John Tennant (Mail, March 11) is, of course, correct to highlight the case for Brexit.
As an economist I agree with his remarks regarding SMEs.
I feel he is on the right track with respect to the sovereignty case.
However he down-plays the principles of the diminishing nation states in Europe (which Britain has never supported).
The discontentment is rooted in the UK’s abstinence in the Treaty of Rome.
Here I draw from the Henderson Dispatch of 1979.
Ergo, as the EU’s internal focus is one nation state, it cannot intrinsically handle a crisis such as the migrant crisis cohesively.
With respect to trade, I must argue that a free trade agreement is almost certain (upon Brexit).
Our market is as vital to Europe as the British financial market is to them.
As nation states we have held prior commitments to free trade and the mutuality of trade indicates this would continue.
Trade beyond the EU may in fact be enhanced by the ability to set domestic policy which is more tolerable to the global east (a major source of our imports).
Border control will remain a pressing issue regardless of Brexit.
The EU philosophy was that migration would be two ways. It wasn’t.
Basic Marxist theory tells us that a large labour reserve leads to lower wages and greater inequality.
However the opposite leads to an economic crisis in time.
So the supply of labour is a very sensitive issue and, like most aspects of economics, is a double-edged sword.
In all, I feel that this analysis is a little fairer than the article, and hope it shows that this is much more than just politics.