From financial letter "Capital and Conflict",author Nikolai Hubble
The nitty gritty details of a Brexit are starting to emerge.
Anatole Kaletsky, the chief economist and co-chairman of Gavekal
Dragonomics and former columnist at The Times of London, has pointed out
that the World Trade Organisation would have a lot to say about
British-EU trade under Brexit:
Britain would need to negotiate access
to the European single market for its service industries, whereas EU
manufacturers would automatically enjoy virtually unlimited rights to
sell whatever they wanted in Britain under global World Trade
That’s a whopping argument in favour of Bremain. But where is the
estimation of how trade would boom once Britain were free to make
unilateral trade deals with countries the EU doesn’t like?
One Capital & Conflict reader emailed in an excellent
analysis of the constitutional implications of leaving the EU. The
problem is, as for every other argument about Brexit, I’ve heard a
persuasive argument on the same issue made for staying in the EU.
Having a supranational government with a developed human rights
system reduces the ability of a single government from abusing your
human rights. This applies to the UK’s terrorism laws especially. But as
reader Dr. D.B. points out below, the British constitutional system is
better than the EU one in some or many ways. Of course nobody can agree
on what’s better or worse anyway.
Here’s Dr. D.B.’s thoughtful take on this, and thanks for sending it in:
Thank you for your interesting email.
The key difference between England in the EU and out of the EU is: The Legal and Constitutional System.
Within the EU, there is no Habeas
Corpus (i.e. you can be arrested without evidence and imprisoned
indefinitely without trial; on release, you have no possibility of
compensation). Under the European Arrest Warrant, you can be arrested in
Britain (and people have been) and imprisoned in the EU. Outside the
EU, however, we have the English legal system to safeguard our
Within the EU, the individual exists
for the benefit of the State. Outside the EU, however, the State exists
to serve the individual.
Within the EU, we are powerless to
remove those in charge, and the European Parliament is powerless to do
anything other than vote on what it has been asked to by the Commission.
Our own parliament becomes a rubber-stamping irrelevancy. Outside the
EU, however, we can (and often do) eject those in power from their
positions by our votes. Our parliament determines the bills that are
enshrined into law – and those that are rejected.
Within the EU, our monarch is an
irrelevancy: by signing the treaty that took us into the EEC [European
Economic Community], she (perhaps traitorously) abdicated her role as
the guardian of the rights of the people against any impositions on
those rights by government. Outside the EU, however, she would (we hope)
resume her constitutional role as representative of the rights of the
people against unconstitutional incursions by government.
The structure of the EU is very
similar to that of the old USSR. The EU could thus easily slip into a
totalitarian dictatorship. If it could... it probably will!
As for our mode of exit, we should
forget about Clause 50, and simply declare, unilaterally, that our
membership of the EU is unconstitutional, and thus was never valid.
These issues are all (it seems to me) of far greater weight than any of the issues that you mention.
I hope that this is helpful!