The UK Govt's 86 free zones represent extreme corporate overreach. It boils down to a violation of citizens’ sovereignty that applies to England, Scotland, and Wales. I strongly suspect that the push by certain political parties to exit the ECHR is a key primer for human rights abuses to go unscrutinised in the hostile deregulatory jurisdictions of Freeports and Special Economic Zones (SEZs).

At the end of each section on England, Scotland, and Wales I include a proposed strategy on how to go about opposing free zones, paying particular attention to the individual contexts of each nation.

Remember free zones use complexity as camouflage.

List of Sovereign Powers Being Transferred to Corporations Under UK Agreements for Freeports and SEZs in England

Political Power: Undermining Parliamentary Sovereignty: Freeport Governance Agreements and concession agreements for the 8 Freeports and 48 SEZs embed LCIA, ICC, and UNCITRAL rules, granting corporations influence over policy by challenging Westminster decisions via arbitration. This bypasses parliamentary authority, violating the principle of sovereignty by transferring political power without public mandate.

Centralized Imposition: Westminster’s unilateral rollout, despite public ignorance, reflects executive overreach, sidelining democratic input. The £25 million per Freeport and £160 million per SEZ funding, tied to corporate contracts, amplifies this transfer.

Judicial Power Arbitration Mechanisms: Research confirms Freeport agreements embed LCIA, ICC, and UNCITRAL rules in Governance, lease, and concession agreements (new research), allowing corporations to bypass UK courts for private arbitration in the 8 Freeports and likely 48 SEZs. This transfers judicial authority to corporate-favoured bodies, undermining parliamentary sovereignty, with SEZ confirmation needed. ISDS-Like Corporate Supremacy: The LCIA’s role, with UNCITRAL’s investment arbitration potential, mirrors ISDS (e.g., CPTPP), enabling corporate lawsuits over policy changes, transferring judicial power to protect corporate rights over public interest pending treaty verification.

Oversight Power: Self-Regulation by Corporations: Deregulation in Freeports and SEZs permits corporate self-regulation, with LCIA clauses enforcing this status via arbitration, reducing Westminster oversight and violating parliamentary accountability. Secondary Legislation Limits Scrutiny: Secondary legislation embedding LCIA and other rules in licenses restricts parliamentary and public scrutiny, unlike primary legislation’s transparency. This executive-driven process transfers oversight to corporations, breaching democratic governance given public unawareness.

Human Rights Enforcement Erosion of Labour Protections: Deregulation risks weakening human rights (e.g., fair wages) in Freeports and SEZs, with LCIA arbitration clauses allowing corporations to resist regulations, violating public rights under parliamentary sovereignty.

Restricted Public Recourse: Arbitration limits challenges to labour practices, transferring enforcement to private forums, denying English citizens sovereign human rights protections.

Environmental Enforcement Corporate Control Over Standards: “Green” branding of Freeports masks deregulation, with LCIA clauses enabling corporations to evade environmental rules via arbitration, transferring enforcement power and violating public environmental rights.

Arbitration Blocks Regulation: Potential LCIA claims against stricter rules undermine Westminster’s environmental control, challenging these agreements’ legitimacy.

Territorial Alienation: Land Use Transfer: Lease and concession agreements with LCIA rules transfer 25-year control of Freeport and SEZ land (e.g., ports in Humber, Teesside) to corporations, alienating territory and violating parliamentary sovereignty.

Maritime and Profit Control: Maritime profits from Freeports, backed by £25 million per site and aiming for billions in private investment, are transferred to corporations via arbitration-protected contracts, breaching sovereign resource rights.

Long-Term Corporate Entitlement: The 25-year terms, enforceable by LCIA, lock in alienation, embedding corporate dominance over English assets.

Strategy to Oppose Free Zones in England

Given Westminster’s control and public unawareness, opposition must focus on raising awareness, leveraging parliamentary sovereignty, and demanding democratic accountability. Here’s how to apply the metric:

Raise Public Awareness: Grassroots movements to educate the public about the England's 8 Freeports and 48 SEZs, highlighting arbitration mechanisms and sovereignty transfers.

Campaigns: Use social media, Youtube, Substack, Bluesky, Facebook, Tik Tok, etc. Evidence: Cite the new research on LCIA, ICC, and UNCITRAL rules to expose risks like corruption and regional imbalance.

Leverage Parliamentary Sovereignty: Petition Parliament: Submit a petition to Westminster, arguing that Freeport/SEZ agreements violate parliamentary sovereignty by transferring powers to corporations without public consent. Call for Primary Legislation: Demand that Freeport/SEZ terms be reviewed under primary legislation, reversing the opacity of secondary legislation, to restore democratic oversight.

Legal and International Action: Judicial Review: Challenge the legality of arbitration clauses under UK law, arguing they undermine judicial sovereignty. The lack of public awareness could support a case for inadequate consultation.

Freedom of Information (FOI) Request: Submit an FOI request to the UK government for Governance, lease, and concession agreements to confirm LCIA use in England’s Freeports and SEZs, strengthening the opposition case.

Public Consent Argument: Argue that the general public’s lack of awareness, due to limited transparency, invalidates the agreements. This mirrors the Claim of Right approach (in Scotland), asserting that sovereignty resides with the people, not an unaccountable executive.