Support NeoGAF

[kmag]

Guy on Daily Politics

PM's whole premiership is going to be decided by one question...

How does she fit the square peg into the round hole of being in the single market with freedom of movement, everything else is second to that

There's two answers to that

Either ignore the freedom of movement (perhaps with a fig leaf concession from Europe) as a defining issue or just do a David Davis leave,take the hit and trash the services sector.

I can't see Europe conceding the point completely or in a way which will make folks happy.

Of course one way around the freedom of movement issue is to do what most of the rest of Europe do and use the 3 months rule but that requires compulsory ID and registration of current address. If only we had an authoritarian snooper as PM...

 

[KingSnake]

Financial passport and freedom of movement. And UK will keep most of the EU wording in legislation. UK will do extra incentives to multinationals and industry. That's pretty much where I expect this to go.

Ah, OK. Yes, this is indeed the most positive scenario. Probably also the most likely. But one has to wonder what the people who expect more will do?

I've spent half my life studying this subject but hey, what do I know?

So I assume you're against any kind of EEA agreement, right?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Wow, insults. Great. I thought we were supposed to be above this. I've spent half my life studying this subject but hey, what do I know?

Clearly less than you think. Sovereignty is a binary concept; you are sovereign, or you are not. Sovereignty designates supreme legal authority - that is, the final authority, which cannot be overruled, that ultimate arbiter. The UK always is and was sovereign, because the QiP is law. European laws only have any strength in the UK because the 1972 EC Act provides them with that strength. There's a reason constitutional lawyers pointed out for a long time that the UK could technically leave the EU unilaterally at any point by repealing the 1972 EC Act. The UK obeys EU laws because it consents to obey them, and can withdraw that consent at any time by withdrawing from the EU.

The EU is just a joint project. As an analogy: I am a free man. I want to help create and sustain a local park, but I can't do it alone. As a result, I form a partnership with other likeminded people. When we are done, we all agree to certain shared rules regarding how the park should work. At no point did this ever stop me being a free man - if I don't want to obey these rules, I just stop looking after and stop visiting the park, which I have always been free to do at any point. The fact I follow these rules has not made me unfree, because I consented to these rules for the advantages they provided.

You might be great at Australian constitutional law, I don't know, although frankly I'm unconvinced at this point. But your understanding of sovereignty in general seems fairly mediocre to me. Australia will have to follow certain rules to remain an eligible member of the TPP - will it have lost sovereignty? Canada had to pass a number of laws regulating exports bound to the EU to stay part of CETA - has Canada lost sovereignty? No, of course not.

 

[Zaph]

That's still pretty condescending. I know we disagree, but I can at least respect the fact that I can see why people may have voted remain if issues like the economy were their biggest priority. However, for others, like me, the issues regarding sovereignty take far higher priority.

Because all Brexiters do is throw around platitudes like "sovereignty" and "make better deals" without ever elaborating further.

Sorry, but there is a reason so few economists, academics, business leaders and politicians think this is a good idea. There simply isn't much argument in your favour, which is why we've yet to hear it.

Guy on Daily Politics

PM's whole premiership is going to be decided by one question...

How does she fit the square peg into the round hole of being in the single market with freedom of movement, everything else is second to that

Yeah. It's not so much that the EU will not negotiate on the four freedoms, they simply cannot. It will open up the floodgates to too many other member states getting ideas about border controls or other exceptions, and give the rising right wing parties something to focus on.

 

[watershed]

Wow, insults. Great. I thought we were supposed to be above this. I've spent half my life studying this subject but hey, what do I know?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...nge-on-british-sovereignty-and-if-the-uk-vot/

How much sovereignty will the UK regain when every areas where sovereignty is somewhat impigned upon by being in the EU will also be aubject to similar EU-like conditions or subject to political negotiations in any new trade deals with EU?

 

[anonymous_abc]

New CGP Grey is about Brexit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_I2rfApYk

Sounds about right.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Also, and more importantly, regardless of what sovereignty is or isn't, what is the point of sovereignty? If "giving away my sovereignty", whatever that means, has the effect of making me wealthier, giving me more opportunities in my life, and allowing me to participate in a much wider community than I could have before... why do I give a shit?

 

[Psychotext]

If the following is accurate, surely this is just another reason to stop this abuse of the disabled/ill and accept medical evidence, from medical people, i.e. doctors, as being the best/only way to decide who qualifies for disability benefits.

By Ros Wynne-Jones
A damning study by the National Audit Office has found the DWP will give £1.6billion to private contractors over the next three years to carry out controversial assessments on disabled/ill people.

Yet savings in benefits payments are likely to be less than £1bn by 2020 as a result of the new tests.

All that pain, poverty and misery for nothing, then.

Makes me so fucking angry.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Also, and more importantly, regardless of what sovereignty is or isn't, what is the point of sovereignty? If "giving away my sovereignty", whatever that means, has the effect of making me wealthier, giving me more opportunities in my life, and allowing me to participate in a much wider community than I could have before... why do I give a shit?

I was about to say. Who gives a shit.
Maybe right wing nationalists I guess.
As someone born in one country, raised in another, and living in yet another, nationalism is a surreal concept I don't think I'll ever get.

 

[watershed]

Well in the case of Brexit, people.who voted for leave seem to think that sovereignty means no more immigrants and no more funny languages spoken at my kid's school. A vote for sovereignty was pretty much a vote for white British normativity and a vote against the immigrant bogeyman.

 

[*Splinter]

That's still pretty condescending. I know we disagree, but I can at least respect the fact that I can see why people may have voted remain if issues like the economy were their biggest priority. However, for others, like me, the issues regarding sovereignty take far higher priority.

Wow, insults. Great. I thought we were supposed to be above this. I've spent half my life studying this subject but hey, what do I know?

So maybe respond to the other bits of Crab's post? The bits you left out when you complained about the end being condescending?

I'd love to hear an intelligent argument in favour of Leave - this thread has been sorely lacking it - but despite all your apparent knowledge you have contributed nothing.

 

[Zaph]

But when the Empire's glorious galleons go on to their next victory, who's flag will they be flying?

Who's flag?!

 

[El-Suave]

That's still pretty condescending. I know we disagree, but I can at least respect the fact that I can see why people may have voted remain if issues like the economy were their biggest priority. However, for others, like me, the issues regarding sovereignty take far higher priority.

The UK was a sovereign state though, the EU making all the rules with countries, especially the big ones, having no say is a myth. It was your country who had the liberty to limit immigration once the free market came into effect, but they chose not to while others did. I can understand if a farmer feels helpless towards EU policies but even they can negotiate. Milk prices in Germany are too low for example for the farmers to make a profit. Only blaming Brussels is not the solution, especially if you need a quick one, the national dairies and food retailers are the ones to protest and national politicians can try to help you to change things, IF you have a government that cares.

 

[Croyles]

Clearly less than you think. Sovereignty is a binary concept; you are sovereign, or you are not. Sovereignty designates supreme legal authority - that is, the final authority, which cannot be overruled, that ultimate arbiter. The UK always is and was sovereign, because the QiP is law. European laws only have any strength in the UK because the 1972 EC Act provides them with that strength. There's a reason constitutional lawyers pointed out for a long time that the UK could technically leave the EU unilaterally at any point by repealing the 1972 EC Act. The UK obeys EU laws because it consents to obey them, and can withdraw that consent at any time by withdrawing from the EU.

The EU is just a joint project. As an analogy: I am a free man. I want to help create and sustain a local park, but I can't do it alone. As a result, I form a partnership with other likeminded people. When we are done, we all agree to certain shared rules regarding how the park should work. At no point did this ever stop me being a free man - if I don't want to obey these rules, I just stop looking after and stop visiting the park, which I have always been free to do at any point. The fact I follow these rules has not made me unfree, because I consented to these rules for the advantages they provided.

You might be great at Australian constitutional law, I don't know, although frankly I'm unconvinced at this point. But your understanding of sovereignty in general seems fairly mediocre to me. Australia will have to follow certain rules to remain an eligible member of the TPP - will it have lost sovereignty? Canada had to pass a number of laws regulating exports bound to the EU to stay part of CETA - has Canada lost sovereignty? No, of course not.

Thank you so much for this! I was starting to go insane by these sovereignty arguments.

 

[Coriolanus]

If "giving away my sovereignty", whatever that means, has the effect of making me wealthier, giving me more opportunities in my life, and allowing me to participate in a much wider community than I could have before... why do I give a shit?

well, that is the problem, no? The people that voted for it are operating under the assumption that it has the opposite effect (and a parcel probably sees the final bit as a negative).

 

[shinra-bansho]

But when the Empire's glorious galleons go on to their next victory, who's flag will they be flying?

Who's flag?!

 

[Arksy]

I was about to say. Who gives a shit.
Maybe right wing nationalists I guess.
As someone born in one country, raised in another, and living in yet another, nationalism is a surreal concept I don't think I'll ever get.

As someone who was born in one country, raised in another, and probably will be moving to another. I can see how restraints on power through the use of things like elections, indepdent judiciaries and due process have allowed people and societies in those countries to flourish....and therefore think protecting the institutions which place such high restrictions on power have utmost importance.

So maybe respond to the other bits of Crab's post? The bits you left out when you complained about the end being condescending?

I'd love to hear an intelligent argument in favour of Leave - this thread has been sorely lacking it - but despite all your apparent knowledge you have contributed nothing.

He has shown that he's incapable of engaging in a bona fide debate, as such I really don't want to waste time arguing with someone who just fills their arguments with passive-aggressive insults. As for arguments for leave, I've posted many, many times about why I think the EU is problematic, hell I think I could find a post complaining about it at least three years ago...before the EU Referendum was even announced!

 

[suedester]

Also, and more importantly, regardless of what sovereignty is or isn't, what is the point of sovereignty? If "giving away my sovereignty", whatever that means, has the effect of making me wealthier, giving me more opportunities in my life, and allowing me to participate in a much wider community than I could have before... why do I give a shit?

I can't believe you typed this out and didn't realise that the whole reason so many people voted to leave is precisely because they don't feel they are wealthier or have more opportunities.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

well, that is the problem, no? The people that voted for it are operating under the assumption that it has the opposite effect (and a parcel probably sees the final bit as a negative).

I know, which is why that post was at the end of conversation that started with me talking about how economically stupid anything but EFTA would be. Unfortunately, the Remain campaign was such a utter omnishambles run by such incredible cockwombles that apparently this wasn't clear.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

That's still pretty condescending. I know we disagree, but I can at least respect the fact that I can see why people may have voted remain if issues like the economy were their biggest priority. However, for others, like me, the issues regarding sovereignty take far higher priority.

But that's the thing. From all accounts, you can't have both. It will either be not trade with the EU at favorable rates, and get that sovereignty. Or you must agree to free movement if you want to have trade deals remotely close to being in the EU.

And those deals will be agreed to while you're still making payments to the EU and this time actually having zero say on what the EU does where before, you at least had some influence on EU affairs.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I can't believe you typed this out and didn't realise that the whole reason so many people voted to leave is precisely because they don't feel they are wealthier or have more opportunities.

If you've read my posts in this thread, you know very much I know that. I've talked at length about the correlation between income and the Leave vote, and how much of this was a chance to say "fuck you" to a world that has treated people wrongly.

However, specifically in response to Arksy, who was arguing about sovereignty, I am pointing out a) he's wrong about sovereignty, and b) even if he isn't wrong, why should anyone care?

 

[avaya]

If we end up with EFTA with the passport - likely with much higher payments required to EU budget, I'm ok with it.

We remove the meddling UK influence on the EU, France can take greater power to balance against Germany and the entire project can move forward to solving the issues within the Eurozone with ever closer union.

Sane and realistic regulation can be pursued especially with respect to the Financial sector, with no UK lobbying to topple it.

Meanwhile the schafenfreude of being able to rub it in the Brexiter's faces every day when we end up as solely rule taker with no change in freedom of movement would sustain me forever.

 

[Croyles]

As someone who was born in one country, raised in another, and probably will be moving to another. I can see how restraints on power through the use of things like elections, indepdent judiciaries and due process have allowed people and societies in those countries to flourish....and therefore think protecting the institutions which place such high restrictions on power have utmost importance.



He has shown that he's incapable of engaging in a bona fide debate, as such I really don't want to waste time arguing with someone who just fills their arguments with passive-aggressive insults. As for arguments for leave, I've posted many, many times about why I think the EU is problematic, hell I think I could find a post complaining about it at least three years ago...before the EU Referendum was even announced!

Clearly less than you think. Sovereignty is a binary concept; you are sovereign, or you are not. Sovereignty designates supreme legal authority - that is, the final authority, which cannot be overruled, that ultimate arbiter. The UK always is and was sovereign, because the QiP is law. European laws only have any strength in the UK because the 1972 EC Act provides them with that strength. There's a reason constitutional lawyers pointed out for a long time that the UK could technically leave the EU unilaterally at any point by repealing the 1972 EC Act. The UK obeys EU laws because it consents to obey them, and can withdraw that consent at any time by withdrawing from the EU.

The EU is just a joint project. As an analogy: I am a free man. I want to help create and sustain a local park, but I can't do it alone. As a result, I form a partnership with other likeminded people. When we are done, we all agree to certain shared rules regarding how the park should work. At no point did this ever stop me being a free man - if I don't want to obey these rules, I just stop looking after and stop visiting the park, which I have always been free to do at any point. The fact I follow these rules has not made me unfree, because I consented to these rules for the advantages they provided.

You might be great at Australian constitutional law, I don't know, although frankly I'm unconvinced at this point. But your understanding of sovereignty in general seems fairly mediocre to me. Australia will have to follow certain rules to remain an eligible member of the TPP - will it have lost sovereignty? Canada had to pass a number of laws regulating exports bound to the EU to stay part of CETA - has Canada lost sovereignty? No, of course not.

There is your debate.

 

[CTLance]

But when the Empire's glorious galleons go on to their next victory, who's flag will they be flying?

Who's flag?!

I'm thinking... Jolly Roger.

The next generation of Brits will have supernatural powers thanks to the next gen fruit harvested from orchards around Sellafield.

 

[PJV3]

If we end up with EFTA with the passport - likely with much higher payments required to EU budget, I'm ok with it.

We remove the meddling UK influence on the EU, France can take greater power to balance against Germany and the entire project can move forward to solving the issues within the Eurozone with ever closer union.

Sane and realistic regulation can be pursued especially with respect to the Financial sector, with no UK lobbying to topple it.


Meanwhile the schafenfreude of being able to rub it in the Brexiter's faces every day when we end up as solely rule taker with no change in freedom of movement would sustain me forever.

I dunno Davis seems to favour a Canadian style deal, and May is being very firm on border control. Perhaps the EU could fudge it by giving an exemption based on UK housing and infrastructure problems. I know there are provisions in the Norway deal that give it powers over free movement, so it's obviously doable.

 

[avaya]

He has shown that he's incapable of engaging in a bona fide debate, as such I really don't want to waste time arguing with someone who just fills their arguments with passive-aggressive insults. As for arguments for leave, I've posted many, many times about why I think the EU is problematic, hell I think I could find a post complaining about it at least three years ago...before the EU Referendum was even announced!

That you say this against someone who is probably the most articulate, intelligent and effective political debater on this entire forum is highly amusing to me.

Crab's responses to you have been devastingly on point. He thoroughly deconstructed your sovereignty argument. It wasn't much of an argument since it has always appealed to raw base emotion over logic and reality.

Just admit you're beaten, there's no shame in it, otherwise you're just asking people to reference Dennis Skinner on George Osborne on you.

 

[KingSnake]

As someone who was born in one country, raised in another, and probably will be moving to another. I can see how restraints on power through the use of things like elections, indepdent judiciaries and due process have allowed people and societies in those countries to flourish....and therefore think protecting the institutions which place such high restrictions on power have utmost importance.

So, to repeat the earlier question, this means that you are against any kind of EEA /EFTA deal, right?

 

[Walshicus]

That's still pretty condescending. I know we disagree, but I can at least respect the fact that I can see why people may have voted remain if issues like the economy were their biggest priority. However, for others, like me, the issues regarding sovereignty take far higher priority.

What do you think sovereignty actually means? And why is it being concentrated in Westminster a better outcome than some of it being pooled up to Brussels in a narrow range of policy areas?

And why should it be at Westminster instead of at London, Manchester, Sussex, Chichester, North Street, Number Fifteen, My Living Room, etc.?

"Sovereignty" is not an answer, it's an excuse. Especially when the outcome of your vote has left you with less of it.

 

[Arksy]

That you say this against someone who is probably the most articulate, intelligent and effective political debater on this entire forum is highly amusing to me.

I find that hilarious. Effective political debaters don't argue in ad hominems.

Crab's responses to you have been devastingly on point. He thoroughly deconstructed your sovereignty argument. It wasn't much of an argument since it has always appealed to raw base emotion over logic and reality.

Just admit you're beaten, there's no shame in it, otherwise you're just asking people to reference Dennis Skinner on George Osborne on you.

No he hasn't, he's entirely missed the point and given an incredibly rudimentary analysis.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

While a lot of people are saying that the EU is a better target for trade negotiations than the UK for countries like Chile, Brazil, Japan and China - the thing you have to remember is the UK is going to be a lot easier to negotiate with than the EU.

E.g. the US deal which has been on hold for years after being signed off because of things like Greece's dispute over cheese naming rights.

As much as the EU would like it not to be the case, when you launch a trade deal with the EU, you aren't actually doing that, you are launching it with 27 member states, all of whom have conflicting interests.

Yeah, I mean, I'm no trade negotiator, but...

In my work I deal with businesses of all sizes: one-man-bands, SMEs, right up to huge multinationals. I tend to find the businesses easiest to get on with are the ones that broadly have parity in size to our own firm.

Edit:

You're forgetting the bit where the EU itself is a massive trade organisation (one to which we sell most of our exports) with an amazingly liberal services trade agreement especially in terms of financial services which is our biggest trade sector. Also that list is missing Turkey.

Also it includes Ukraine. I thought that had been torpedoed by the Dutch?

 

[The Friendly Monster]

No he hasn't, he's entirely missed the point and given an incredibly rudimentary analysis.

Please enlighten us.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

I don't know I'm seeing one guy make point after point and the other guy going nuh-uh.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

No he hasn't, he's entirely missed the point and given an incredibly rudimentary analysis.

Show me your counter-argument, then. Heck, provide me with citations if you want - my university account hasn't expired yet, I can access pretty much any case record or legal journal you want me to access; Modern Law Review, Law Quarterly Review, you name it. Use all this studying you've apparently done, I'm all ears.

 

[suedester]

If you've read my posts in this thread, you know very much I know that. I've talked at length about the correlation between income and the Leave vote, and how much of this was a chance to say "fuck you" to a world that has treated people wrongly.

However, specifically in response to Arksy, who was arguing about sovereignty, I am pointing out a) he's wrong about sovereignty, and b) even if he isn't wrong, why should anyone care?

OK. Sovereignty is all about the feeling of being in control rather than Brussels and being able to make changes via the democratic process. Pretty much all a facade anyway but it is what it is.

 

[avaya]

OK. Sovereignty is all about the feeling of being in control rather than Brussels and being able to make changes via the democratic process. Pretty much all a facade anyway but it is what it is.

So it's all about the feels and not reality. Says it all really.

 

[RedSparrows]

Clearly less than you think. Sovereignty is a binary concept; you are sovereign, or you are not. Sovereignty designates supreme legal authority - that is, the final authority, which cannot be overruled, that ultimate arbiter. The UK always is and was sovereign, because the QiP is law. European laws only have any strength in the UK because the 1972 EC Act provides them with that strength. There's a reason constitutional lawyers pointed out for a long time that the UK could technically leave the EU unilaterally at any point by repealing the 1972 EC Act. The UK obeys EU laws because it consents to obey them, and can withdraw that consent at any time by withdrawing from the EU.

The EU is just a joint project. As an analogy: I am a free man. I want to help create and sustain a local park, but I can't do it alone. As a result, I form a partnership with other likeminded people. When we are done, we all agree to certain shared rules regarding how the park should work. At no point did this ever stop me being a free man - if I don't want to obey these rules, I just stop looking after and stop visiting the park, which I have always been free to do at any point. The fact I follow these rules has not made me unfree, because I consented to these rules for the advantages they provided.

Can I steal this and hammer it to every church door in the land?

Originally Posted by suedester

OK. Sovereignty is all about the feeling of being in control rather than Brussels and being able to make changes via the democratic process. Pretty much all a facade anyway but it is what it is.

This to me is a related, but slightly different issue. You are quite right that this is actually what really matters. What people do is far more important than what they should do (let alone that being a polticially contestable topic...).

The problem here is then back to democracy and public understanding, via the filters of politics, press, cultural groups and social experiences. I.e. all of human life and all its contradictions... Sovereignty means X, as per agreed definitions, but how that relates to the real world and our understandings of its costs, benefits, meanings and so on... erk.

/copout

[sorry, dp]

 

[RedSparrows]

dp, apologies.

 

[suedester]

So it's all about the feels and not reality. Says it all really.

Pretty much. At the end of the day it's not going to make a massive difference to people's lives. It's not to be understated though. We are a proud people.

 

[Arksy]

Show me your counter-argument, then. Heck, provide me with citations if you want - my university account hasn't expired yet, I can access pretty much any case record or legal journal you want me to access; Modern Law Review, Law Quarterly Review, you name it. Use all this studying you've apparently done, I'm all ears.

Your definition of what Sovereignty is, that is correct. Your argument that QiP is Sovereign, is also correct. Your first premise, that Sovereignty is binary, I take supreme issue with. To make that argument is to say that the US Congress has zero sovereignty because the constitution prevents them from making certain laws. Does Sovereignty lie with the constitution? Or does it lie with the mechanism of changing the constitution? Or would you say that the US has no Sovereignty whatsoever? It's an incredibly odd argument that I must say I disagree with. There's no sense in saying that Sovereignty is a strictly binary concept. Do US States have zero sovereignty because the Federal Government have exclusive jurisdiction over certain areas?

Either way, when I talk about issues of Sovereignty dealing with the EU, I'm not an idiot, I understand that Parliament could simply repeal the ECA. You’ve missed the point in that I wasn’t arguing that Parliament ceased to be sovereign. It was that the entire point of having Parliamentary Sovereignty in the first place was being eroded; namely, to prevent abuses of power by placing significant restraints on power and dispersing it downwards.

And why is it being concentrated in Westminster a better outcome than some of it being pooled up to Brussels in a narrow range of policy areas?

And why should it be at Westminster instead of at London, Manchester, Sussex, Chichester, North Street, Number Fifteen, My Living Room, etc.?

Because the demos to which the body represents is smaller and therefore more efficient and accountable.

And why not go further? Councils should absolutely have more power to address their own needs. A one size fits all solution is silly for multiple reasons.

 

[Funky Papa]

Pretty much. At the end of the day it's not going to make a massive difference to people's lives. It's not to be understated though. We are a proud people.

Even a moderately not terrible deal is going to take some serious toll in industrial areas with a high volume of exports. Maybe the City will keep its usual activity, but so many factory workers at international concerns could find themselves without a job and shit out of luck due to massive disinvestment.

Those folks are absolutely going to notice some pretty massive differences unless some borderline magical deal is attained. Just the uncertainty of not triggering Article 50 is going to put on hold further investment aimed towards the European market over the next year(s), meaning a redirection of funds towards mainland factories.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Has this been posted and watched yet?

Brexit: Legal & Constitutional Requirements by UCL Laws

 

[avaya]

Pretty much. At the end of the day it's not going to make a massive difference to people's lives. It's not to be understated though. We are a proud people.

June 23rd was a statement to the world that we are in fact an island in large part of idiots. That much is indisputable now.

Just to go back on the issue of companies not having plans, having met with several management teams over the past 2 weeks, I'd have to say the overriding belief was that Brexit was such a catastrophically stupid thing to do that they did not seriously prepare for it more than a bare minimum under operational risk requirements.

Maybe an oversight by the executive class, London bubble etc. Then again operationally there are no plans that can be credibly made without knowing the lay of the land in what the future terms look like.

 

[suedester]

Even a moderately not terrible deal is going to take some serious toll in industrial areas with a high volume of exports. Maybe the City will keep its usual activity, but so many factory workers at international concerns could find themselves without a job and shit out of luck due to massive disinvestment.

Those folks are absolutely going to notice some pretty massive differences unless some borderline magical deal is attained. Just the uncertainty of not triggering Article 50 is going to put on hold further investment aimed towards the European market over the next year(s), meaning a redirection of funds towards mainland factories.

I was referring to sovereignty not making much difference. Brexit will definitely make a difference to some people's lives.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Your definition of what Sovereignty is, that is correct. Your argument that QiP is Sovereign, is also correct. Your first premise, that Sovereignty is binary, I take supreme issue with. To make that argument is to say that the US Congress has zero sovereignty because the constitution prevents them from making certain laws. Does Sovereignty lie with the constitution? Or does it lie with the mechanism of changing the constitution? Or would you say that the US has no Sovereignty whatsoever? It's an incredibly odd argument that I must say I disagree with. There's no sense in saying that Sovereignty is a strictly binary concept. Do US States have zero sovereignty because the Federal Government have exclusive jurisdiction over certain areas?

In the United States, sovereignty rests with the individual states as a collective, as they provide the means by which to change the constitution. Any federal law can be overturned by a sufficiently committed collective of these states (although they very rarely do so because they don't see the benefits of doing so), meanwhile, no law can overturn the collective will of these states. I think some might say that sovereignty is dispersed, as in each individual state has a little bit of the sovereignty, but I don't think that is a useful way to understand it, because if you are in the 23% of states that voted against an amendment, for example, you actually have no voice in the matter; it would be like arguing that MPs were sovereign instead of Parliament. I think it would be most accurate to say "the collective of the states is law" as analogous to "the Queen-in-Parliament" is law; there is nothing that can overrule or deny the collective of the states.

Either way, when I talk about issues of Sovereignty dealing with the EU, I'm not an idiot, I understand that Parliament could simply repeal the ECA. You’ve missed the point in that I wasn’t arguing that Parliament ceased to be sovereign. It was that the entire point of having Parliamentary Sovereignty in the first place was being eroded; namely, to prevent abuses of power by placing significant restraints on power and dispersing it downwards.

Okay, so stop talking about sovereignty, then. The UK never lost any sovereignty. If you want to talk about accountability, that's an entirely separate issue, and one I'm very happy to talk about. So - I'd like you set out two things before I reply:

Firstly: accountability of what, and to who? Are you saying that the European Union is less accountable to EU citizens than the UK Parliament is to British citizens? Or that the European Union is less accountable to British citizens than the UK Parliament is to British citizens?

Secondly: what is the point of accountability? Just so that we can skip a potential part of the argument that would be rather boring to both of us: why, e.g., Cornwall, not secede from the UK? After all, a Cornish government would probably, by most definitions of accountability I expect you to raise, be more accountable to the people of Cornwall than the UK Parliament would be? I'd like your explanation of why accountability is valuable to be able to distinguish between why Cornwall shouldn't secede from the UK (or Tasmania from Australia, or Newfoundland from Canada) and why the UK should secede from the EU.

 

[avaya]

Because the demos to which the body represents is smaller and therefore more efficient and accountable.

Citation needed.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

why the UK should secede from the EU.

Sorry to snip out the rest of your post (I'm sure Arksy will address it), but is that the right word? Doesn't it imply that we're part of a Euro-nation-state, when your whole point is that we're not? Or something?

 

[Arksy]

In the United States, sovereignty rests with the individual states as a collective, as they provide the means by which to change the constitution. Any federal law can be overturned by a sufficiently committed collective of these states (although they very rarely do so because they don't see the benefits of doing so), meanwhile, no law can overturn the collective will of these states. I think some might say that sovereignty is dispersed, as in each individual state has a little bit of the sovereignty, but I don't think that is a useful way to understand it, because if you are in the 23% of states that voted against an amendment, for example, you actually have no voice in the matter; it would be like arguing that MPs were sovereign instead of Parliament. I think it would be most accurate to say "the collective of the states is law" as analogous to "the Queen-in-Parliament" is law; there is nothing that can overrule or deny the collective of the states.

Yes, as such I don't think it's useful to look as Sovereignty in absolute, binary and zero-sum terms.

Okay, so stop talking about sovereignty, then. The UK never lost any sovereignty. If you want to talk about accountability, that's an entirely separate issue, and one I'm very happy to talk about. So - I'd like you set out two things before I reply:

I don't think they're entirely separate...but I don't think it's useful getting bogged down in this argument...given......

Firstly: accountability of what, and to who? Are you saying that the European Union is less accountable to EU citizens than the UK Parliament is to British citizens? Or that the European Union is less accountable to British citizens than the UK Parliament is to British citizens?

Accountability of those who presume to weild massive legislative power. Let's not forget that the state, as Hobbes says (and Bodin) before him, has a monopoly on violence. Therefore it matters dearly who these people are and what their powers are.

In simple terms; the accountability of the people who makes decisions to the people who must live with such decisions.

I would also say, yes the UK Parliament is far more democratically accountable to the UK than any functionary of the European Union. (Parliament, Commission, etc).

Secondly: what is the point of accountability? Just so that we can skip a potential part of the argument that would be rather boring to both of us: why, e.g., Cornwall, not secede from the UK? After all, a Cornish government would probably, by most definitions of accountability I expect you to raise, be more accountable to the people of Cornwall than the UK Parliament would be? I'd like your explanation of why accountability is valuable to be able to distinguish between why Cornwall shouldn't secede from the UK (or Tasmania from Australia, or Newfoundland from Canada) and why the UK should secede from the EU.

The point of accountability is that everyone benefits. If people can see how people make those decisions, and on what basis they make those decisions...there's a likelihood (not absolute) of course, that better decisions will be made. A simplistic example would be body cameras on police...in most of the places these have been tried, police complaints have gone down dramatically. I can fully accept that as I said, you value economic outcomes as being your most important priorities.

To answer your question, why should the UK leave the EU and Cornwall not the UK...because the democratic systems in place in the UK are far better than the democratic systems that operate at the EU level. Firstly the UK is smaller than the EU, and therefore it would be easier for Cornwall to petition the UK for problems than it would be to petition the EU which has 500 million people to look over. Secondly the UK Parliament has far more power than the EU Parliament (after all it's sovereign!), meaning that they could far easier effect change.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Sorry to snip out the rest of your post (I'm sure Arksy will address it), but is that the right word? Doesn't it imply that we're part of a Euro-nation-state, when your whole point is that we're not? Or something?

I was just using it that way to draw analogies with Cornwall or Newfoundland and so on, you're quite right the UK simply leaves rather secedes.

 

[CTLance]

Sorry to snip out the rest of your post (I'm sure Arksy will address it), but is that the right word? Doesn't it imply that we're part of a Euro-nation-state, when your whole point is that we're not? Or something?

Are you seriously arguing semantics? While ignoring the rest of the post, no less?

Edit: not trying to stir shit or chase you out of the thread while wielding pitchforks. I'm seriously puzzled that you'd take issue with a phrase like that despite the entirety of the previous posts from Crab.

 

[Croyles]

Secondly: what is the point of accountability? Just so that we can skip a potential part of the argument that would be rather boring to both of us: why, e.g., Cornwall, not secede from the UK? After all, a Cornish government would probably, by most definitions of accountability I expect you to raise, be more accountable to the people of Cornwall than the UK Parliament would be? I'd like your explanation of why accountability is valuable to be able to distinguish between why Cornwall shouldn't secede from the UK (or Tasmania from Australia, or Newfoundland from Canada) and why the UK should secede from the EU.

I think he may be arguing for autarchy/localisation?
With that philosophy you can infinitely go further to the extreme until every human makes his own laws (the most accountability possible!), and in the opposite direction globalisation (least accountability!).

I think everyone is in agreement that either extreme and several levels between them are worrisome. A balance then? People's opinions vary where that balance should lie I guess.
You're right: a boring, philosophical and circling debate that gets us nowhere. We are at the "balance" that market, supply and demand has "chosen" for us, basically. In this age, a single country cannot wholly support itself anymore, and thus we chose to widen the playing field, a choice the UK took back and aims to then again widen "by it's own terms", where in 20-30 years time it will be back to where they were before the referendum.