Given the way the economic policy (and likely other policies) of the Government are likely going to go post-Brexit (and crucially because of Brexit in some cases because we are talking policies that would only be possible outside the EU) why did so many 'professional libertarians' support Brexit?
One reason could be that people genuinely thought that outside the EU there would be a sudden turn to radical free-market policy. If so they were seriously naive and in fact I don't think that was the reason for the overwhelming majority. People knew that leaving the EU only made such a policy suite possible, not that it would make it probable. I think there were two main reasons, one respectable the other not.
The respectable one is a belief that sovereignty is such an important value that it overrides most other considerations. The basis for that is a belief that the territorial nation state is the only viable political basis for any kind of contemporary political order that is compatible with a libertarian position (even if the chances of getting that is low) and so it makes sense to go for that over a different kind of political order, even if that other kind is, at the moment, more congenial than the sovereign alternative is likely to be. That's a respectable position and I have some sympathy for it, although I don't ultimately go along with it (it's the negative part of the thesis I find persuasive, not the positive).
The other belief is that the EU was the source of all of the things free-market liberals disliked and that therefore in its absence there would be a reversion to a more liberal position. That is not a serious position. As Philip Booth has been arguing for a long time, a lot of the EU regulations people didn't like were thought up by the UK civil service. The EU for politicians and civil servants was a way of deflecting blame for things they wanted to do but knew would be unpopular. Plus, the record of UK governments before 1973 and since does not lead you to think they have an economic liberty default setting - quite the opposite in fact.
I think this tells us two things. The first is that a lot of UK 'professional libertarians' are committed, whether they know it or not, to a particular view about the nature and origins of political order in the contemporary world. It's a respectable view but it needs spelling out. More interestingly, I think a lot of people in what you might call the policy world in all parts of the political spectrum ignore or misread the political realities of where the public is. Maybe they have become so used to technocratic politics that they forget about voters and the mass culture.
Three reasons I support(ed) leave
Given all that, why did I side with Leave? I did so with no great enthusiasm or confidence. I had three reasons, which relate to the respectable position described above.
The first was that it would leave the UK electorate and political class with a wider range of options, for both good and ill. The obvious rejoinder is "If your judgement was that the bad options are more likely to win out than the good ones, why do it?". Two answers:
In some particular cases such as trade I think the good side will win. In others (e.g. immigration) I think it will be a big fight but I think there's a better than even chance the right arguments will win. I'm prepared to take the mixed result.
I think it is very dangerous to get into the position of thinking your ideas are unpopular so you have to rely upon undemocratic means to get them effected. That is not going to work in the long run and will be seriously counterproductive as well. You have to take on the hard and long-term task of persuading people. This can be done (many examples).
Second reason is that I am bearish on the medium to longer term future of the EU and its politics. I think that the Maastricht Treaty was a serious and hubristic error that has left the EU with a set of institutions that are ultimately not sustainable. At some point the whole show is going to collapse unless the nature of the beast is radically changed in one way or another. If you are in a hotel you think is going to burn down quite soon, it's better to check out now. Moreover, the drift of politics in several European countries is very uncongenial and my real fear is that the only way to resolve the current design flaws will be to make a deal with the dark side if you will. I don't think the UK's being inside will be decisive in checking that otherwise it would be worth doing that.
The third reason though is the big one, I've come to realise, the other two derive from it. Over the last three years I have arrived at the conclusion that the kind of liberal project that has been followed since really 1944 (or even before then as an intellectual aspiration) and the rule governed international order that is a central part of it (and of which the EU is one of the main components) is exhausted and is now breaking down.
It has hit a whole series of limits, not just political ones, and I think there needs to be a big rethink if you are a liberal about what to do about this. I do think that trying to keep that order going is a lost cause though, and will use up a lot of energy. The obvious question is what is the alternative? I'm still trying to work that out in my own mind. I am clear that what you might call the nationalist alternative is very much not the way to go - that's what I meant by saying that I accept the negative part of the position I described earlier but not the positive). I do have some vague ideas that I'm still trying to work out but I am pretty sure that there needs to be a major reset and rethinking how we approach the idea of international order is a big part of it.