Author: croydonconstitutionalists

United States Electoral College – CHAPTER 1. ORIGINS & HISTORY OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

In the second part of Dan Heaton’s thesis discussing the United States Electoral College, he looks at the Origins & History of the Electoral College.

CHAPTER 1. ORIGINS & HISTORY OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

The Presidential Electoral College system is not laid down in any federal statute but is enshrined within the Constitution of the United States of America of 1787.  Article II of the Constitution as modified by the 12th Amendment has been in existence as long as the United States itself, and thus in order to examine the origins of the Electoral College it is essential to study how the Constitution of 1787 came into being in the form that it did.

The Road to Philadelphia.

July 4th 1776 saw the Continental Congress issue the Declaration of Independence.  The ensuing war evoked nationalist sentiments in American political thought, however, during this period many of the colonies enacted their own constitutions and in effect became states in their own right, with their own governments and thus their own interests to protect.  Thus when the great and the good discussed the enacting of the Articles of Confederation the opposing viewpoints of nationalism and localism met head on.  In the end the small states with their local interests won the battle as James Wilson a Congressman at the time stated later when addressing the Constitutional Convention in 1787:

“Among the first sentiments expressed in the first Congress, one was that Virginia is no more that Massachusetts is no more that Pennsylvania is no more and Connecticut.  We are now one nation of brethren.  We must bury all local interests and distinctions.  This language continued for some time.  The tables at length began to turn.  No sooner were the State Governments formed than their jealousy and ambition began to display themselves.  Each endevoured to cut a slice from the  common loaf; to add to its own morsel, till at length the Confederation became frittered down to the impotent condition in which it now stands.  Review the progress of the Articles of Confederation through Congress and compare the first and last draught of it.” (1)

Once the watered down Articles of Confederation had been approved by Congress in 1777 the states had all the rights. The larger states who had previously wanted a strong national Government  became more localist in outlook.  They had no interest in moving power to the centre as the new Congress was based upon the equal rights of states and could thus be controlled by the smaller less populous states therefore any national power would be of no use to the larger states.

Essentially, in terms of internal affairs, the states acted totally in their own interests and against any notion of the common good, threatening the very existence of the fledgling union itself, Leonard W Levy sums up the situation thus:

“Congress, representing the United States, authorized the creation of the states and ended up, as it had begun, as their creature.  It possessed expressly delegated powers with no means of enforcing them.  That Congress lacked commerce and tax powers was a serious deficiency, but not nearly as crippling as its lack of sanctions and the failure of the states to abide by the Articles.  Congress simply could not make anyone, except soldiers, do anything.  It acted on the states, not on people.  Only a national government that could execute its laws independently of the states could have survived.  The states flouted their constitutional obligations.  The Articles obliged the states to “abide by the determinations of the United States, in Congress assembled,” but there was no way to force the states to comply.” (2)

The problems encountered by the Confederation led in September 1786 to a convention in Annapolis, Maryland at which representatives from Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York agreed that a Constitutional Convention made up of delegates from all the states should meet in Philadelphia in May 1787: “…to take into consideration the situation of the United States, to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union, and to report such an act for that purpose to the United States in Congress assembled….” (3)

Thus delegates from the former colonies met in Philadelphia on may 25th 1787 in order to revise the Articles of Confederation and fashion the Constitution of The United States.  Against this backdrop the delegates set about the creation of an independent and permanent executive, the position of President of the United States and a system for appointment to what is now the most powerful political position in the world.

“it was suggested that the states should decide who should be President.  However, following the blatant flouting of the Articles of Confederation and the overtly localist tendencies of some of the states, it was feared that this system would allow the President to become the lackey of the states”

The Convention.

In Philadelphia the founding fathers met to revise the constitution, they agreed that there should be a president, but they were undecided as to how this most illustrious position should be filled?  The Presidency could not be hereditary as this went totally against the republican form of government envisaged and the anti-monarchist post War of Independence feeling.

There were three main proposals for the appointment procedure.  Firstly, it was mooted that Congress should elect the President whether from amongst its own numbers or from elsewhere. This proposal was attacked as it might lead to corruption with the President being beholden to the Congressmen.  It was also felt that such a system would cause division in Congress over the selection and that this would be bad for the Union and that such infighting may lead to corruption or political payoffs in order to obtain votes.  Just as important at this time though was that such a system allowing Congress to appoint the executive would be an affront to the doctrine of the separation of powers and would have disturbed the balance between the executive and legislative branches of the Government.  Thus this suggestion was rejected by the convention.

Secondly, it was suggested that the states should decide who should be President.  However, following the blatant flouting of the Articles of Confederation and the overtly localist tendencies of some of the states, it was feared that this system would allow the President to become the lackey of the states and that this would dilute the newly created federation leaving it as impotent as the previous confederation.

The third of the main proposals was that the President should be directly elected by the people of the Union, or at least all those men entitled to vote.  However, at the time due to the sheer size of the country and the state of technology during that period it would have been difficult to launch a national campaign accessible to all the people.  It was also feared that to do so would favour the most populous states and thus little time would be given by the President to the needs of the people in the smaller less populous states.  Given the environment of localism at the time it was also feared that each state would simply vote for their own man the so called “favourite son”, and thus the new head of state would in fact have very little national support at a time when the delegates were looking to create a feeling of a nation rather than fostering allegiance to individual states which could lead to the break up of the Union.

There thus came the great compromise known today as the Electoral College.  The College was a compromise between state power and federal authority, between small and large states and according to Victor Williams and Alison M MacDonald (4) a compromise between the northern states and the southern slave owning states. 

The Original Design of the Electoral College.

The system laid down Article II of the document which became the Constitution of the United States of America is as follows:

“…Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.  And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the President of the Senate.  The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the votes shall then be counted.  The person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed: and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives  shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President: and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President.  But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the Senates shall be necessary to a Choice.  In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice-President.  But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.”

There are thus three parts to the process; the selection of electors, the process by which electors vote and the contingency election used in situations where no candidate achieves a majority.

Each state is entitled to a number of electors equal to their representation in Congress, Thus, no matter what their population, they are guaranteed at least three electoral votes, two for the two Senators that each state is entitled to under Article I Section 3 of the Constitution and at least one for the one member of the House of Representatives which each state has guaranteed under Article I Section 2.  Thus small states gained a proportionally greater representation in the election of the President.  Victor Williams and Alison M MacDonald have gone further and assert that the smaller states at this time tended to be the southern slave owning states and that despite their low voting populations for the House of Representatives they benefitted  from Article I Section 2 which details how a states representation in congress is to be assessed.  Article I Section 2 states that in this calculation “three fifths of all other persons” are to be counted.  Thus slaves who had no right to vote could be counted as three fifths of a person thus giving the southern slave owning states a larger proportion of Congressmen than states which only counted free men.  With a larger representation in Congress went a larger representation in the Electoral College.

The actual process for choosing electors was left open to the individual state legislatures to decide upon.  This was again a compromise between state and federal power.  The only prohibition placed on electors was that they could not be Members of Congress or employees of the United States.  This was to ensure that the choice of President as the executive branch of government was kept separate from the legislature, and was enacted so as to embody the doctrine of the separation of powers.

Once selected the electors would meet in their own states in order to make corruption more difficult due to the vast geography of the country.  The electors would then cast two votes for people they thought fit to be President.  In order that the “favourite son” scenario could be avoided, it was enshrined that at least one of the votes cast had to be for someone from another state.

When the voting was completed the votes were sent to Congress were the President of the Senate (a position actually held by the incumbent Vice-President) would declare the results.  If one person had a majority of the votes then that person is declared President and the runner up became Vice-President.  However, if there was a tie, or if no candidate obtained a majority of the electoral votes then the House of Representatives was to select the President from those with the top five number of votes.  This was to be done by the state representation voting as a state not as individual representatives, thus even in the contingency election the smaller states benefit as they become equal to the more populous states each receiving one vote each.  Once a President is selected the candidate with the highest number of Electoral College votes would be declared Vice-President, however, should there be a tie then the Senate would vote for the Vice-President.

Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist said of the system: “…[T]hat if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.  It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages the Union of which was to be wished for.” (5)

Hamilton particularly praised the use of the office of Elector:

“No Senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the number of the electors.  Thus, without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon their task, free from any sinister bias.  Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already noticed, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it.  The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time, as well as means, nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them dispersed, as they would be over thirteen states,….” (6)

Hamilton also believed that the system would find superior and unifying Presidents rather than merely the favourite son of a populous state:

“This process of election affords a moral certainty that the office of president will seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.  Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honours, of a single state; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union, or of so considerable a portion of it, as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.” (7)

It was with these persuasive writings from Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay writing under the pseudonym Pubilus in articles collectively known as the Federalist that the argument was waged over ratification of the document drafted at the Philadelphia Convention.  The federalists won the day and the Constitution of the United States of America, including the presidential electoral system that has become known as the Electoral College was ratified by the required nine states by June 1788.

“The practice of electors casting two votes for presidential candidates became seen as redundant because the rise of political parties had created what we now know as Presidential and Vice Presidential running mates”

The Early Years of the Constitution.

The early years of the new union saw the rise of political parties.  This meant that electors of a given persuasion were likely to give their two electoral votes to like minded individuals thus the likelihood of a tie increased dramatically.  This in fact occurred in the 1800 election when electors for the Democratic-Republican party [not the current Republican Party] awarded their votes equally to Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson.  The decision on who should be President was thus placed in the hands of the House of Representatives, who eventually decided in favour of Thomas Jefferson.

The practice of electors casting two votes for presidential candidates became seen as redundant because the rise of political parties had created what we now know as Presidential and Vice Presidential running mates.  The political parties had also started to breakdown the boundaries between state orientated candidates a nd were creating a greater national forum.  The election of 1800 was a watershed for the Electoral College.  It was its fourth Presidential election and it was to be its last in its present form.  The fact that parties had become so prominent in United States politics and that there had been all kinds of political dealings in the House of Representatives in order to get Jefferson elected, including some thirty-six ballots, created the environment from which the 12th Amendment was proposed and ratified.

The 12th Amendment ratified in 1804 stated:

“”The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves, they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each,….  The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.  But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice….The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice….”

The 12th Amendment implicitly recognises the prominence of political parties through its requirement that electors vote for separate candidates specifically for the posts of President and Vice President as this facilitates “running mates” to exist and avoids the confusion amongst electors which resulted in the tied election of 1800. 

The Amendment also affected the Contingent Election process for the two posts.  The procedure by which the House of Representatives selects the President was altered, so that should no candidate receive a majority of the electoral vote the  House would now select the President only from those with the three largest number of electoral votes rather than the top five candidates.  The Senate was also given the power to select the Vice-President, in cases were no majority of electoral votes exist for that post.  They could now select from the top two ranked candidates based on the electoral vote for that position.

Thus, whilst the College system had been altered significantly in the case of voting for separate Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, the essential formula of votes being split amongst the various states in a somewhat disproportionate manner remained the same.  Despite the mood of change the powers that be decided not to overhaul the system and introduce direct election, even though the party system had eroded some of the state allegiances.  Tadahisa Kuroda asserts that Thomas Jefferson had previously been an advocate of abolishing the electors and replacing the system with direct election but that he now “chose the option that most advantaged his party, hurt his rivals and simplified the choices to be given to state legislatures.” (8)

“In an attempt to guarantee a Whig Party President, the Whigs nominated three different candidates for separate parts of the country.  The Party hoped to use the local candidate’s popularity to obtain an Electoral College majority for the Party and then and only then decide which candidate should be President”

Turbulent Elections.

The elections of 1800 and 2000 are not the only controversial Presidential elections to occur in the history of the electoral college.  There have been numerous occasions when the result of an election has been disputed or unusual because of the nuances of the electoral system.

1824.

In 1824 the dominant Democratic-Republican Party had four candidates  in; William Crawford, Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.  Andrew Jackson won the electoral vote but was unable to win a majority.  The decision was thus passed to the House of Representatives, who under the rules laid down in the 12th Amendment selected John Quincy Adams as President of the United States.  This decision was completely within the constitutional remit of the House but not surprisingly caused uproar with Andrew Jackson and his supporters who claimed that the House of Representatives had thwarted the popular will as he had obtained the largest share of the popular vote as well as coming top of the electoral college vote.  However, at the time of this election, of the twenty-four states of the Union six did not use popular ballots to appoint electors, with the choice of electors being left to the state legislature.  Such states including the populous New York along with South Carolina, Georgia, Vermont, Louisiana and Delaware.  New York had 36 electoral votes and South Carolina had 11 but neither of these states sought to know the will of their inhabitants.  Thus, the popular will of the people could not be assessed at the time.  The election by the contingent process was not unconstitutional but merely highlighted the shortcomings of several states selection policies and was a stepping stone in the democratisation of that process nationally.

1836.

In an attempt to guarantee a Whig Party President, the Whigs nominated three different candidates for separate parts of the country.  The Party hoped to use the local candidate’s popularity to obtain an Electoral College majority for the Party and then and only then decide which candidate should be President.  However, the plan backfired and the Democratic-Republican Martin Van Buren obtain an Electoral College majority.

1876.

In 1876 the United States was still recovering from the civil war and was entering an economic depression.  The country and indeed the political parties were divided over the post-war settlements and tariff policy.  This division could not have been better emphasised than in the electoral results of Florida (not for the last time!}, South Carolina and Louisiana.  The states were so divided that they all sent two conflicting sets of electoral votes, one set in favour of the Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, the Mayor of New York and one set in favour of the Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes, the Governor of Ohio.  In the circumstances Congress set-up an Electoral Commission to decide the outcome of the election in those states.  Not surprisingly the Republican Congress awarded the states to Rutherford B. Hayes and he became President.

Whilst most attention with regard to the 1876 election goes to the disputed  vote counts in the above states, it is interesting to note the role that Colorado had on the election.  The United States Electoral College Webzine makes an interesting point:

“There was also the situation in Colorado where Hayes won with 0 votes..  Colorado was admitted to the Union in August 1876.  The state legislature, to save money decided not hold a presidential election…. They simply appointed electors who voted for Hayes.  So what put Hayes over the top were 3 electors not by [sic] the public.  This was all perfectly constitutional, and did not figure in the controversy over disputed votes.

Was it a coincidence that Colorado was admitted to the Union right before the closest electoral vote in history?  Probably not.  Colorado was the only state admitted to the Union between 1867 and 1889.  The Republican Congress was unwilling to give up the patronage jobs in the territories.  So admitting a state to the Union was quite an extraordinary event.  Perhaps the expectation of three additional Republican electors was a motivating factor.” (9)

1888.

In 1888 the incumbent President Grover Cleveland of the Democratic Party lost under the Electoral College to Republican Party candidate Benjamin Harrison despite winning the popular vote.  By now all states were using popular election to decide upon their electors so it really was a case of the winner of the popular vote losing the electoral vote.  According to the Electoral College Webzine (10) Grover Cleveland managed to lose the election by making tariff reform an issue.  This made him very popular in the south but lost him votes in the north, thus whilst he won large majorities of the popular vote in the south he lost narrowly in the northern states to Harrison.  The election of 1888 is a classic example of the Electoral College working in favour of a candidate with national support rather than one with large support but whose support is regional.  Thus, whilst the election result of 1888 has often been used in the past as an example of the flaws of the Electoral College by its opponents, it is also used by its supporters as a sign of the system working as the founding fathers envisaged.

The Electoral College Today.

Allocation of Electoral Vote.

The number of electors allocated to each state is equal to that states representation in Congress, thus it is equal to 2 Senators plus that states number of Representatives which must be at least 1 (Article I US Constitution) The number of electors allocated to each state varies with the changes in their apportionment of Representatives after every decennial census.  Whilst the original Constitution allocated each state at least 3 electors, the 23rd Amendment ratified in 1961 awarded 3 electors to the District of Columbia.  There are therefore now electors from all 50 states of the Union and the seat of the United States Government.  However, American dependencies such as the U. S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa do not receive any electoral votes and so do not play any part in the election of the President.

The Electors.

The vital link between the people and the winning candidate are technically the electors.  They are usually loyal local party supporters or activists chosen because they can be trusted to cast their vote for their declared favourite candidate.  The process of formal nomination of electors varies from state to state, but they are usually nominated either by the local branch of a political party, by party convention or they are selected by the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates themselves.  The only people prohibited from being electors are members of Congress and employees of the Federal Government. [Article II Section 1 US Constitution.]

Appointment of Electors.

Article II of the Constitution states that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature may direct, a Number of Electors….”  The decision of how to select electors was therefore left to the state legislatures, therefore some legislatures appointed the electors themselves..  However, over the years the states moved towards popular statewide election by ballot.  Indeed, since 1836 only South Carolina maintained that policy and they moved to popular ballot following the civil war.  The date of appointment which now essentially means Presidential Election Day has now become uniform under federal law. The date for elections being the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in every Presidential Election year.  In some states the names actually appear on the ballot paper but in most cases the ballot papers simply read “Electors for…”

Allocation of Electoral Votes.

Article II Section 1 of the Constitution states that electors are appointed “…as Legislature thereof may direct…2 and the Supreme Court in the case of McPherson v Blacker (1892) [{1892} 146 US 1] deemed that this power extended to the allocation of electoral votes after any ballot.  Through time the system known as “The General Ticket” or “The Winner Takes All” system has developed whereby the candidate who finishes top of the statewide poll receives all of that states allocation of electors.  Thus, in Florida in 2000, after the final court ruling, the official result gave George W. Bush 2912790 votes compared to Al Gore’s 2912253, yet George W. Bush was awarded all of Florida’s Electoral College votes.  Therefore, with a difference in the Florida poll of just 0.01% George W. Bush was able to become President of the United States.  The winner takes all system is used in 48 of the 50 states and in the District of Columbia, however, the states of Maine and Nebraska use what is called the Congressional District method of allocating their electoral vote.  This system involves the allocating of the two electors representing the states Senatorial seats to the overall statewide winner, but then allocating the remainder of the electoral votes to the candidates who receive the most votes in the states Congressional Districts.  However, given that following the 2000 Census, in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, Maine will only have an allocation of 4 Electoral College votes and Nebraska will only have 5, the winner takes all system is by far the most dominant and is a much criticised facet of the modern Electoral College.

Meeting of Electors.

The electors now meet in their state capitals on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December to cat their votes for President and Vice-President.

Counting of the Electoral Votes.

The electoral votes are counted in front of a joint session of Congress on the January 6th following the election, by the President of the Senate who then declares the winners or announces a contingent election.

The system was a controversial compromise at the time of its inception.  In the next chapter I examine the arguments against the College and those in favour of its retention. (11)

The founding fathers had to design a system which reflected the federal nature of the new nation and that federal nature still exists today.  However, the application of the winner takes all system and the problems with voting machines and counting procedures bring  the system into disrepute.  Nonetheless the actual Electoral College is a compromise which for the most part has worked well.  In the words of Alexander Hamilton:

“[T]hat if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent.” (12)

Notes

  1. Farrand, Max editor.  Records 1 166-67,  The Framing of the Constitution, 1913, New Haven Conn.  In Levy, Leonard W.  Essays on the Making of the Constitution 2nd edition, 1987 Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  2. Levy, Leonard W.  Essays on the Making of the Constitution 2nd edition, 1987, Oxford University Press at pXVII.
  3. Beloff, Max. Editor.  The Federalist 2nd edition, 1987, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford at p463.
  4. [1] Williams V,  MacDonald A,  Rethinking Article II Section 1 & Its Twelfth amendment Restatement: Challenging Our Nations Malapportioned, Undemocratic Presidential Election System, Marquette Law Review, Winter 1994 Vol 77 n2 p201-264.
  5. Beloff, Max editor.  The Federalist 2nd Edition, 1987, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford at p348
  6. Ibid at p369
  7. Ibid at p350.
  8. Kuroda, Tadahisa.  The Origins of the Twelfth Amendment: The Electoral College in the Early Republic 1787-1804, Contributions in Political Science, Number 344, Westport Conn, Greenwood Publishing 1984 xii 235 as reviewed by Onuf, Peter S, of The University of Virginia Journal of Legal History April 1995 39 n2 p277-278.
  9. www.avagara.com/e_c/ec_1876.htm.
  10. www.avagara.com/e_c/ec_1888.htm.
  11. Farrand, Max editor.  Records 1 166-67,  The Framing of the Constitution, 1913, New Haven Conn.  In Levy, Leonard W.  Essays on the Making of the Constitution 2nd edition, 1987 Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  12. Federalist no 64.  See Beloff,  Max editor.  The Federalist 2nd edition. 1987, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford.

United States Electoral College

United States Electoral College – INTRODUCTION

In 2001 Dan Heaton wrote a thesis discussing that “Following the recent debacle of the United States Presidential Election, has the time come to abolish the Electoral College in favour of a more representative system of electing the most powerful leader in the world, and can other nations be so complacent about their systems of electing their leaders?”

Over several parts, with the Presidential Inauguration upon us and following the challenges of the 2020 election, now is a great opportunity to review these arguments.

INTRODUCTION

The United States is now the only true world superpower and has long been considered a beacon of freedom and democracy for the whole world.  It has a much lauded constitution with the doctrine of the separation of powers, a separation of church and state and civil liberties enshrined within that most beguiled of documents.

However, the recent election which saw George W. Bush as President and Commander in Chief has raised long felt concerns among many as to the truly democratic nature of the electoral process used to choose the Head of State of this most powerful of nations.

As the evening news was broadcast across the nation, the television networks declared that Vice President Al Gore had won the election.  Then as the night went on and results started to come in from across the nation the networks were forced to retract their prediction and announced that George W. Bush was going to be victorious.

However, the election remained exceptionally close across the country and it soon became clear that Florida had become the key state, with the victor there almost certain to win the keys to the White House.

“before Gore had made his public address before his supporters, as is traditional when making a formal concession, he was informed by his aides that Florida looks a lot closer and so remarkably he phoned Governor Bush again and retracted his previous concession”

With the networks having called the election for Governor Bush in the belief that he had won Florida, Vice President Gore phoned George W. Bush and conceded defeat.  However, before Gore had made his public address before his supporters, as is traditional when making a formal concession, he was informed by his aides that Florida looks a lot closer and so remarkably he phoned Governor Bush again and retracted his previous concession.

There then followed over a month of political and legal battles over the validity of ballots.  From the design of the “butterfly ballot” with the names of candidates either side of punch holes to the great “chad” debate, which raged over whether a punch hole had been properly perforated.

Legal hearings took place in district, state federal and finally the United States Supreme Court over the validity of counts and whether re-counts and hand re-counts should take place.   There were “stop the count” and “let them count” demonstrations both in Florida, Washington and elsewhere.

Eventually Vice President Al Gore conceded defeat on September 13th 2000, thirty-six days after the election took place, and George W. Bush the Governor of Texas became President-elect of the Union.

Meanwhile, the world had watched the scenes with a sense of confusion, disbelief and self-satisfaction that nothing like that would happen here! 

The reason why Florida’s result was of such importance is because of the Electoral College system used to elect the President.  The term Electoral College is a phrase used every four years when Presidential elections occur but understood by few, even in America.  The full implications of its effect did not become clear and as controversial until the recent election.    The system involves the states nominating electors to decide who will be the President of the Union, each state being entitled to a number of electors equal to their representation in Congress.  The system used in almost every state, results in the winner of each state receiving all of that state’s Electoral College vote.  It is thus possible for the overall popular vote winner to lose by means of the Electoral College.  This democratic anomaly has occurred twice before and appears to have happened in the election of 2000.  Recent events have brought the procedure and American democracy into question, to such an extent that one English commentator has argued that:

“The U.S. Constitution is killing democracy….  The procedures for selecting a President set down more than 200 years ago to suit a set of small states, populated by yeoman puritans, hugging the eastern seaboard of a continent, remain virtually unaltered as the method by which the single military, economic, political and cultural superpower on the planet reaches decisions of fundamental importance.  This will not do, change must come and the totally surreal developments that have now been witnessed across the world this week should be the catalyst.” (1)

“The United States Presidential Electoral College is therefore of current legal, constitutional and political significance”

The United States Presidential Electoral College is therefore of current legal, constitutional and political significance.  Numerous arguments have been put forward in favour of abolition of the Electoral College and its reform, whilst defenders of the process have also been quick to come to its defence, and there have been several proposals for reform placed before the House of Representatives in the new session of Congress.

In this work I intend to assess the Electoral College and look at possible alternatives that are available in other Western countries.  I will use the following format:

Chapter 1 – I explore the origins of the Electoral College and its workings in the early years of the Union.  I also look at its use in elections throughout history and its workings today.

Chapter 2 – In this  Chapter I assess the disadvantages of the system as asserted by its opponents along with its advantages as purported by its supporters.

Chapter 3 – I use this chapter to examine and analyse the reform proposals currently before the 107th Congress.

Chapter 4 – In this chapter I explore the systems used for selecting the Heads of State of three Western European countries and compare them to the American system.

Conclusion – In this chapter I assess other reasons for concern over the American electoral  system and compare the Electoral College to the system used to elect the Government of the United Kingdom.  Finally I assess the need for and the likelihood of reform.

Notes

  1. Haines, Tim.  The Times November 9th 2000 p18

United States Electoral College

Spreading The Ideas Of Liberty

How To Pass On The Sparks Of The Liberty Flame

Image: https://pixabay.com/vectors/torch-passing-orange-flame-fire-5205629/

Opinion Piece By Josh L. Ascough

The liberty movement has often struggled with trying to convince people to embrace freedom, liberty and individuality; to create a beautiful world where people are free to pursue personal happiness and embrace the personal responsibility that comes with it.

Sometimes this is because, there are some people who do not want freedom for others; it’s sad to say but some people just do not believe every individual is deserving of liberty, of freedom, sometimes rights. Whether they be Communists, Fascists, Nationalists, Socialists, Progressives, or any other Statist ideologue, some people are too engrained in a collectivist notion of existence; whether it be a racial hive mind hierarchy, nationality hive mind hierarchy, class hive mind hierarchy, or victim hive mind hierarchy; sometimes you’ve just got to accept the haters gonna hate.

Other times people just either haven’t heard the ideas of liberty before, they haven’t been convinced by the solutions to problems and better explanations are needed, and sometimes the issues they’re concerned about haven’t been addressed by the liberty movement.

There are then occasions where liberty minded people don’t know how to explain the ideas of liberty, and so they don’t know how to spread them. Sometimes, we Libertarians are our own worst nightmare.

I’m by no means saying I hold all the answers, but this short piece is to assist and give advice to help people spread the ideas of liberty; both to those who are political and hold no interest in politics but want to see a better world than what is around us.

Some of these tips I would argue are more important than others.

I – Read About Liberty.

I cannot stress how important it is to read about the ideas, theories and the philosophy behind liberty.

Too many times people want to get involved so eagerly; which is fantastic, but without having even a basic understanding on what it is they’re looking to bring out into the world.

You don’t have to read all of these books, some people are more passionate about social issues, political issues and others purely economic; if you’re not sure where about in the liberty movement your heart lies, feel free to pick and choose.

The books I highly recommend for starting the journey into liberty are:

  • Liberalism by Ludwig Von Mises.
  • The Free Market and its Enemies by Ludwig Von Mises.
  • Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
  • The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration by Jacob Hornberger and Richard Ebeling.
  • The Constitution of Liberty by F.A Hayek.
  • Fascism vs Capitalism by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

In addition, reading books on the subject of anti-liberty movements and books by anti-liberty people is a useful tool for understanding these ideas and what threats they pose to our freedoms, some to consider are:

  • The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.
  • The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini.
  • Right Wing Collectivism: The Other Threat To Liberty by Jeffrey Tucker
  • The Income Tax: Root of All Evil by Frank Chodorov.

II – Engage In Compatibility

A lot of the time people will show passion and want to fight for things that are highly compatible with the ideas of liberty; or they will wish to fight injustice, which those who are liberty-minded can agree is an injustice.

Yes your action for fighting injustice or campaigning for a cause probably won’t convince the masses of people if they’re fighting for different reasons, but if the principle for what it means is compatible there is no shame in standing for principles even if you’re shoulder to shoulder with complete opposites. For example; protesting HS2 for violation of property rights and maintaining government extortion of land, or standing up for someone facing legal punishment for freedom of speech, even if you strongly disagree with what they’ve said.

“If you find a charity that is on a subject you care about, show the voluntary, charitable aspect of liberty in action by giving or helping to raise awareness”

III – Lead By Example

The most common argument against liberty, and the most apologetic argument for Statism, is that people aren’t charitable and won’t voluntarily help others. This is probably the easiest thing any liberty-minded person can do. If you find a charity that is on a subject you care about, show the voluntary, charitable aspect of liberty in action by giving or helping to raise awareness. For myself I highly value education, and give to foundations and charities that focus on bringing the experience of learning to children in poverty. It doesn’t have to be an established charity; if you see a neighbour needs help, you can voluntarily choose to help them, without any coercion. Or spread the message to your friends and family that you’re giving away books, food, clothes etc, to people who need help. We resent each other because the state seizes our property to “help” others; this does nothing but build bitterness in the world, the best way to reduce resentment is to believe and practise voluntarism.

Finally, don’t be ashamed about “bragging” about charity work; it’s better to brag about voluntarism than it is coercion.

IV – Blog and Podcast

The more voices we have speaking out for freedom and liberty, the more people will hear it. Write about areas or talk about areas you’re most passionate about spreading liberty to. Whether its free trade, free immigration, freedom of speech, property rights or any other area you hold in your heart and you want to see separated from political power.

V – Know If You’re Liberty-Minded

This may seem extremely obvious, but there are so many people who are liberty-minded but just don’t know it, and at the same time so many who think they’re liberty-minded who really only believe in freedom for themselves or their “own kind” but that it doesn’t extend to others, or who want the “freedom” to control others.

I have seen so many people continue to support the Labour Party, Tory Party, UKIP, Lib-Dems, and all the other parties clearly because it’s what they’ve always done, but you see a spark of liberty in their heart that just needs to be explored.

On the other hand, I have seen way too many “Classical Liberals” who really are just Nationalists who believe in freedom of speech…for themselves but not their critics, and think social consequences mean their speech is being oppressed. Nationalism is not Patriotism, and Nationalism is not Libertarianism. Nationalism is the collectivist ideology that those born to a nation are one; a hive. Protectionism is rife with this ideology; sacrificing the value judgements of the individual in trade, because his choices, actions and desires must be to the benefit of the collective, the group. Restricting the command over one’s own labour; his property and those who wish to purchase his labour if he be foreign; because the consenting act of trade goes against the interests of the group, the hive; the nation.

There is nothing incompatible with being a patriot and a Libertarian; there’s also nothing incompatible with being a Libertarian with traditional values, community values, adopting values from other cultures and being a Libertarian; but, it is completely incompatible; if you are being intellectually honest, to be a “libertarian” who believes in the force, coercion and control of Nationalism.

There are “liberals” who don’t support free enterprise, don’t support free speech, don’t support ownership of private property and want to control and regulate the lives and choices of others; this is not Liberalism. This is plagiarism of the beautiful history of Liberalism by Progressives and Socialists.

It’s time for real Liberals; not pretend “liberals” because it sounds like a nice term, to start using the term Liberalism again with pride; I’m a Liberal. I believe in Liberalism, because I believe in freedom.

“You don’t need to have flashing lights and fancy eye-catching attractions, these events would be designed to engage with the public; grab a microphone, invite attendees, find a topic that is an issue people are talking about, and speak about a liberty-based solution to those problems”

VI – Organise Events

This one is more difficult with the current government imposed lockdowns, however, if and when you can, organise events to spread awareness.

You don’t need to have flashing lights and fancy eye-catching attractions, these events would be designed to engage with the public; grab a microphone, invite attendees, find a topic that is an issue people are talking about, and speak about a liberty-based solution to those problems. While not necessary if you can get liberty-minded speakers from different countries this would be of benefit, not just because knowledge is decentralised and they may have insight you had not considered, but it helps to show that the liberty movement is not a fringe group of people sat in a basement; it shows this is a global, decentralised movement with people from different backgrounds and helps to emphasise the humanity of freedom.

VII -Encouragement

At the start I mentioned how there are sadly some people who simply don’t believe people should be free, this section is about attempting to encourage the ideas of liberty with someone new; before potentially finding out they don’t believe in it.

If you find someone believes in legalising weed because people have a right to choose what they put in their body and what to do with their body, but they don’t believe in legalising or decriminalising cocaine, don’t screech hypocracy, praise them for there being an area where they believe in freedom and encourage them to think about other areas such a position could be applied to. This will not only help you, it will also help them in seeing if this is a principle they hold that they just didn’t know about, or whether it is just this one area they make exception for not controlling others.

The last piece of advice I can really give for reaching people is, Live In Liberty.

Recognise your individual sovereignty and the personal responsibility that comes with it. Allow others to make choices and to think freely, even if you disagree with their choices; they are sovereign individuals too. Treat yourself and other sovereign individuals as adults without controlling them, “for their own good”. There are many fundamental, principled differences between the liberty movement and Statism, but the most important for reaching people is this:

I don’t care what you are, I care who you are.

Believe in Life, Love and Liberty.

Myths About Immigration – Creating A More Free Immigration System

Image: https://pixabay.com/photos/migration-integration-migrants-3129340/

Economic Piece by Josh L. Ascough

Immigration is a contentious issue that has been in the spotlight for many years now, most notably due to Brexit and the question of what the U.K’s future relationship is when it comes to immigration. The Conservative Party and many others have opted for a points-based immigration system, the problem here is this gives the government central decision making about who is allowed to enter the country; further politicising migration and furthering command over the international labour market; which since the government makes the choices of what type of market they want to “create” and how they want to shape employment, it very much leaves immigration at the mercy of special interest groups; whether it be for protectionism, or nationalist tendencies.

“While I supported Brexit I was very saddened to see the free movement of people removed”

While I supported Brexit I was very saddened to see the free movement of people removed, and I truly believe if a more Liberal argument was the prominent voice for Brexit; rather than a Nationalist, Protectionist voice, then Brexit likely would’ve been accomplished within the first year of negotiations. The process would have gone along the lines of:

“We’ll make a compromise on free movement if you agree to free trade, but any attachment to the political and bureaucratic apparatus is off the table.”

Throughout this piece I’ll be going over two key misconceptions about immigration, followed by offering a brief analysis on what a better immigration system would be. These key areas are:

  1. Immigrants Steal Our Jobs.
  2. Immigrants Lower Wages.

“Modern Nationalism and collectivism have, by the restriction of migration, perhaps come nearest to the “servile state.”[…]Man can hardly be reduced more to a mere wheel in the clockwork of the national collectivist state than being deprived of his freedom to move[…]Feeling that he belongs now to his nation, body and soul, he will be more easily subdued to the obedient state serf which nationalist and collectivist governments demand.” ~ Wilhelm Ropke, Free Market Economist.

Immigrants Steal Our Jobs.

Probably one of the most famous, reactionary arguments towards immigration; so much so it’s become a famous line in South Park, this argument is usually based in two areas. The first being, the relationship between immigration and unemployment, and what Bastiat called “The Seen and The Unseen”.

Below are two statistical indicators of unemployment and rates of immigration to the U.K; the unemployment rates are from the periods of 1999 to 2019; the rate of immigration for the years 1980 to 2018.

As we can see from the data, there not only appears to be no causation towards unemployment from immigration, there’s not even a correlation.

Two interesting areas to take note of in the data is that the period of 2002 to 2004 had some of the lowest unemployment rates; ranging from 4.8% to 4.7%, and some of the highest levels of immigration of that decade, from 589,000 to 596,000. In addition the other area to take note of, is the only period where high unemployment was met with high levels of immigration; unemployment being at 7.5%, a peak of 8.04% and then back to around 7.5% between 2008 and 2012, and immigration levels between a high of 622,000 to 679,000 between 2008 and 2012. However, we should note that this period, was during and at the peak of the financial crisis of 2008.

If we go even further into the data we can see which demographics are hit most with unemployment, especially around the financial crisis.

Taking a look at the data below we can see that those hit hardest by general unemployment and the effects of the financial crisis, are those who are at the very marginal beginnings of their professional careers; those aged between 16 to 24 years of age.

Unemployment for those aged 16 to 24 is just below 25%. Now someone may look at this and conclude that, sure the financial crisis hurt young workers the most, but even outside that clearly immigration hurts young workers.

Except this ignores other variables.

These other variables to be taking into account include higher education and the minimum wage. Due to the taxpayer subsidising the money used for loans for student tuition fees, the filtering process of higher education has been eroded over time; alongside an increased promotion of University being a place for socialising rather than educating; more and more people acquiring University Degrees has led to an, “inflation” of higher education, meaning a degree is not as valuable as it once was to potential employers.

When it comes to the minimum wage it is pretty straight forward. If we have an increase in the minimum wage let’s say to £10 per hour, and a prospective employee is not able to produce at £10 per hour; suppose they can only produce at £8 per hour, they will find it excessively hard to enter the job market. That, or they will find the job they used to have has been cut and they’ve been laid off. In order for the potential employer to cover the cost of employing an individual at the newly increased minimum wage, they will be seeking past experience and higher levels of qualification; causing people to not be settled long term in the job market until they’ve reached their mid-20s to early-30s.

“it’s not immigration that has led to high unemployment among young people; it’s government intervention and regulation of education and employment”

So it’s not immigration that has led to high unemployment among young people; it’s government intervention and regulation of education and employment, which has led to young University students with a Degree only being able to find work at Primark; if they’re lucky.

The other aspect of the “they steal our jobs” fallacy has to do with what French Liberal Economist Fredric Bastiat called, ‘The Seen and Unseen’. As part of this fallacy I’ll also include the concept that immigration lowers wages.

When a new immigrant worker enters the job market, we see a supplied job that could have gone to a native worker becomes occupied. The old talking point being it’s simple supply and demand; if you increase the supply of labour, you get more jobs taken up and you see the price of labour lowered.

In the diagram shown below we see an example of the argument stated above. W0 = original wages before immigration, W1 = wages with increased supply, S0 = original supply, S1 = added supply, and D = demand.

There are a few problems with this argument however. The argument looks at it as ‘The‘ supply of labour and ‘The‘ demand for labour, as though the labour market is homogenous; that all labour is exactly the same with no degrees of different skills required, hours worked, tasks to be done etc; as if a member of the labour market who works at a warehouse moving heavy crates can be interchanged with a labourer who works on a construction site putting in drywall. This is incorrect, labour like other capital goods is heterogeneous.

The other problem with this argument, when it comes to the seen and unseen, is that immigrants have demands for goods and services that they value also. With immigration if the new residents also hold demand for goods and services that has seen an influx of new workers, then we do not see a long term drop in wages.

We can delve into this a bit deeper to get a better understanding:

Suppose ‘Group A’ work as delivery drivers for a company that produces shoes, and ‘Group B’ are the workers who produce the shoes. Let us then suppose ‘Group B’ receives an influx of immigrant workers; in the short term they see their wages decreased. However, because now, ceteris paribus, the shoes have become cheaper to produce, more consumers are able to buy said shoes at a lower price.

Now that more consumers are purchasing more shoes, there are more deliveries demanded for drivers. In this situation one of two things can happen: Either the company will increase the hours each driver works; thereby increasing their overall earnings due to working additional hours at the same rate, or the company will look for qualified workers to hire as additional delivery drivers; the drivers won’t see their earnings increase due to no increase in hours, but they also won’t see them decrease, as supply is meeting in equilibrium with demand, rather than supply being in a surplus over demand.

If the supply and the demand move to the right on the scale, then we don’t see a reduction in wages as shown below:

We see the demand curve has shifted to the right to meet with supply, after market adjustments have been made. The information is the same as above; W0 = original wages, W1 = wages with added supply, S0 = original supply, S1 = added supply, and D = demand. This time though we see the demand curve has shifted; indicated by D1 = increased demand.

I briefly mentioned the “short term” decrease in wages. The most pessimistic estimates of immigrations effects on wages sees a decrease between 2-3%.

Borjas, George J. 2003. “The Labour Demand Curve Is Downward Sloping: Re-examining the Impact of Immigration on the Labour Market.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118: 1335-1374.

A similar pattern can be found when focussing purely on European nations and the effects of immigration. These estimates either see a small gain or a small loss but cluster around zero.

Angrist, Joshua D., and Adriana Kugler. 2003. “Protective or Counter Protective? Labour Market Institutions and the Effect of Immigration on EU Natives.” Economic Journal 113: 302-331.

Muhleisen, Martin, and Klaus F. Zimmermann. 1994, “A Panel Analysis of Job Changes and Unemployment.” European Economic Review 38: 793-801.

These changes in wages and employment are merely temporary while the market adjusts to the new supply, demand, and price range. The only realistic way these decreases would be a long term issue, would be if demand was not permitted by regulations or government intervention to meet with the new supply; an example would be a quota on the number of a particular good consumers are allowed to purchase. In this instance the actual consumer demand would be artificially forced down or forced to stay static while supply of workers and goods produced increased; resulting in the cost rising due to receiving false signals of a static demand, and a long term decrease in hours worked and wages.

Even if we were to assume of a worst case scenario of a decrease in wages by 5% in the short term, this is still no reason to restrict immigration as there are other costs not just to workers but all citizens, imposed by government that could be cut instead. It merely provides another argument for either abolishing the Income Tax, or reforming it to a flat rate Income Tax of 5%.

Before we go into this solution, let’s take a step back and take a look at two statistics.

The first of these shows the median annual earnings in the U.K from the period of 1999 to 2019, adjusted for inflation:

As we can see over the course of 2 decades, the median annual earnings in the U.K has increased by over £10,000. Roughly £20,000 in 1999 and just over £30,000 in 2019.

If we break this down further, we can see the median hourly earnings in the U.K from the period of 1997 to 2019, adjusted for inflation:

Here as well we see that hourly earnings have had a dramatic increase over the course of just over 2 decades, by over 90%.

So where does the briefly mentioned reform to the Income Tax come into play?

Well let’s assume the worst case scenario that an increase in immigration sees an influx of workers, causing the median annual wages to drop by 5%; from £30,000 to roughly £28,500, then we minus the Income Tax from our worker’s wages by 20%, leaving him with £22,800 annually.

In the ideal scenario of abolishing the Income Tax, our worker in the short term has £28,500 in the worst case scenario of a reduction in wages by 5%, however, after a market adjustment in the long term, he has access to his full wages.

In the case where the Income Tax is not abolished but is reformed to a flat rate of 5%, in the short run adding the scenario of 5% reduction in wages, plus the flat rate 5% Income Tax, our worker is left with £27,075. After market adjustment to the new demand and supply, in the long term our worker has access to £28,500 of his wages.

Sure, there is still a short term reduction, and in the case where the Income Tax was reformed to a flat rate of 5%, he would earn less, but the living cost imposed by government in the long term with the current tax rate is a much higher burden than that imposed by the immigrant in the short term, while the market adjusts; it’s not immigrants that hurt the income of workers and their ability to put food on the table, its government.

The added bonus of abolishing the Income Tax or reforming it to a flat rate of 5%, is that this will lead to more people having access to more expendable income; which will lead them to either spend more on current consumption, thereby increasing demand for jobs, goods and services to satisfy consumer wants, or it will lead to people saving more for future consumption; allowing for more investments in new businesses, the expansion of existing industries or investment into the expansion of capital goods to produce more goods and services in the future, thereby increasing future living standards.

The value we can obtain and the benefits from abolishing or reforming the Income Tax, far outweigh any perceived benefit of restricting immigration.

A Better Immigration System

So what is a better immigration system to adopt? The economic arguments for the free movement of labour is on similar lines to that of free movement of goods and services.

In his book The Wealth of Nations; 1776: Book IV Chapter II, Adam Smith stated “If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.” The Concept underlying this statement is straight forward: To create more wealth, it is more efficient to carry out production activity where it is most productive; where it creates the most output for the least expense. This is what is known as ‘Comparative Advantage‘.

This is an underlying concept of the division of labour; allow people to produce and specialise in what they’re skills are best suited for. Rather than have an individual worker in the production of shoes make the laces, cut the material, come up with the design etc, we have people who specialise in a particular area of production, so their time can be dedicated to what they’re most skilled at, rather than inefficiently using their time to focus on all areas of production. The same is true for immigration.

Immigrants tend to complement our labour market, and immigrant labour tends to be different to the domestic labour by bringing a different skill set.

Often when immigrants move to another country they’re either very highly skilled, or very low skilled; a lot of the domestic labour is somewhere in the middle.

This compliment to the labour market allows native workers to free up their time to areas of the market that they are more efficient at, rather than inefficiently being active in areas of production that they’re not as highly skilled at, or on areas which requiring trading off time in other areas where they could maximise their productivity; the best wine may come from France, but the best Whiskey comes from Scotland.

This is the primary economic argument for the free movement of the labour market alongside goods, services and capital. There are of course philosophical and social reason for the free movement of people, as well as for the upcoming proposal; but at the moment we’re just here to go over the political and economic.

“When the Know-Nothings get control, it [the Declaration of Independence] will read ‘all men are created equal except [African Americans] and foreigners and Catholics.’ When it comes to this, I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the basic alloy of hypocracy…” ~ Abraham Lincoln, 1885.

Taking The “R” Out Of Free Movement

The better immigration system I’m proposing could be charmingly called ‘Fee Movement’.

Rather than having a points-based system for immigration, take a market approach to immigration by having residency tickets, and have the price be elastic; adjusting to the supply of tickets and the demand for the particular ticket in question.

This would give people migrating to the U.K the ability to freely work and live in the country; thereby freeing up the time of processing, while also having a 5 year probation period where they’re not a full citizen yet, and so cannot run for positions of government. Immigrants with serious criminal backgrounds would be refused entry. However, this would be based in relativity of our own laws; for example if an immigrant from Saudi Arabia wishing to reside in the U.K has a criminal record under his native country’s law for being a homosexual, he would not be denied as we hold no law against it. Once the 5 year period reached its end, the immigrant would be given full citizenship.

“To get into the details, suppose we produced 500,000 residency tickets, each costing £10,000…each year the residency tickets would bring in £5 Billion”

To get into the details, suppose we produced 500,000 residency tickets, each costing £10,000 when, ceteris paribus, supply equally met demand. Assuming there is no larger quantity over 500,000 of immigrants who wish to reside in the U.K, and no less, each year the residency tickets would bring in £5 Billion.

Compared to the size of our economy; being just over £2 Trillion, this may seem like a drop of rainwater into an ocean, but that’s only if we look at things from the perspective of the short term, and also don’t consider where the money would go.

In the long run if the money was put straight into the bank, this would provide the U.K with an additional £5 Billion each year; ceteris paribus, into investments for the expansion of capital goods, loans to new and developing businesses, housing construction and furthering production to provide a larger supply of goods and services to people for future consumption.

Some may say it would be unfair to discriminate by charging immigrants to reside in the U.K, to that I have two answers:

  1. Being a market approach there would be nothing stopping a charitable citizen for paying the bill for an immigrant voluntarily; or the immigrant’s family from helping with the costs. There also wouldn’t be any law against the immigrant setting up a “Go Fund Me” of sorts, or a private charity or foundation being set up to help cover the costs of the residency ticket. As long as the costs aren’t socialised and forced to be paid by the taxpayer then there really isn’t a problem; voluntary and consensual exchange is the key.
  2. Discriminating on the basis of who is able/willing to pay for a good or service, is more fair than discriminating on who gets to enter the country based on their nationality, religion, or whether the government has a good relationship with a foreign government.

The additional benefit of a market based immigration system is that it removes the politicisation of immigration by putting it in the hands of the market process, signalled by the pricing mechanism. This will ensure there is a barrier between the movement of the international labour market, and special interest groups who benefit from the government having control over immigration.

“As a free and unfettered commercial intercourse between two countries is advantageous to both, for by the exchange of their commodities the producer and the consumer are both benefited, so also must the unrestricted circulation of the human race be advantageous to all countries concerned…it…must be viewed in the more comprehensive and enlightened scope of the enormous benefits it confers upon the human race at large.” ~ Emile Levasseur, French Classical Liberal.

Man’s mobility; his own untampered travel and the free movement of his goods and services, is the road to peace, wealth, and human evolution.

Let us uphold, not tear down, man’s mobility.

Let us believe in the three ‘L’s that allow us to flourish:

Life, Love and Liberty

Sources:

End of transition: Brexiteers on Brexit – Part 7

Now we have left the Transition Period we asked Brexiteers if they feel Brexit is now complete, for their hopes and their predictions for the future. 

Part 7 below. You can also read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6.

“As comedian Geoff Norcott quips when asked if he regrets voting for a conservative government. “No. I regret not getting one.”

Tam Laird, Leader of the Scottish Libertarian Party.

Did Brexit get done?  I think only technically, but it was a long drawn out torturous process that could have been avoided by (a). Accepting No Deal from the get go. (b). Taking the Norway option. But it is at least a beginning.

How do you hope the U.K. will use the new found freedoms  Freedom is a long way off. BoJo and co are doing their very best to comply entirely with the globalist agenda and their record on individual Liberty so far is abysmal. As comedian Geoff Norcott quips when asked if he regrets voting for a conservative government. “No. I regret not getting one.” But one hopes against hope that they will begin to tear up over sixty other international trade agreements that government had no real right to being involved with in the first place. Business should do business with business and make their own agreements.

What constitutional reform would you like to see happen next?  I hope to see the repeal of the Equality Act of 2010 and the absolute right to free speech guaranteed in a bill of rights based on individual liberties. In the realms of fantasy I would like to see more regional autonomy within the UK on a confederation model.

What do you think is next for the EU?  I think they may do their utmost to frustrate and hamper Britain at every available opportunity especially by using Scotland Ireland and Wales with their pro EU regimes as bulwarks.  But I hope it dies a slow painful wasting death.

“electoral reform and the reshaping of the devolution settlement, including an English parliament based outside London and the reform of the House of Commons”

Andrew Bence, of the Social Democratic Party (SDP).

Did Brexit get done?  Yes, although I can’t pretend to have an in-depth understanding of the pros and cons of the deal that was achieved. Meanwhile, as a non-economist and someone with zero experience of the import/export business, I wait with a degree of trepidation to see exactly how ‘things’ turn out. But the democratic will of the people has, finally, been respected, and as one of those who voted for Brexit, I shall own the decision we made.

How do you hope the UK will use the new found freedoms?  Again, on economic matters I am a layman, trusting in those whose expertise I find persuasive, according to whom any short-term disadvantages will be superseded by advantages long term, as new cooperative arrangements bed in, we develop home-grown products, and export more widely. However, the EU isn’t the only jurisdiction running on a democratic deficit, and my dearest hope is that this renewed focus on sovereignty will inspire a rise in democratic engagement here in the UK, leading to electoral reform and an end to our present mediocre governing duopoly.

What constitutional reform would you like to see happen next?  Abolition of the House of Lords is long overdue. I’d like to see that followed by electoral reform and the reshaping of the devolution settlement, including an English parliament based outside London and the reform of the House of Commons. Details can be found here: https://sdp.org.uk/policies/constitution/.

What do you think is next for the EU?  Entropy? Just as with the broader liberal establishment, I don’t see those at the helm recognising the error of their ways any time soon. Therefore sensible reform, increased democratic accountability, the discarding of the federalist project, these things are unlikely to happen. Europeans will become increasingly disillusioned, looking to the UK to see if the alternative is proving preferable.

“I’d like to see the House of Lords abolished or cut in size. Also and I don’t know if this is constitutional related, but I’d like to see the lockdown over.”

Anonymous local Brexit campaigner.

Did Brexit get done?  Brexit did get done. Technically that was done on 31st January 2020. 

How do you hope the UK will use the new found freedoms?  I’d like to see the UK cut unnecessary regulations and do more free trade deals, particularly with regards to services. Also, I’d like the UK to not pay welfare to EU nationals.

What constitutional reform would you like to see happen next?  I’d like to see the House of Lords abolished or cut in size. Also and I don’t know if this is constitutional related, but I’d like to see the lockdown over.

What do you think is next for the EU?  The EU will survive for now but the EU wants more integration and some member states want less. Eventually that will come to a clash and the EU will either back down or carry on. If it carries on other states will leave. If it backs down on integration then it might survive. 

“we should unilaterally withdraw all import tariffs. Tariffs in the end are self-harming. …so we can reduce consumer prices and give everyone, the poorest in particular, a well-earned break”

Chris Mendes, Croydon South Vote Leave lead, and leader of The Foundation Party.

Did Brexit Get Done?  Yes and no. We have ended the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the EU Parliament and the EU Commission no longer govern our country. The free movement of people has ended and we are free to adopt free trade agreements with other nations.

This is excellent news. We who have campaigned hard for our right to national self-government can rightly feel a sense of liberation and victory.

But is this the treaty I would have agreed to? No it is not.

Boris Johnson’s government simply identified and prioritised a set of checkboxes they felt needed ticking to survive in government – namely, the separation from EU institutions mentioned above to placate “Leave” voters, and continued tariff-free access to the Single Market to placate “Remain” voters.

Everything else important was wrongly deprioritised. It is why Northern Ireland remains attached to the Single Market, why the EU still has shared access to our fishing waters, and why in this treaty we have agreed to common rules on employment, competition, state aid and the environment.

These would not have been agreed to if the Prime Minister had a full understanding and a loyal devotion to the principles underlying our independence in the first place. The whole point of leaving is for us to have our own internal conversations about all matters under the sun and to decide for ourselves what we want to do – it’s called democratic self-government.

But yet again, the Conservative Party have agreed to a treaty which is simply supposed to be about trade, but actually includes other policy agreements which it shouldn’t.

The good news however is that we can cancel this new treaty and walk-away in the future, or renegotiate the terms, if we so wish.

Theresa May’s appalling “Withdrawal Agreement” meant that both parties, the UK and the EU, had to agree to its termination before it could be terminated. We effectively came very close to national imprisonment, such was the naivety and insensitivity of that period in our political history.

In summary, having left the European Union a year ago and now agreeing to this new treaty, we are finally an independent and sovereign country again.

But the fight for enhancing our freedom and our liberty further still, with respect to this treaty, as well as Westminster itself and policy matters across the board, is still well and truly on the agenda.

How do you hope the UK will use the new found freedoms?  First and foremost, now that the dilution of our democracy has been reversed, I expect us to discuss as a nation and decide at our general elections what our trade, fisheries, agriculture and immigration policies ought to be.

We haven’t had an open discussion on these matters in recent decades due to Westminster outsourcing them to the European Union, but now our elected politicians are responsible for these matters again, the people will rightly expect robust debate on these vital issues for them to make an informed decision.

On the subject of trade, we should unilaterally withdraw all import tariffs. Tariffs in the end are self-harming. The EU’s Customs Union only succeeds in forcing millions of EU citizens to buy and sell goods at highly inflated prices. We should abandon import tariffs so we can reduce consumer prices and give everyone, the poorest in particular, a well-earned break and more money left over to save or spend on their own priorities.

Moreover, and this is where Boris Johnson’s treaty will hold us back, my ambition would be to look very closely at our industries and identify heavy-handed and counterproductive EU regulations, and indeed UK regulations, that are unnecessarily disrupting economic growth.

Government does need to regulate the markets and there are plenty of areas where constraint is justified, the environment being a sound example. But over recent decades our free market system has become less and less free and we are worse off as a result.

For example, the EU’s gigantic and overly-complex GDPR data protection regulation ought to be abolished, in favour of something far lighter and less burdensome on small businesses. Our archaic Sunday trading laws should also be abolished and we should allow businesses to trade on any day at any time.

Let’s free business to do what they do best and focus on giving the consumer the freedom to choose. This will allow us to grow the economy, expand our manufacturing base and create more jobs across the board in the long-term.

What constitutional reform would you like to see happen next?  After 47 years of our membership of the European Union, with the democratic injustices throughout, such as the signing of treaties that damaged the nation’s capacity for self-government without the consent of the people, the refusal to grant the people their say for so long, and the attempts by Parliament to subvert our decision to leave at the first chance we got, the obvious question is – how do we prevent this from happening again?

The answer is to introduce a Sovereignty Protection Act that prevents Parliament from severely diluting our national sovereignty without the consent of the people.

No policy may be implemented or law passed that would render our Parliament subordinate to any other. Politicians elected in other countries must never again be empowered to make our laws. We should forever have our own independent trade, immigration and defence policy. Our territorial waters shall remain ours to regulate, police and enforce. We shall forever remain economically independent with our own currency and our Supreme Court shall remain supreme.

Never again shall politicians have the unilateral right to change any of the above without explicit permission from the British people, expressed in a referendum, first.

Moreover, we also need a Referendum By Petition Act to allow referendums on constitutional matters to be triggered by popular petition.

If the people are unhappy with a given policy, we simply wait until the next election and vote for a change. But if we are unhappy with how the Government and Parliament works, and what powers over us they have, suiting the politicians but not the people, we must have a route to change.

When a petition on a constitutional matter obtains at least 10% of the voting population, a referendum for the people to adjudicate the matter must be held whether the politicians like it or not.

What do you think is next for the EU?  The direction of travel for the European Union is clear – more centralisation, command and control by the EU’s undemocratic institutions.

Frontex, the “European Border and Coast Guard Agency”, has this week become the EU’s first uniformed service.

This anti-democratic centralisation of power is the irreversible direction of travel of the European Union. This particular reform allows the EU to step closer towards a centralised immigration and border policy, which it has always wanted, and which was accelerated as a result of the EU migrant crisis in 2015.

In that same year, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor of course, and then-French President François Hollande, both appeared and spoke at the EU Parliament.

They openly stated in explicit terms, and indeed this was one of the very reasons why I decided to campaign for our exit from the European Union, that the EU must have a common defence and common foreign policy.

This dangerous and anti-democratic ideology of centralisation towards a single state called Europe, without the people of Europe’s consent, is at the heart of the true purpose of the European Union.

Now that Britain has left, the authoritarian and paternalistic ideological zealots of Europe’s political elite, who hate the notion of the democratic nation state, will now have a much clearer pathway to their fanatical utopia.

Undemocratic and authoritarian empires that hide from accountability and democratic consent do not last forever. They all come to an end. And so in time will the European Union.

Back to Part 6

Podcast Episode 49 – Brexit Trade Deal, Lockdown 3, Local Elections & US Politics

We are joined by Chris Mendes, the leader of The Foundation Party and local Brexiteer Duncan Forsyth, as we discuss the Post-Brexit Trade Deal with the EU and the latest Covid Lockdown. We then consider the planned May local elections and the latest developments in US politics.

Spreaker
iTunes
Google Podcasts
Podchaser
Podcast Addict		Deezer
Spotify
Stitcher
Castbox
iHeartRadio

End of transition: Brexiteers on Brexit – Part 6

Now we have left the Transition Period we asked Brexiteers if they feel Brexit is now complete, for their hopes and their predictions for the future. 

Part 6 below more (parts 7 and beyond) to follow….. You can also read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5.

“The TCA seems to offer better terms than EFTA/EEA membership, so it may be that more semi-detached countries like Norway, and maybe even non-Eurozone members like Sweden, see it as a better option. The Eurozone part could then integrate further”

Dr Lee Jones reader in International Politics at Queen Mary University of London and co-founder of The Full Brexit.

Did Brexit get done?  We have clawed back a fair degree of sovereignty, but the government’s hands remain tied in important ways. For me, this is a “minimum Brexit”. The Full Brexit’s full analysis of the deal is here: https://www.thefullbrexit.com/uk-eu-deal

How do you hope the U.K. will use the new found freedoms?  Two main things. First, we need wholesale reforms to increase democratic control over economic, political and social life. Brexit has exposed the UK constitution as fundamentally broken. Second, we need a proper industrial strategy capable of developing economic sectors fit for the 21st century, de-financialising the economy, and spreading prosperity beyond the Southeast. We will also need to develop a strategy for maximising our room for manoeuvre under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and for defying it where necessary.

What constitutional reform would you like to see happen next? 

  1. Abolish the House of Lords, the royal prerogative, the monarchy, and the Supreme Court.
  2. Increase the size of the House of Commons to one Member for every 50,000 voters, elect MPs by proportional representation, and permit recall of MPs.
  3. Outlaw corporate donations to political parties and limit the maximum individual donation to £1,000 per annum.
  4. Abolish all restrictions on political speech (except that which directly incites a specific criminal offence).

What do you think is next for the EU?  If the UK makes a real success of Brexit, this will revive desires for leaving the EU, which have dampened during years of stagnation and difficulty. Possibly the “two-speed Europe” we are seeing emerging (between Eurozone/non-Eurozone) could further intensify in a formal bifurcation. The TCA seems to offer better terms than EFTA/EEA membership, so it may be that more semi-detached countries like Norway, and maybe even non-Eurozone members like Sweden, see it as a better option. The Eurozone part could then integrate further. But I also think the fundamental economic contradictions of the Eurozone will persist – it simply doesn’t work as a monetary union without a fiscal union. We’re seeing some efforts to fudge this with some new taxation powers for the Commission and the COVID-19 “fund” (which is really just a permission to rack up national debt). But it doesn’t overcome the basic contradiction, and Germany simply isn’t willing (or really able) to take on the costs and responsibility of centralised fiscal policy for the whole EU. So, all the basic contradictions and tensions will persist, and the EU’s neoliberal constitution will continue to curtail economic growth and exacerbate social inequality. In 20-25 years I doubt the EU as it currently exists will still be around.

“yes. I do, however, really regret the painful unnecessary ‘long and winding road’ we have had to go through but onwards and upwards now!”

James Bradley local Brexit Campaigner.

Did Brexit get done?  Bill Cash believes it truly makes us an independent country and I have trust in him, so yes. I do, however, really regret the painful unnecessary ‘long and winding road’ we have had to go through but onwards and upwards now!

How do you hope the U.K. will use the new found freedoms?  To become the wealthiest, most successful, inventive, happy and free major country in the world.

What constitutional reform would you like to see happen next?  Reverse Tony Blair’s disastrous devolution, reduce MPs to about 200-300 and Lords to have time limited terms, not for life. Lower taxes.

What do you think is next for the EU?  Initial greater centralisation, then resistance from the east and then eventual scaling back of the organisation when the price becomes too high for the Germans to justify, possibly to a level we could have been comfortable with in 2016 (or am I a dreamer?).

“We should trade more with the growing economies, this will allow us reduce costs of basic foodstuffs, and other products for the poorest in our country, and through trade help grow the economies of developing nations spreading wealth and freedom to those most in need across the globe”

Mike Swadling, Referendum Vote Leave Manager for Croydon.

Did Brexit get done?  Yes, take the win.  It’s not perfect, but nothing is.  We have faced a huge fight to ensure our country remains a democracy, after much of the political class, judiciary, and media, lined up to overthrow our vote.  It’s been a hell of a 4 years, but most us would have taken this position 4 years ago, let’s enjoy it now.  My main concern now is over Northern Ireland, and we need to work to ensure that the UK not just GB fully leaves the EU.

How do you hope the U.K. will use the new found freedoms?  On trade, lets use this opportunity to ensure we have the lowest possible tariffs with the developing word.  We should trade more with the growing economies, this will allow us reduce costs of basic foodstuffs, and other products for the poorest in our country, and through trade help grow the economies of developing nations spreading wealth and freedom to those most in need across the globe.

Domestically we should:

  • Undertake a massive set of deregulation to allow jobs to grow.
  • Reduce or remove green taxes to help industry.
  • Start an immediate rollout of free ports
  • Undertake a phased withdrawal of the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies.

What constitutional reform would you like to see happen next?  I’d like to see much more devolution, with powers residing at the most local possible level (when they can’t be held directly by the individual).  We see locally with Labour’s bankrupting of Croydon Council and nationally with the ineffective Scottish and Welsh governments, devolution in this country hasn’t work well.  The reform I’d like to see is tax raising as well as spending powers moved locally.  The authority that has to spend the money should also need to raise it, critically with this change we need to the ability to borrow money for anything but the strictest criteria removed from all except central government.

The Scottish and Welsh governments, and local councils will suddenly be forced into a position of justifying their poor spending decisions no longer able to hide them by taking on debt or by blaming central government for a lack of grants.  In the case of Croydon if the people wanted to buy a hotel or shopping centre the council would need to raise taxes to do so (I suspect that would have stopped these ridiculous schemes).  In the Scotland and Wales the governments would be forced into building more business friendly environments if they wanted to raise the taxes for their spending plans.  We would see governments compete for their tax base, benefiting businesses and us as individuals.

What do you think is next for the EU?  The Euro simply doesn’t work.  Southern European economies locked into the single currency, can’t currently compete with the productivity levels of the a Germany or the BeNeLux countries.  They can’t grow their economy and skills base, in part because they can’t lower the value of their currency to encourage export led growth.  They can’t flout away some their government debt through inflation, to allow the tax burden to be reduced.  Worst of all, their young and least skilled workers don’t have their opportunities for entry level work to gain skills, stopped by mass unemployment and limited opportunities in economies that operate with what is frankly the wrong currency.  I don’t know how or when the Euro will break but it has to, as the breaking of the Euro is the best hope for millions of Europeans and many countries future economic prospects.

“A full written civil liberty focused constitution detailing the individual citizens are sovereign, not Parliament or the Monarch”

Sean Finch former Libertarian Party Parliamentary Candidate.

Did Brexit get done?  No. It was a BRINO. Boris & the Conservative Party were never going to deliver an independent Britain. It would always be skewed where the EU would have more authority in some parts. This is because the Conservatives have always been a pro EU party. Remember, they were the party which entered the ECC in the first place and also the party to sign the Maastricht Treaty creating the EU.

So the logical question to ask is; why would a party which campaigned for years to remain in the EU, has more Remainers MPs & CCHQ officials in it than Leavers (including the current Cabinet), only gave the 2016 Referendum not because out of the kindness of their heart or that the Tories were die-hard Brexiteers but because of pressure from UKIP, ever be trusted to deliver a true Brexit? The logical answer is of course; they can’t be trusted and they won’t deliver it.

How do you hope the U.K. will use the new found freedoms?  They will do nothing. I believe they will at minimal attempt to mirror almost all laws to the EU and at maximum will quietly campaign to re-join the EU, as they are a pro EU party. In fact, it is ironic to think that the old party emblem of the Conservative Party was the liberty torch. It is right they no-longer use it as they as the governing party (as well as with the assistance from all the parliamentary parties) have currently robbed us of our liberties in this current expired pandemic.

What constitutional reform would you like to see happen next?  A full written civil liberty focused constitution detailing the individual citizens are sovereign, not Parliament or the Monarch. Preferably this document will be an updated version of the Bill of Rights 1688/1689.

What do you think is next for the EU?  It’s market and GDP will continue to decline. It will essentially quietly crumble due to mainstream media outlets not properly reporting on it due to political bias.

Back to Part 5 > On to Part 7

The Vote For Lockdown is Insanity. The Economy is on its Knees.’ – Sputnik Interview

Boris Johnson has defeated any talk of mutiny within his own Tory Party as he crushed dissenting voices in a vote which allowed the Prime Minister to secure legislation which now means that lockdown measures could be maintained until March 31st.
The PM took an overwhelming 524-16 majority and won the support of Labour to enforce the newest lockdown restrictions as Covid deaths surpassed 1,000 for the first time since April. Sputnik spoke with Michael Swadling, from the Croydon Constitutionalists to ask his thoughts on the latest lockdown and what it could mean for the British economy?

End of transition: Brexiteers on Brexit – Part 5

Now we have left the Transition Period we asked Brexiteers if they feel Brexit is now complete, for their hopes and their predictions for the future. 

Part 5 below more (parts 6 and beyond) to follow….. You can also read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.

“I was saddened by the removal of free movement & the introduction of a points based system; giving the government central power over the planning & shaping of the international labour market”

Josh L. Ascough Libertarian writer.

Did Brexit get done?  Brexit in its most pure & perfect form was never going to happen; not just because of the bureaucracy of political negotiations, but because there were an array of subjective & political visions of what Brexit “should” look like. Personally as a Libertarian (to some degree a “Bleeding Heart Libertarian”). I was saddened by the removal of free movement & the introduction of a points based system; giving the government central power over the planning & shaping of the international labour market. However, the dangers of being with an intergovernmental system of central planning, managed by a large bureaucracy, with the ability for MEP’s from Spain to vote on bills which can affect people in Britain & vice versa, was far too much political power for any system to hold for the benefit & liberty of free movement. Hopefully free movement can return without bureaucrats being in control of it in the future, but in terms of the fundamental aspect of leaving an intergovernmental bureaucratic system; yes, Brexit got done.

How do you hope the U.K. will use the new found freedoms?  Already a small good has been made with the elimination of the tampon tax which was brought about by the EU, & we continue to negotiate free trade deals with other nations; India, Turkey, Japan, Australia & New Zealand; I remain hopefully that a free trade agreement will be reached with the USA, but even if we are unsuccessful with our American neighbours & other nations, we should look to eliminate all tariffs on imports regardless of any deals present. Tariffs in the end hurt the citizens of the nation which imposed them, forcing consumers to pay higher prices for goods they value & that bring a higher living standard. Removing all tariffs also show good faith that we are against protectionism & for freedom on entry into competition, in addition to putting pressure on foreign governments by their citizens to lower or remove their tariffs, since their governments would be forcing them to pay an artificially higher price while we pay the actual market price.

What constitutional reform would you like to see happen next?  The next step that should be considered seriously, is now that we’ve seen that we can remove ourselves from an intergovernmental bureaucracy, we should look to show no exception to our own bureaucracy. Make reforms by reducing if not removing our own bureaucracy; the nanny state in all its forms, & moving towards a system of decentralised political power, by devolving power from Westminster to local councils. Finally, we should not show hypocrisy in the face of those wishing to leave a political union. There appears to be growing desires for Wales to seek independence, & if this is a serious desire, then it should be listened to; with a warm hand outstretched to say goodbye to a housemate, but hello & good luck to a friend.

What do you think is next for the EU?  It all depends on the outcomes of Brexit in the future & the attitudes of the citizens in remaining EU nations, but I think it likely more nations will follow in leaving, I think it’s possible that Italy will be the next to leave. Originally during the yellow vest riots I would’ve said France, but this is heavily unlikely as if France left it would likely be the end of the EU for good; bureaucracy & political power doesn’t die that easily (sadly).

“what they may do is fall into their increasingly overburdened administration and red tape, with more rules and regulations for every aspect of life while ignoring the real global threats on their doorstep”

Mal McDermott Libertarian.

Did Brexit get done?  Yes, the UK has officially left the EU, the legalism and stalling that followed has been the result of inadequate and inept politicians from the UK and aggressive negotiation tactics from the EU. 

How do you hope the U.K. will use the new found freedoms?  A move towards further devolution, for many libertarians Brexit was the first step towards dissolution of big government in all its forms, I would like to see a second referendum in Scotland, however there are simple Monetary policy changes I would like to see first and legal restraints on fiscal policy.

What constitutional reform would you like to see happen next?  Having a real constitution would be a start! A move towards a constitutional republic with federal states who agree to be in the union voluntarily if at all.

What do you think is next for the EU?  With Biden in power they should have their NATO bills covered, but I think that Germany is aware that they need to up their military defences, some concessions will have to be made to Hungary and Poland in terms of this as well. The focus should be on protecting Europe from Russian influence. That is the should, what they may do is fall into their increasingly overburdened administration and red tape, with more rules and regulations for every aspect of life while ignoring the real global threats on their doorstep.

“our capacity to make decisions for ourselves as nations and regions has been gained and it’s cause for celebration.  Now we, the people, need to make it work for us“

Yasmin Fitzpatrick, former Brexit Party PPC.

Did Brexit get done?  Yes, despite everybody and everything tilting against it, Brexit was done. We managed to make a deal, which won the UK some welcome trading stability for now, at a time when we’re feeling bruised by the physical and economic effects of the Covid pandemic.  But the trade-off sacrificed some of the interests of our fishing communities and our financial institutions. We’ll need to see how these can be managed in the longer term. British people who own properties in an EU country feel short-changed over matters that can surely be ironed out in the short term. But our capacity to make decisions for ourselves as nations and regions has been gained and it’s cause for celebration.  Now we, the people, need to make it work for us.

How do you hope the U.K. will use the new found freedoms?  The Referendum saw the UK population express its will, in the case of the majority, against the wishes of those in power.  I’d like to see the population continuing to speak out and guide the actions of our political representatives.  New economic, health and education concerns remain with us, so we all need to be involved in making these work better than before.  We also need to find a way of a way of conducting national debates that don’t involve cancelling people we disagree with. Because we’re worth it.

What constitutional reform would you like to see happen next?  Electoral reform  – I say that with some trepidation.  But our current first past the post came about when there were only two political forces in the UK electoral system. Nowadays it encourages tactical voting and overrepresents the two main parties and the regional nationalist parties in numbers that do not reflect the ambitions of the electorate. I’m aware that every voting system has its disadvantages, but I don’t think FPTP can help sustain democracy into the future.

And we need to look again at the use of judicial review to overturn political decisions.  Political decisions are the responsibility of the people and its elected representatives: judicial review has taught us to rely on an unaccountable judiciary rather than ourselves.

What do you think is next for the EU?  In the medium term, Mediterranean EU countries will continue to struggle with economic decline and fight to make sense of their EU membership – or leave and reorganise.  Germany will continue to cultivate its economic and political relationships with its Central Eastern European backyard, with increasing competition from China and Russia.  The European Central Bank has a major debt crisis resulting from the structuring of the Eurozone, now exacerbated by current economic crises – it’s looking like a slow motion crash and one that the UK is better off out of.  I worry for the people of the EU.

In the longer term, the EU is likely to become a geopolitical backwater, except perhaps as Germany’s merkin as it remilitarises.  Only the USA will have the economic and military might to challenge Chinese global ambitions, as India and perhaps Brazil continue to find and assert their  voice on the global stage.  Our  historical close relationship with America is likely to gain in significance as China looks to extend its economic and military power.  The UK will need to box clever to retain its position as the fifth largest global economic power, developing and extending its relationships with African and Asian nations previously locked out by EU trade policies and tariffs.  

Back to Part 4 > On to Part 6