Brexit: Why I Care

Given that I am a libertarian anarchist, it might be wondered why I am campaigning for Leave vote in the EU referendum.  Why do I think this is worth doing?

I have never been actively involved or voted in any prior UK* election or referendum, because I have never felt that any of the options presented to me are worth my time or effort. They are always a choice between varying flavors of statism. But this is a different matter.

To draw an analogy, suppose income tax is 20% and there is a referendum on whether the tax should be increased to 30% or be lowered to 10%. Should a libertarian bother voting? Would a vote for 10% be a violation of the libertarian principle that the ideal tax rate is 0%? I don’t think so. The vote is signalling which direction you want to move in; it does not imply that you want to stop at 10%.

In this referendum the choice is simply between more government and less government.

A vote to Remain is to endorse the EU, which is a layer of government on top of the UK government, and one which:
1) controls a larger territorial area,
2) is more interventionist, and
3) is less accountable to voters than the UK government.

 A vote to Leave is a rejection of the EU, an endorsement of the idea that if governments are to exist they should:
1) control a territorial area as small as possible,
2) intervene as little as possible, and
3) be as accountable to voters as possible.

To vote Leave does not mean I want to stop at seceding from the EU government; I want to secede from the UK government as well; but it is a vote to signal which direction I want to move in: less government, more liberty.

This viewpoint is consistent with the principles of libertarian strategy outlined by Murray Rothbard here. We won’t get to total liberty overnight, but when the opportunity to increase liberty arises, we should embrace and support it as a step in the right direction, rather than sitting on the sidelines moaning about the increase in liberty not being as great as we would like.


* I added the term UK, because I did get involved in the Ron Paul Presidential campaigns of both 2008 and 2012, albeit from afar.  Ron Paul is a unique politician in that he is a voluntaryist, as I explained in my videos here and here.

Brexit: The UK Contribution to the EU Budget

The primary question in the Brexit debate is: is the UK a net beneficiary or a net contributor to the EU budget? The answer is indisputable. The UK is the second largest net contributor to the EU budget, behind Germany. We put in more than we get out. Only a fool would belong to a club where one gets out less than what one puts in.

The Remain campaigners tend to quote the UK’s net contribution to the EU budget. The Leave campaigners tend to quote to gross figure. Which makes more sense?

In 2014, the UK gross contribution to the EU budget was £18.8bn (£361m per week). A rebate is deducted before the money is sent, bringing this figure down to £14.4bn (£276m per week). The EU sent £6.0bn back to the UK in the form of payments to support things like agriculture, regional development and university research, meaning the net contribution from the UK to the EU was £8.4bn (£161m per week), or about £314 per household on average.

Does it make more sense to quote gross or net contribution figure?

At first I thought it was disingenuous of Leave campaigners to quote the gross figure.  However, when tax contributions are quoted, gross figures are always used. For example, when income tax contributions are discussed, the figures are always gross.  It would be strange to say that an individual’s income tax contribution is zero (or negative!) on the basis that it is all returned to him in the form of government services.  Nobody bothers trying to subtract the value of government services from an individual's tax contributions, in order to quote net income tax contribution.  It should be the same for the UK contribution to the EU: the £6.0bn paid to the UK should not be subtracted from the UK gross contribution figure; so it is fair to say that the UK contributes £276m per week to the EU.

What about the rebate? Does it make a difference that it is subtracted before the money is even sent? Perhaps. But on the other hand, the rebate could be revoked at any time, so on that basis it could be argued that it is fair to say the UK contributes £361m per week, not £276m per week.

The 2014 figures are taken from here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35943216

Although it is based on 2010 data, here is a useful infographic showing EU contributions by member state: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/01/26/EU27_Money.pdf

Brexit: "Europe" vs "The EU"

The main group supporting a vote of Remain call themselves “Britain Stronger In Europe”. That name is deceptive. The referendum is not about whether the UK (or Britain) should be in “Europe”. It is about whether we should be in “the EU”.

Europe is a geographical location. The EU is a political organisation. It is impossible for the UK to NOT be “in Europe”. We cannot move our island to North America or to Asia. No one is arguing that we should isolate ourselves from Europe. No one is in favor of building a wall in the English Channel to prevent travel or trade between the UK and the people of mainland Europe.

The conflation of the EU with Europe is convenient for BSE. It is in their advantage for the UK public to conflate leaving the EU with isolating ourselves from Europe.

As an example, a BSE leaflet that came through my door a couple of weeks ago states as “key facts” that “over 3 million UK jobs are linked to our exports to the EU” and that “200,000 UK businesses trade with the EU, helping them to create jobs here in the UK”. They leave it up to the reader to consider what will happen to those jobs in the case of a Brexit. They presumably hope the reader will conclude that those 3 million jobs will be lost.

But the UK will continue to trade with the EU whether or not we are part of it, or whether the EU even exists. Those 3 million jobs are not going to be lost; it is possible that none of them will be.

Brexit: The Principle of Secession

On 23rd June the UK is due to hold a referendum on whether to remain in the EU or leave it (“Brexit”). Both the "Leave" and "Remain" camps have started making their arguments, and the official campaigning period has begun. I plan to post regularly on this subject between now and the referendum.

I am in strongly favor of the UK leaving the EU and I will be voting that way.

My primary argument is a very simple principle-based argument. I support the principle of secession, without exceptions. That is, I believe that any group of individuals has a right to dissociate themselves from any other group of individuals, if they so wish. It does not matter what size the group is. It could be a single individual. No one should be forced to belong to any group they do not wish to belong to.

This immediately implies, of course, that I not only support the UK seceding from the EU, but that I also support:

• The UK or EU seceeding from any world governmental organisation, like the UN, IMF or WTO 
• Scotland seceeding from the UK, or Catalonia from Spain, or Veneto from Italy, etc 
• The establishment of free cities and free communities, independent from any nation state 
• Individuals seceeding from their government to become self-governing. 

To me, these things all go together. Either you support the principle of secession, the principle of freedom of association, or you don't. I do.

I have not seen this argument raised in the Brexit debate so far. I do not expect to see it raised. The reason is obvious. If the principle of secession is raised, then it is clear that these principles apply at a lower levels than just the limited question of whether the UK should secede from the EU. Anyone who suggests that the UK should secede from the EU on principle cannot then consistently oppose, for example, the secession of Scotland from the UK, because the principled argument is exactly the same: no one should be forced to belong to any group they do not wish to belong to.

Man Against The State Videos

Original videos by Graham Wright 

• Government Explained
• Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper 
• Law without Government: Principles 
• Law without Government: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society 
• Law without Government: The Bargaining Mechanism
• The Philosophy of Liberty (by ISIL) 
• Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist 
• Where Do Ron Paul’s Ideas Come From? 
• Economic Coordination and the Business Cycle (in V For Voluntary library)

Articles read by Graham Wright 

• Bastiat, Frederic (adapted) – A Question for Occupy Wall Street: What is Government? 
• Boettke, Peter – 10 Propositions Austrian Economists Believe 
• Childs, Roy – An Open Letter to Ayn Rand 
• Graf, Konrad – Bitcoin, The Regression Theorem, and that Curious But Unthreatening Empirical World 
• Higgs, Robert – Ten Reasons Not To Abolish Slavery 
• Hoppe, Hans-Hermann – Of Private, Common and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization 
• Hoppe, Hans-Hermann – A Four-Step Healthcare Solution 
• Kinsella, Stephan – What Libertarianism Is 
• Kinsella, Stephan – How We Come To Own Ourselves 
• Long, Roderick – Funding Public Goods: Six Solutions 
• Long, Roderick – An Open Letter to The Peace Movement 
• Long, Roderick – Defending a Free Nation (2 parts)
• Matson, Kaleb – Why You Should Quit Politics 
• Mises, Ludwig von – Liberty and Property 
• Mises, Ludwig von – The Place of Economics in Learning 
• Murphy, Robert – But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over? 
• Pascal, Blaise – Definitions and Logical Method 
• Rideau, Francois-Rene – Government and Microsoft: A Libertarian View on Monopolies (4 parts)
• Rockwell, Lew – The Evil 1% 
• Rothbard, Murray – Anatomy of the State (7 parts) 
• Rothbard, Murray – Totalitarian Communism in Munster, 1534-35 
• Sanchez, Daniel – Why Liberalism? (in V For Voluntary library)