How much control over its own laws does a country need to really be a country, rather than a subsidiary of another country? Put another way, what makes a nation? The obvious answer is sovereignty. But how much sovereignty do you need? There's no such thing as 100% self-determination. Since the idea of nationhood got going (the defining moment in the development of the nation state is generally considered to be the end of the Thirty Years' War in 1648) there have always been trade deals, customs deals and alliances between countries.
Today, countless bodies get either a formal or firmly advisory say over what sovereign nations get to do. As Mark Mazower puts it in his (must-read) book Governing the World: The History of an Idea, "the unwary student soon finds himself stumbling through a landscape of obscure acronyms that stretch endlessly into the bureaucratic haze". Think military alliances (Nato and WEU), intergovernmental organisations (WTO and GATT), post-imperial bodies (the Commonwealth), "quasi-polities" (the EU) and endless summit conferences (G-20). All demand a say in something and, Brexit aside, increasingly get it (see my interview with Dambisa Moyo). So the question here (one that the last couple of hundred years of European history has been an attempt to answer) is about the tensions between global and national actors: how much power over its own affairs can a nation give up before it starts to feel a little less nation-like than either its population or its leaders fancy?
And so we come to Brexit. For the UK, being part of an EU that was set to keep expanding its remit started to look like a step too far. But look at it from this point of view and the way out doesn't look as complicated as most seem determined to make it. The Leave slogans suggested that the UK electorate wanted to "take back control". I suspect they'd be entirely happy to "take back a reasonable amount of control". Before the referendum in 2016, we suggested that joining the European Economic Area (EEA) would work fairly nicely for this. It still would. We'd get out of the customs union (and get to make our own trade deals); we'd pay much less into the EU; we wouldn't have to be bothered with the nonsenses of the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies; we'd be much less bound to the rulings of the European Court of Justice; we'd know we were able to use "safeguard measures" on immigration; and we'd only have to take on around 30% of EU regulations (based on Norway's experience).
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
It's not perfect but it is easy; it can be treated as a stepping stone if it doesn't work out; and, all in, it probably gives us back enough control to feel we have more power over our future than Mazower's "bureaucratic haze" does. It deserves rather more attention from Theresa May's government than it is getting.
-
The top stocks in the FTSE 100After a year of strong returns for the UK’s flagship index, which FTSE 100 stocks have posted the best performance in 2024?
-
A junior ISA could turn your child’s pocket money into thousands of poundsPersuading your child to put their pocket money in a junior ISA might be difficult, but the pennies could quickly grow into pounds – and teach them a valuable lesson about money
-
Beat the cost of living crisis – go on holidayEditor's letter As inflation rages, energy bills soar and the pound tanks, what’s a good way to save money this winter? Go on holiday, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
How capitalism has been undermined by poor governanceEditor's letter Capitalism’s “ruthless efficiency” has been undermined by poor governance, a lack of competition and central banks’ over-enthusiastic money printing, says Andrew Van Sickle.
-
Don't be scared by economic forecastingEditor's letter The Bank of England warned last week the UK will tip into recession this year. But predictions about stockmarkets, earnings or macroeconomic trends can be safely ignored, says Andrew Van Sickle.
-
The biggest change in the last 17 years – the death of the “Greenspan put”Editor's letter Since I joined MoneyWeek 17 years ago, says John Stepek, we’ve seen a global financial crisis, a eurozone sovereign debt crisis , several Chinese growth scares, a global pandemic, and a land war in Europe. But the biggest change is the death of the “Greenspan put”.
-
The wolf returns to the eurozone’s doorEditor's letter The eurozone’s intrinsic flaws have been exposed again as investors’ fears about Italy’s ability to pay its debt sends bond yields soaring.
-
Things won't just return to normal – that's not how inflation worksEditor's letter You might think that, if inflation is indeed “transitory”, we just need to wait and everything will return to “normal”. But this is a grave misunderstanding of how inflation works, says John Stepek.
-
Car hire and the strangeness of the post-pandemic economyEditor's letter A global shortage of hire cars and unusually high hotel occupancy rates sum up the post-pandemic global economy in a nutshell, says Merryn Somerset Webb, with enhanced demand meeting restricted supply.
-
Why we need to get a grip on our governmentEditor's letter Our government is trying to do too much, enacting policies that are destructive to the private sector. It needs to drop the the feel-good nonsense and create policies that lead to long-term wealth, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
