Conflicting traditions on the two sides of the Channel

There are powerful producer interest groups in the EU which make sure that things are run to suit them. In addition, there is the continental dirigiste tradition, which stems partly from its legal forms, which are not derived from Common Law, and partly from the centralising religious tradition which originates in Roman Catholicism and was carried over into Lutheranism and Calvinism, which are different animals from the Anglican/Nonconformist branches of protestantism which prevail in England and Wales.

On top of that is the persistence of the seventeenth century mercantilist view of trade and the economy, which lies behind the single market obsession. There is an irony here, because it was the French Physiocrats who first exposed the falsehood of mercantiism. One of the Physiocrats, Turgot, was appointed by King Louis XVI to introduce free trade reforms. Unfortunately, the vested interests prevailed, people starved during the famine of 1783/4 (caused by the volcanic eruption on Iceland), and the King lost his head.

The ideas of the Physiocrats was built on by the British economists Smith, Hume, Ricardo and later on, Henry George; the last named was influential in the commonwealth countries, notably Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, as well as China and Japan, which was the reason for the rapid industrialisation of Japan and accounts for the present day success of Taiwan.

One of the reasons for the unpopularity of the EU in Britain is the abhorrence of taxes and tariffs on food. The Corn Laws were abolished in 1846, by a Conservative Prime Minister, after a campaign which had run for 50 years. The Peterloo protests and massacre were a part of the Free Trade movement. That gain was heedlessly thrown away in 1973. Many have not forgotten.