The Independent Group

[bugsyblue]

Whats the alternative to May?

Gove? (!)
Corbin? (!)


Better the devil you know.

Gove would be infinitely worse. I have zero faith in Corbyn, same as how I feel about May. But that’s not the point. Why leave a political party as an MP if you would still back said PM in a vote of no confidence? For me it highlights possibly the murky motives that these MPs have...

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

You're right. But it isn't how it felt at the time.

It was probably the last election that the written media had an influence on. The Sun in particular, printed scare story after scare story about reds under the bed, the loony left (although nothing like as many as they did against Miliband), culminating in their famous ‘last person to leave Britain turn out the lights’ headline on the morning of the election.
Coupled with the rest of the conservative leaning press it proved fatal for Kinnock and led to the biggest Tory vote in history, which was quite a shock result.
When it became obvious that newspaper were still trying to influence elections was in 2015, when the Sun in Scotland backed the SNP, in an obvious attempt to decimate the Labour vote in Scotland, which it did.
What makes me smile, on this forum, is that most people don’t think there’s anything wrong with newspaper bias and lies, when it come to electing a government (or leaving the EU), but if they are perceived to be biased against City, they should be strung up and replaced with ‘proper journalists’..

 

[Chris in London]

Well, for me, it is the steady encroachment on Sovereignty ( really, that is a soundbite word used to play to the galleries on either side of its use) that staying in the EU will force upon the UK. .

Sovereignty is not a soundbite, it’s a term of art with a specific constitutional and legal meaning. It relates to where ultimate power rests within a state. In the UK it is settled law that Parliament has been sovereign since the seventeenth century and arguably since Magna Carta. There is no encroachment of sovereignty whatsoever involved in the UK abiding by EU law because the reason, and the ONLY reason we do so is because Parliament has approved of the delegation to the EU of some law making functions in particular areas relating to areas where the EU is competent. ( There are in fact a number of other , more minor, instances where we have delegated law making functions to supra national bodies, such as in the case of notifiable diseases where we abide by the rulings of the WHO and sites of international scientific or cultural significance where we abide by the determinations of UNESCO. The proposed WTO terms would, if adopted, involve a similar acceptance into UK law of regulations made by a supranational body, so I find it piss funny personally that some of the people most keen to leave on WTO terms are also those who bemoan our alleged loss of sovereignty.)

Make no mistake about what sovereignty means. Our Parliament has the power to repeal any EU law it chooses, and if it does so that EU law will no longer be in force in the UK. There may be consequences in doing that, of course, because to do so would place us in breach of our treaty obligations. But that is not something that has anything to do with sovereignty, that is to do with political reality. If Parliament says ‘this EU law no longer applies in the UK’ that is the end of the matter, it no longer applies.

The reason people can’t answer the question ‘how have we lost sovereigny’ Is that we haven’t. The loss of sovereignty argument is advanced purely by those who either don’t know what sovereignty actually means, or do know and are dishonest about the alleged loss of sovereignty.

 

[bugsyblue]

Also is it true Anna Soubry voted 12 times against the rights of EU citizens to remain in the UK? Now she’s standing behind a group that is pro remain (are they officially pro-remain, without a manifesto its hard to tell)? Hmmmmm

 

[goalmole]

Gove would be infinitely worse. I have zero faith in Corbyn, same as how I feel about May. But that’s not the point. Why leave a political party as an MP if you would still back said PM in a vote of no confidence? For me it highlights possibly the murky motives that these MPs have...

One of he murky motives they might have is to stop a no deal Brexit. With May's government they know what they are dealing with, they know the parliamentary arithmetic and they know broadly which MP's are standing where on Brexit. They must think they have a better chance of achieving their goals by influencing this Parliament, MP's and Government rather than bringing down May, risking a GE and with it their own seats, and even if they were all re-elected, the Parliamentary arithmetic would have changed and their scope to influence the proceedings may have been diluted or neutralised. So the best course for them is to use the weight they have to influence MP's and government to achieve their aim.

 

[goalmole]

Sovereignty is not a soundbite, it’s a term of art with a specific constitutional and legal meaning. It relates to where ultimate power rests within a state. In the UK it is settled law that Parliament has been sovereign since the seventeenth century and arguably since Magna Carta. There is no encroachment of sovereignty whatsoever involved in the UK abiding by EU law because the reason, and the ONLY reason we do so is because Parliament has approved of the delegation to the EU of some law making functions in particular areas relating to areas where the EU is competent. ( There are in fact a number of other , more minor, instances where we have delegated law making functions to supra national bodies, such as in the case of notifiable diseases where we abide by the rulings of the WHO and sites of international scientific or cultural significance where we abide by the determinations of UNESCO. The proposed WTO terms would, if adopted, involve a similar acceptance into UK law of regulations made by a supranational body, so I find it piss funny personally that some of the people most keen to leave on WTO terms are also those who bemoan our alleged loss of sovereignty.)

Make no mistake about what sovereignty means. Our Parliament has the power to repeal any EU law it chooses, and if it does so that EU law will no longer be in force in the UK. There may be consequences in doing that, of course, because to do so would place us in breach of our treaty obligations. But that is not something that has anything to do with sovereignty, that is to do with political reality. If Parliament says ‘this EU law no longer applies in the UK’ that is the end of the matter, it no longer applies.

The reason people can’t answer the question ‘how have we lost sovereigny’ Is that we haven’t. The loss of sovereignty argument is advanced purely by those who either don’t know what sovereignty actually means, or do know and are dishonest about the alleged loss of sovereignty.

Hallelujah

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

In what way has the UK lost its sovereignty since joining the European Communites in 1973?

If the EU Commission wants to change EU law, it can. If the EU Parliament passes it, it comes into force as either a directive or a regulation. The former requires an EU member to meet the objective but allows it to do that in its own way. The latter is binding so we have to meet the regulation. Being part of the single market means we have to accept free movement of people.

Fortunately we're not in the Euro but the countries that are have surrendered much of their economic and fiscal freedom of action to the ECB. They are unable to manage some of the key fiscal and monetary measures, such as interest rates and exchange rates, that are needed to keep an economy on the right lines.

 

[Chris in London]

If the EU Commission wants to change EU law, it can. If the EU Parliament passes it, it comes into force as either a directive or a regulation. The former requires an EU member to meet the objective but allows it to do that in its own way. The latter is binding so we have to meet the regulation. Being part of the single market means we have to accept free movement of people.

Fortunately we're not in the Euro but the countries that are have surrendered much of their economic and fiscal freedom of action to the ECB. They are unable to manage some of the key fiscal and monetary measures, such as interest rates and exchange rates, that are needed to keep an economy on the right lines.

None of which involves any loss of sovereignty. The reason EU regulations have direct effect in the UK is because Parliament has delegated those law making functions to the EU. Regulations are made under the authority of Parliament. They would have no legal effect in the UK whatsoever had Parliament not legislated to allow that to happen. Directives as you say are enacted directly by a Parliament, which can choose not to do so, just as it choose to disapply any regulations emanating from Brussels. Those are choices that would carry adverse consequences but that does not involve any loss of sovereignty.

Even if we’re in the Eurozone our Parliament would have the ability to make it the law that interest is 15%. That decision would probably see us being removed from the Eurozone, but the law of the UK would still be that interest is 15%. That is what sovereignty means.

 

[Armchair Supporter]

If the EU Commission wants to change EU law, it can. If the EU Parliament passes it, it comes into force as either a directive or a regulation. The former requires an EU member to meet the objective but allows it to do that in its own way. The latter is binding so we have to meet the regulation. Being part of the single market means we have to accept free movement of people.

Fortunately we're not in the Euro but the countries that are have surrendered much of their economic and fiscal freedom of action to the ECB. They are unable to manage some of the key fiscal and monetary measures, such as interest rates and exchange rates, that are needed to keep an economy on the right lines.

Bingo.

I wouldn't argue we have actually surrended any "Sovereignty" in anything but name to EU yet, but those in the € certainly have and whilst Chris is correct in saying that a country can pick its toys up and go home anytime it wants, the reality is that doing so it would be such a catastrophy that it is effectively impossible.

Example: Ireland. 2007 (ish). Interest rates were low because Germany runs the ECB and Germany likes interest rates to be ~4%. Ireland was going through a mahooosive housing and cash and borrowing boom because of the cheap money (read low interest rates) that the € brought in. However, Ireland couldn't change its own fiscal policy (interest rates) because it was locked in the EU €'s.
Resulting in an utter clusterfuck of a debt bubble which went off like a nuclear bomb after Lehmans.

Post fallout, Ireland was then (and still is) further handcuffed in its soveriegn freedoms as the troika told it to take all the debt, every single bit of it (German mostly btw) and swallow it. Without argument or resistance, which, Ireland had to do because €.

So whilst Ireland is a sovereign country able to take its toys home whenever it wants, the reality is actually quite different.

It will be exactly that way for the UK as well should we remain in europe because, i believe, it will become increasing more difficult for the UK to remain outside of the € as the EU matures and evolves.

https://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/the-week-ireland-gave-up-its-sovereignty-29796376.html

 

[BobKowalski]

If the EU Commission wants to change EU law, it can. If the EU Parliament passes it, it comes into force as either a directive or a regulation. The former requires an EU member to meet the objective but allows it to do that in its own way. The latter is binding so we have to meet the regulation. Being part of the single market means we have to accept free movement of people.

Fortunately we're not in the Euro but the countries that are have surrendered much of their economic and fiscal freedom of action to the ECB. They are unable to manage some of the key fiscal and monetary measures, such as interest rates and exchange rates, that are needed to keep an economy on the right lines.

Membership of the EU or adopting the Euro is a voluntary choice. No country is forced or obliged to join but if you do decide to join then you abide by the rules. Freedom of movement is one of the rules and is liberation of the people from the tyranny of Govt and petty bureaucracy. All freedoms are hard won and they should be celebrated and voting to remove our hard won rights is a betrayal. The same is true of suffrage. Removing our right to vote in political elections is also a retrograde step.