MORE

Before delving into the detailed analysis, it is important to highlight that both Brexit and the Liberation Day tariffs represent watershed moments in their respective contexts. Brexit marked the first-ever withdrawal of a member state from the European Union, fundamentally altering European geopolitics, while the Liberation Day tariffs constituted the most sweeping unilateral tariff regime since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, triggering immediate global economic volatility and retaliatory measures from major trading partners.

Origins and Motivations

Brexit: Sovereignty, Immigration, and Conservative Party Politics

Brexit's origins can be traced to longstanding Euroscepticism within British politics, particularly within the Conservative Party. David Cameron, responding to growing anti-EU sentiment within his party, pledged in 2013 to conduct a referendum on EU membership. This commitment was included in the Conservative Party manifesto for the 2015 general election.

The Brexit campaign was fueled by several key concerns:

Immigration control: Many Britons had become distressed with the influx of migrants from elsewhere in the EU who had arrived through the EU's open borders. The message from the public before and during the referendum campaign emphasized that "Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe".
Sovereignty concerns: Euroskeptics argued that Britain had relinquished too much of its sovereignty to Brussels. The "Take back control" slogan became prominent throughout the Brexit debate.
Financial obligations: British financial commitments resulting from the EU's response to the euro-zone debt crisis and the bailout of Greece (2009-12) alarmed many voters.

Liberation Day Tariffs: Trade Deficits as National Security Threats

The Liberation Day tariffs, announced on April 2, 2025, were presented as a response to "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States". President Trump framed the day as "Liberation Day," describing the announcement as "one of the most important days in American history" and "our declaration of economic independence".

The primary motivations articulated in Executive Order 14257 included:

Lack of reciprocity: The administration cited "a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers" as justification for the tariffs.
Persistent trade deficits: The executive order explicitly targeted "trade practices that contribute to large and persistent annual United States goods trade deficits".
Economic sovereignty: Similar to Brexit's "take back control" narrative, the tariffs were framed as necessary to correct what Trump characterized as "decades of unfair trading relationships that disadvantaged American manufacturers and workers".

Decision-Making Processes

Brexit: From Referendum to Withdrawal

The Brexit process followed a complex, multi-year trajectory:

Referendum announcement: In January 2013, David Cameron promised an in-or-out referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017 if the Conservatives won the 2015 general election.
Renegotiation attempt: After winning the election, Cameron sought to renegotiate on four key points: protection of the single market for non-eurozone countries, reduction of "red tape," exempting Britain from "ever-closer union," and restricting immigration from the rest of the EU.
Referendum result: On June 23, 2016, 51.89% voted to leave the EU and 48.11% voted to remain, with a turnout of 72.21%.
Article 50 triggering: Following the referendum, Theresa May succeeded Cameron as Prime Minister and formally submitted Britain's request to leave in March 2017.
Negotiation period: Negotiations lasted more than two years, with Theresa May failing repeatedly to win parliamentary approval for her withdrawal agreement.
Resolution under Johnson: Brexit was ultimately accomplished under Boris Johnson, with the UK formally withdrawing on January 31, 2020. Under the withdrawal agreement, Northern Ireland would remain legally in the UK customs territory but practically in the EU customs union.

Liberation Day Tariffs: Executive Power and Phased Implementation

In contrast to Brexit's years-long process involving multiple political actors, the Liberation Day tariffs were implemented through executive action over a matter of days:

Legal basis: President Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare a national emergency arising from conditions reflected in persistent trade deficits.
Two-tier structure: The executive order established a two-tier tariff structure: a baseline 10% tariff applied universally to imports from all countries except Canada and Mexico, and additional country-specific "reciprocal" tariffs based on alleged unfair trade practices by approximately 60 individual nations.
Phased implementation: The 10% baseline tariff began at 12:01 a.m. EDT on April 5, 2025, while the higher country-specific rates were scheduled to commence at 12:01 a.m. EDT on April 9, 2025.
Strategic exemptions: Certain products were exempted from the tariffs, including semiconductors, while previously announced tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles remained separate and were not stacked onto the new tariffs.
Tactical adjustments: Just one week after the initial announcement, on April 9, 2025, Trump issued a follow-up order temporarily suspending the country-specific tariffs for 90 days (except for China) to allow for trade negotiations.

Economic Consequences

Brexit: Currency Depreciation and Economic Underperformance

The economic impact of Brexit began immediately after the referendum and continued through implementation:

Immediate currency reaction: The day after the referendum, the pound lost more than 8% of its value against the dollar and 6% against the euro. Since then, it accumulated a depreciation of 16% against the dollar and 11% against the euro.
Inflation impact: The pound's depreciation directly reduced the purchasing power of British people, increasing the price of imported products.
Long-term GDP effects: By 2024, the UK's GDP per capita had only increased 4% since the 2016 referendum, significantly lower than the 8% increase in the Eurozone and 15% growth in the U.S. over the same period.
Consumer price inflation: The UK experienced a 31% increase in consumer prices since 2016, compared to 24% in the Eurozone and 27% in the U.S.
Investment impact: According to a Goldman Sachs model, overall investments were down 5% compared to a counterfactual scenario where Britain never left the European Union.
Trade disruption: The UK experienced a 15% decrease in total imports and exports to the European Union and the rest of the world.

Liberation Day Tariffs: Global Trade Contraction and Domestic Price Increases

Although the Liberation Day tariffs were only recently implemented, economic projections and initial market reactions indicated significant disruption:

Global trade contraction: The World Trade Organization warned that the outlook for global trade had "deteriorated sharply" following the tariffs implementation.
Disproportionate regional impacts: North American exports were estimated to fall by 12.6% in 2025.
Domestic economic harm: Modeling revealed that the tariffs would decrease U.S. GDP by $149 billion (0.49%).
Consumer impact: The tariffs were projected to impose an enormous tax increase on Americans, estimated at an average of $1,300 per household per year.
Global market reaction: The announcement of the tariffs triggered a global stock market crash.

Political and Legal Challenges

Brexit: Parliamentary Battles and Constitutional Questions

Brexit faced numerous political and legal hurdles:

Parliamentary resistance: Parliament repeatedly rejected the withdrawal agreement negotiated between Theresa May's government and the EU.
Party transformation: Brexit fundamentally transformed the Conservative Party.
Electoral realignment: The 2019 general election saw a significant shift in voting patterns.
Constitutional innovation: Brexit legitimized the referendum as a political device.

Liberation Day Tariffs: Legal Challenges and Congressional Pushback

The Liberation Day tariffs faced immediate legal and political opposition:

Constitutional questions: Critics argued that the tariffs represented "a blatantly illegal usurpation of legislative power".
Legal challenges: Multiple lawsuits were filed challenging the tariffs.
Congressional resistance: Republicans joined Democrats in expressing interest in using their power to restrain the president.
Legislative countermeasures: The Trade Review Act of 2025 was introduced to require congressional approval of new tariffs.

Conclusion

Brexit and the Liberation Day tariffs, while separated by nearly a decade, share remarkable parallels in their populist origins, economic nationalism, and institutional disruption. Both emerged from political narratives emphasizing sovereignty, economic fairness, and the reclamation of national control from perceived external constraints. Both triggered immediate economic volatility followed by structural adjustments that disproportionately affected domestic consumers and small businesses.

Yet their differences are equally instructive. Brexit unfolded through a democratic referendum followed by years of negotiation and parliamentary deliberation, ultimately receiving democratic validation through the 2019 general election. The Liberation Day tariffs, by contrast, were implemented through executive action with minimal institutional consultation, prompting immediate legal challenges and bipartisan congressional resistance.

As economic history has repeatedly demonstrated, major trade disruptions rarely yield their promised benefits while often producing unanticipated consequences. Both Brexit and the Liberation Day tariffs may prove less transformative in practice than in rhetoric, as economic actors adapt, political priorities shift, and institutional constraints reassert themselves. Nevertheless, they represent significant inflection points in the evolution of the global economic order, whose full implications will likely take decades to fully manifest.