For the exit

The result of the UK’s referendum has been declared and the question for Britain to remain in or to leave the EU has been answered. History has come full circle; in a sense, today we are seeing the American Revolution in reverse. In many ways, the European Union is a lever of US global hegemony. By seceding from the EU in spite of threats from Washington, Britain is declaring partial independence from the US.

It must be noted that independence is not isolation. This is the key distinction that is intentionally blurred by the ‘Better Together’ rhetoric of the ‘Remain’ camp. Advocates of international unions and super-states claim that centralisation promotes trade and peace: that customs unions break down trade barriers and international government prevents war. In reality, super-states encourage both protectionism and warfare. The bigger the trade bloc, the more it can cope with the economic isolation that comes with trade warfare. And the bigger the military bloc, the easier it is for bellicose countries to externalise the costs of their belligerence by dragging the rest of the bloc into its fights. A small political unit cannot afford economic isolationism; it simply doesn’t have the domestic resources necessary. So for all of UKIP’s isolationist rhetoric, the practical result of UK independence from the European economic policy bloc would likely be freer trade and cross-border labour mobility (immigration). Political independence fosters economic interdependence. And economic interdependence increases the opportunity costs of war and the benefits of peace. Today we have a victory for Brexit and for the power of exit. That’s good news for European liberty. During its Industrial Revolution, Britain was a beacon of domestic liberty and economic progress that stimulated liberal reform on the European continent. An independent Britain in the 21st century can play that role again.

M Yasir Kayani

Kasur