It will be obfuscated by those who support this move, but it will absolutely be the reality of member states. EU mandates already trump national legislation, and in 2017, it will finally secure the ability to vote on law in a manner very similar to that of a normal legislature.

There are three legislating bodies in the EU. The European Commission, the Council of the European Union, and the European Parliament. The Commission and the Council each have a single representative from each of the EU’s member states. Of note, the European Commission’s ministers are appointed by member states. However, in their oath, they pledge loyalty to the EU and to be impartial in executing their duties. The European Parliament is the only institution wherein representatives are directly elected by their respective citizens.

The EU Commission proposes legislation, implements decisions, upholds the EU mandates, and runs the day-to-day operations of the organization. The Parliament approves bills written by the Commission, with some limited power to amend the text, and then passes it to the Council, which also votes on it.

It’s worth emphasizing here that the EU Commission holds almost all of the real legislating powers of these three bodies, as it is the only one that can actually propose new legislation. The Parliament can request that the commission submit legislation, but the Commission can refuse, so long as it provides an explanation. It also holds the power of the executive branch (implements decisions, runs day-to-day operations). It also, very explicitly, represents the interests of the EU, not the member states.

Prior to the Treaty of Lisbon, this fact was not particularly concerning, as each member state possessed a veto in their commissioner in the Council of the EU. However, the Treaty of Lisbon changed that to qualified majority voting. As a compromise, until 2017, any member state could, with three other members, request that unanimous consent be required. Afterwards, though, qualified majority voting would be absolute.

This statement, to me, is so mind-boggling that it’s hard for me to conceive why anybody would want to stay. The only directly elected body involved in legislation is the Parliament, which holds minimal legislating authority. On the other hand, the true seat of EU power explicitly exists to serve the its interests. Translated, if the EU is interested in doing something, it is the Commission’s job to do it. This institution embodies Hobbes’ Leviathan perfectly, and in 2017, Britain would have lost its last meaningful defense against tyranny of the bureaucrat.

Immigration matters

The defining element of a nation is its people. What makes England English is its people. Their shared history, language, customs, and morals. I personally believe CS Lewis was able to write Mere Christianity, which postulated that mankind had a common morality that pointed to God, due to the fact that he was Irish. His overwhelming experience was with Western Civilization and Christianity. I doubt he had even heard of Taharrush or could conceive of monsters like this recounting their abhorrent conquests.

When Greece and Turkey both use immigrants as threats, it can be fairly certain that they will significantly disrupt the balance and institutions that European nations have been able to establish over literally millennia of struggle. Eastern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East are not political or economic paradises, even in the remotest sense. Their people, ultimately, are what drive that reality. Thus, importing them in massive numbers will be problematic.

Furthermore, Germany is already on the brink of committing demographic suicide. If they do not radically change their policy, and soon, it is over for them. Forever. Germany will become the Balkans of Central Europe, at best.

It is completely reasonable for British citizens to look at this reality and want to pump the brakes. Immigration can be good, and devising a system that maximizes its positive impact would be a great step. However, this would be impossible inside in the EU. As noted above, Greece has threatened to issue EU passports to all of the refugees currently living there, in order to extort the ECB and IMF for bailouts. That alone shows how broken the entire system is, and why Britain is wise to step back from the EU to soberly consider a solution to immigration that benefits and protects its citizenry.

Predictions

The economy

First, mainstream economic doomsday predictions are a load of rubbish. None of the media saw the financial crisis of 2008 coming, so why would we expect them to be able to have a nuanced and accurate view of the economic fallout of Brexit. If you’ve seen the movie The Big Short or watched Peter Schiff talk about no-am and negative-am mortgages becoming the norm, you should know that all they would have had to do was actually look at a few of the mortgage securities being sold to understand the problem. They didn’t even attempt that basic due diligence. Why would we expect them to be more reliable on Brexit?

More to the point, though, the primary kerfuffle revolves around access to the EU’s single market, and I think there are several factors here to quiet the storm.

First, the single market is really a choice: Do you want free access to the EEA or to the rest of the world? If being outside of the EU necessarily means that it’s harder to sell goods there, then that means it would be harder for Britain to trade with the rest of the world while part of it, too.

This, of course, presupposes that you can’t have your cake and eat it too, which in this case would be negotiating a free trade deal with the EU. There’s no reason this should be impossible or even unlikely, other than petty Eurocrats.

Expanding our perspective beyond just tariffs and quotas, easier regulation will enable British economic growth, as well. Forcing the entirety of the UK’s economy to adhere to EU policy wastes valuable resources on unproductive activities. Moreover, it harms British trade with the rest of the international community, as British goods are more expensive and can’t compete as well with international products.

Most importantly, there is zero downside to this. This is pure benefit. The sector of Britain’s economy that either served domestic demands or sought to do business with the rest of the world will now have a major body of regulation lifted off its shoulders. The sector that trades with the EU will continue doing business as usual.

So, thus far, we have one change (access to the single market) that eases trade with an economic zone around three times the size of the EU and another that is an unqualified windfall to the majority of Britain’s economy.

Even without a free trade agreement with the EU, this is a win for Britain.

Free trade agreement(s)

Britain imports a lot of goods from the EU. If the Continent were to begin to levy tariffs against British goods, and the British government did the same, the EU would lose that battle. Furthermore, considering the power that Germany holds, the fact that Britain is the primary consumer of their automobiles says a lot about the likelihood of a free trade agreement.

If the EU were to refuse an agreement, they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face, as Farage likes to say. Thus, I expect one to be signed in relatively short order. It makes no sense to debilitate a trade relationship that benefits everybody.

Furthermore, many nations have already suggested that they would be open to free trade talks. Some of them have already begun drafting agreements and forming delegations.

In summary, it appears that Britain will have plenty of prospects for deep trade relations, even if the EU goes down the unlikely path of destroying business that drives some of its most important industries.

Immigration

I actually doubt that those negotiating Brexit will have the backbone needed to stare down the EU on free movement, so we probably won’t see too much change, in the short term.

However, as the Islamification of Europe becomes more apparent, I think Britain will end up thanking its lucky stars that it recovered the right to secure its borders when it did.