Today is Brexit Day. As of 6:00 P.M. EST (Midnight in Brussels), the United Kingdom no longer will be a member of the European Union.
This is definitely good news in the long run since the U.K. will now be somewhat insulated from inevitable economic crises caused by the European’s Union’s dirigiste economic model and grim demographic outlook.
Whether it’s also good news in the short run depends mostly on decisions in London, such as whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Tory government expand economic freedom (which should be the case, but there are worrisome signs that the spending burden will increase).
But Washington and Brussels also will play a role since the U.K. wants to sign free-trade agreements. This could be a problem since the E.U. will be tempted to behave in a spiteful manner and Trump and his trade team are protectionists.
But let’s set that aside for the moment and look at the big picture.
The Wall Street Journal nicely summarized the key takeaways in yesterday’s editorial about Brexit.
The EU was founded on the notion that only an ever-deeper economic union—with an ever-closer political union close on its heels—could secure peace and prosperity… Most continental political leaders, if not their voters, still believe this. …British voters think otherwise. Their 2016 vote to leave the EU, ratified in December’s general election, was not a vote for war and poverty. …voters had the temerity to assert themselves despite resistance from a political and bureaucratic class invested in the status quo.
…One feature of this new politics is how immune voters have become to economic scaremongering… Britons instead have heard European anxiety that Brexit will trigger a “race to the bottom” on economic policy. What this really means is that EU politicians are aware that a freer economy more open to commerce at home and trade outside the EU would deliver more prosperity to more people than continental social democracy. British voters may not embrace this open vision in the end, but they’ve given themselves the choice. …All of this frightens so-called good Europeans…because it’s a direct challenge to…their “European project.” Central to this worldview is a distrust of…markets… A Britain with greater political independence and deep trading ties to Europe without all the useless red tape and hopeless centralizing could be a model. …Britain’s voters in 2016, and again in 2019, chose peaceful and prosperous coexistence with their neighbors rather than mindless but relentless integration. It’s the most consequential choice any European electorate has made in at least a generation.
Amen.
Brexit is very good news (December’s election in the U.K., which ensured Brexit, was the best policy-related development of 2019).
It means more jurisdictional competition, which is good news for those of us who want some sort of restraint on government greed.
And it means less power for the E.U. bureaucracy, which has a nasty habit of trying to export bad tax policy and bad regulatory policy.
Brexit also is a victory for Nigel Farage. Here are his final remarks to the European Parliament.
Farage has been called the “most consequential political figure in a generation in Europe, perhaps the whole of the West.”
This actually may be true. Brexit almost surely happened because of Farage’s efforts.
And to achieve that goal in the face of unified establishment opposition is truly remarkable.
Speaking of establishment opposition, let’s close today with an updated version of a PG-13 song about how the British people responded to the practitioners of “Project Fear.”
P.S. You can enjoy other Farage speeches by clicking here, here, and here.
P.P.S. And you can enjoy more Brexit-themed humor by clicking here, here, and here.
[…] Johnson delivered Brexit, but then proceeded to enact bad policies such as higher taxes and more spending. The economy […]
[…] Johnson delivered Brexit, but then proceeded to enact bad policies such as higher taxes and more spending. The economy […]
[…] P.S. The IMF also interfered in British politics when it tried to sabotage Brexit. […]
[…] strongly supported Brexit in part because I wanted the United Kingdom to have both the leeway and the incentive to adopt […]
[…] strongly supported Brexit in part because I wanted the United Kingdom to have both the leeway and the incentive to adopt […]
[…] was a big fan of Brexit (the United Kingdom voting to leave the European Union), but I’m very disappointed about the […]
[…] was a big fan of Brexit (the United Kingdom voting to leave the European Union), but I’m very disappointed about the […]
[…] he produced an acceptable Brexit, but otherwise has been a big spender. Sort of the a British version of Trump or […]
[…] he produced an acceptable Brexit, but otherwise has been a big spender. Sort of the a British version of Trump or […]
[…] he produced an acceptable Brexit, but otherwise has been a big spender. Sort of the a British version of Trump or […]
[…] current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, deserves praise for turning the Brexit vote into Brexit reality, but his fiscal policy has been […]
[…] Brexit, I was very happy that Boris Johnson won a landslide victory in late 2019. And he then delivered an acceptable version of Brexit, so that worked out well. However, it definitely doesn’t look like he will fulfill my hopes of […]
[…] United Kingdom has now escaped the EU, but it was part of the bloc during the periods being […]
[…] for Brexit, I was very happy that Boris Johnson won a landslide victory in late 2019. And he then delivered an acceptable version of Brexit, so that worked out well. However, it definitely doesn’t look like he will fulfill my hopes of […]
[…] for Brexit, I was very happy that Boris Johnson won a landslide victory in late 2019. And he then delivered an acceptable version of Brexit, so that worked out well. However, it definitely doesn’t look like he will fulfill my hopes […]
[…] Is it because she reflexively supports red tape? Is it because she’s getting campaign contributions from Pfizer and is trying to keep a competing vaccine off the market? Is it because Astra-Zeneca’s vaccine was developed in the U.K. and she opposed Brexit? […]
[…] Is it because she reflexively supports red tape? Is it because she’s getting campaign contributions from Pfizer and is trying to keep a competing vaccine off the market? Is it because Astra-Zeneca’s vaccine was developed in the U.K. and she opposed Brexit? […]
[…] Dominic Frisby also deserves applause for his video about […]
[…] that’s why I’m a huge fan of Brexit. The United Kingdom is wise to escape the sinking […]
[…] British voters were very wise to approve “Brexit” so they won’t have to pay for this foolish […]
[…] worth noting that Brexit is helping the United Kingdom, which is exactly what I […]
[…] Like most libertarians, I support decentralization and federalism. Under the right circumstances, I’m even sympathetic to the idea of secession (hooray for Brexit!). […]
[…] The luckiest Europeans are the British. They wisely opted for Brexit so they presumably won’t be on the hook for this costly new type of E.U.-wide redistribution […]
[…] was on the correct side on Brexit and Thatcher was one of her heroes. And she got the seat after beating out an ally of Theresa May, […]
[…] was on the correct side on Brexit and Thatcher was one of her heroes. And she got the seat after beating out an ally of Theresa May, […]
[…] In Chapter 8, you’ll learn that joining the anti-democratic European Union is the right choice for some nations, but also that the United Kingdom had good reasons for Brexit. […]
[…] thus accelerate the economic decline of Europe. Given what’s now happening, the British were very wise to […]
[…] this is a big reason why I favored Brexit. Yes, it was largely about escaping an increasingly dirigiste European bureaucracy in Brussels, but […]
[…] Brexit was a battle over whether the United Kingdom would: […]
The EU is guaranteed to fail with its socialistic policies such as “harmonization” – everything including taxes all the same – and insistence that you can’t have “Europe a la Carte” (the same policy for everyone with no exceptions).
Yet only competition gives competitive prices and competitive delivery. Without competition, which both the EU and most if not all of its government owned entities seek to eliminate, at least one if not more of pricing/delivery/service become uncompetitive. You have nowhere else to go – no alternative supplier when service is bad or worse.