The Independent Group

mat said:
He was a rebel, who like Corbyn voted with his principles. No coincidence his change in politicking happened after threating to name establishment paedophiles using parliamentary privilege. The change is attitude is dramatically noticeable.
Click to expand...

Eh?
 
Armchair Supporter said:
Loss off sovereignty as a member of the EU is real.

.
Click to expand...

It really really isn’t.

That said, your insistence that it is does raise two questions:

1. If the reduction in a nation state’s ability to act as it chooses as a result of EU membership is NOT a loss of sovereignty, what is it? And

2. Whatever it is, why does it keep on getting described as a loss of sovereignty when that is categorically what it is not?

As to the first, the answer actually is quite simple. Even where the UK is legally entitled (as a matter of UK law) to act in a particular way, the political consequences of doing so frequently make such action unthinkable, even if legally possible. It is an excellent thing to have the strength of a giant but tyrannous to use it as a giant would.

Take this example. In 1919 (IIRC) Parliament voted that the 26 southern counties of Ireland should become independent. Legally it would be open to Parliament now to revoke that law, and any other law recognising Irish independence which followed it, on the application of the straightforward principle that any law that Parliament has made can be unmade. You don’t need me to tell you however that the political consequences of doing so would be catastrophic, so Parliament would never choose to do so even though as a strict matter of UK law it could.

In the context of international agreements, the fact that the United Kingdom enters into a treaty or enters into a convention stipulating that it will act in a particular way does not involve any loss of sovereignty. What it does do is render it politically unacceptable that it should act in a way that contravenes that agreement, even though it is legally open to it to do so as a matter of UK law. So, it is legally open to Parliament to decree that enemy combatants should be executed without trial, but it would be incompatible with the Geneva convention to do so, thus Parliament’s legal freedom to act as it chooses is limited by non-legal factors. Similarly, it is open to the UK Parliament to disapply any law emanating from the EU that it chooses, but again the political (including economic) consequences would be such that the absolute legal freedom enjoyed by Parliament to act as it chooses is in practice constrained by non-legal factors.

This, by the way, is the reason for the Irish decisions you cite. The choice faced by the Irish was whether to act in a way that it was free to legally, and to live with the economic consequences of that, or not to. The choice not to did not involve any loss of sovereignty, just a recognition of political reality. They are two very different things.

So why, given that accession to all international agreements and structures involves accepting political constraits on our freedom to act as Parliament chooses, is the inevitable acceptance of those constraints described in this, but only this, instance as a loss of sovereignty? Why for instance do those advocating that we leave the EU on WTO terms not acknowledge that this would involve a similar curtailment on our freedom to act as we choose?
Well, in my opinion - and here we depart from the realm of law (which is settled, though not always universally understood) and enter the realm of opinion - the answer is that claims of a loss of sovereignty, whilst inaccurate, are more emotive. If your complaint is that abiding by an international treaty prevents us from doing what we want when we want, it doesn’t really set the pulse racing. Of course we can’t do what we want, but the benefits of signing up outweigh the limitations that signing up places on our freedom to act. Complaining about it is not exactly going to get people manning the barricades.

The claim that we has lost our sovereignty goes far far beyond that. It hints at a nation being emasculated. It hints of dark foreign powers that threatened us with invasion in the last century and the centuries before. It represents a challenge to our national identity and our place in the world. It’s bullshit to say we have lost our sovereignty, of course, but it speaks to our very sense of identity.

Is this deliberate? In my view it is. The argument that membership of the EU involves a loss of sovereignty (in terms what sovereignty actually technically means) is advanced either by those who don’t understand what it means, or do understand it and advance the argument dishonestly. My view is that the argument emanated from the latter and has been taken up by the former. The proponents of the argument that we have lost sovereignty are also those who said we could send the £350m we currently send to Brussels every week to the NHS. They are the people who put up a poster during the referendum campaign about immigration containing the headline ‘breaking point’ showing a series of black faces when thre is not a single EU member state that does not have a majority white population. I could go on. The claim we have lost our sovereignty stands alongside the other emotive, dishonest claims that came from the leave side.

I’m not going to post any more on this subject in this thread because it’s probably gone off at too much of a tangent already, so feel free to reply or not as you choose. But if you are going to reply I ask you this. If, as I think by now you acknowledge, there is no actual loss of sovereignty involved in membership of the EU, who was it that first described the constraints that do follow from membership as a loss of sovereignty? And what did they have to gain from describing it dishonestly?
 
You know, i am in these threads to learn as much as comment, i don't profess to be an expert in anything, nor should i. You are clearly articulate and intelligent, so if you could just back off the "Too stupid to post mantra" for a bit, i would like to learn and appreciate your side of the issues ('ive already applauded one of your posts previously, so it's not that i am too stuborn to accept the other side of a discussion).

I'll have a read of your post at lunch (its rather long and i want to pay it due justice) and revert accordingly.
 
Chris in London said:
It really really isn’t.

That said, your insistence that it is does raise two questions:

1. If the reduction in a nation state’s ability to act as it chooses as a result of EU membership is NOT a loss of sovereignty, what is it? And

2. Whatever it is, why does it keep on getting described as a loss of sovereignty when that is categorically what it is not?

As to the first, the answer actually is quite simple. Even where the UK is legally entitled (as a matter of UK law) to act in a particular way, the political consequences of doing so frequently make such action unthinkable, even if legally possible. It is an excellent thing to have the strength of a giant but tyrannous to use it as a giant would.

Take this example. In 1919 (IIRC) Parliament voted that the 26 southern counties of Ireland should become independent. Legally it would be open to Parliament now to revoke that law, and any other law recognising Irish independence which followed it, on the application of the straightforward principle that any law that Parliament has made can be unmade. You don’t need me to tell you however that the political consequences of doing so would be catastrophic, so Parliament would never choose to do so even though as a strict matter of UK law it could.

In the context of international agreements, the fact that the United Kingdom enters into a treaty or enters into a convention stipulating that it will act in a particular way does not involve any loss of sovereignty. What it does do is render it politically unacceptable that it should act in a way that contravenes that agreement, even though it is legally open to it to do so as a matter of UK law. So, it is legally open to Parliament to decree that enemy combatants should be executed without trial, but it would be incompatible with the Geneva convention to do so, thus Parliament’s legal freedom to act as it chooses is limited by non-legal factors. Similarly, it is open to the UK Parliament to disapply any law emanating from the EU that it chooses, but again the political (including economic) consequences would be such that the absolute legal freedom enjoyed by Parliament to act as it chooses is in practice constrained by non-legal factors.

This, by the way, is the reason for the Irish decisions you cite. The choice faced by the Irish was whether to act in a way that it was free to legally, and to live with the economic consequences of that, or not to. The choice not to did not involve any loss of sovereignty, just a recognition of political reality. They are two very different things.

So why, given that accession to all international agreements and structures involves accepting political constraits on our freedom to act as Parliament chooses, is the inevitable acceptance of those constraints described in this, but only this, instance as a loss of sovereignty? Why for instance do those advocating that we leave the EU on WTO terms not acknowledge that this would involve a similar curtailment on our freedom to act as we choose?
Well, in my opinion - and here we depart from the realm of law (which is settled, though not always universally understood) and enter the realm of opinion - the answer is that claims of a loss of sovereignty, whilst inaccurate, are more emotive. If your complaint is that abiding by an international treaty prevents us from doing what we want when we want, it doesn’t really set the pulse racing. Of course we can’t do what we want, but the benefits of signing up outweigh the limitations that signing up places on our freedom to act. Complaining about it is not exactly going to get people manning the barricades.

The claim that we has lost our sovereignty goes far far beyond that. It hints at a nation being emasculated. It hints of dark foreign powers that threatened us with invasion in the last century and the centuries before. It represents a challenge to our national identity and our place in the world. It’s bullshit to say we have lost our sovereignty, of course, but it speaks to our very sense of identity.

Is this deliberate? In my view it is. The argument that membership of the EU involves a loss of sovereignty (in terms what sovereignty actually technically means) is advanced either by those who don’t understand what it means, or do understand it and advance the argument dishonestly. My view is that the argument emanated from the latter and has been taken up by the former. The proponents of the argument that we have lost sovereignty are also those who said we could send the £350m we currently send to Brussels every week to the NHS. They are the people who put up a poster during the referendum campaign about immigration containing the headline ‘breaking point’ showing a series of black faces when thre is not a single EU member state that does not have a majority white population. I could go on. The claim we have lost our sovereignty stands alongside the other emotive, dishonest claims that came from the leave side.

I’m not going to post any more on this subject in this thread because it’s probably gone off at too much of a tangent already, so feel free to reply or not as you choose. But if you are going to reply I ask you this. If, as I think by now you acknowledge, there is no actual loss of sovereignty involved in membership of the EU, who was it that first described the constraints that do follow from membership as a loss of sovereignty? And what did they have to gain from describing it dishonestly?
Click to expand...

Excellent post and bang on the money.
 
Armchair Supporter said:
You know, i am in these threads to learn as much as comment, i don't profess to be an expert in anything, nor should i. You are clearly articulate and intelligent, so if you could just back off the "Too stupid to post mantra" for a bit, i would like to learn and appreciate your side of the issues ('ive already applauded one of your posts previously, so it's not that i am too stuborn to accept the other side of a discussion).

I'll have a read of your post at lunch (its rather long and i want to pay it due justice) and revert accordingly.
Click to expand...

You drop the arrogant and I'll drop the stupid. deal?
 
Chris in London said:
It really really isn’t.

That said, your insistence that it is does raise two questions:

1. If the reduction in a nation state’s ability to act as it chooses as a result of EU membership is NOT a loss of sovereignty, what is it? And

2. Whatever it is, why does it keep on getting described as a loss of sovereignty when that is categorically what it is not?

As to the first, the answer actually is quite simple. Even where the UK is legally entitled (as a matter of UK law) to act in a particular way, the political consequences of doing so frequently make such action unthinkable, even if legally possible. It is an excellent thing to have the strength of a giant but tyrannous to use it as a giant would.

Take this example. In 1919 (IIRC) Parliament voted that the 26 southern counties of Ireland should become independent. Legally it would be open to Parliament now to revoke that law, and any other law recognising Irish independence which followed it, on the application of the straightforward principle that any law that Parliament has made can be unmade. You don’t need me to tell you however that the political consequences of doing so would be catastrophic, so Parliament would never choose to do so even though as a strict matter of UK law it could.

In the context of international agreements, the fact that the United Kingdom enters into a treaty or enters into a convention stipulating that it will act in a particular way does not involve any loss of sovereignty. What it does do is render it politically unacceptable that it should act in a way that contravenes that agreement, even though it is legally open to it to do so as a matter of UK law. So, it is legally open to Parliament to decree that enemy combatants should be executed without trial, but it would be incompatible with the Geneva convention to do so, thus Parliament’s legal freedom to act as it chooses is limited by non-legal factors. Similarly, it is open to the UK Parliament to disapply any law emanating from the EU that it chooses, but again the political (including economic) consequences would be such that the absolute legal freedom enjoyed by Parliament to act as it chooses is in practice constrained by non-legal factors.

This, by the way, is the reason for the Irish decisions you cite. The choice faced by the Irish was whether to act in a way that it was free to legally, and to live with the economic consequences of that, or not to. The choice not to did not involve any loss of sovereignty, just a recognition of political reality. They are two very different things.

So why, given that accession to all international agreements and structures involves accepting political constraits on our freedom to act as Parliament chooses, is the inevitable acceptance of those constraints described in this, but only this, instance as a loss of sovereignty? Why for instance do those advocating that we leave the EU on WTO terms not acknowledge that this would involve a similar curtailment on our freedom to act as we choose?
Well, in my opinion - and here we depart from the realm of law (which is settled, though not always universally understood) and enter the realm of opinion - the answer is that claims of a loss of sovereignty, whilst inaccurate, are more emotive. If your complaint is that abiding by an international treaty prevents us from doing what we want when we want, it doesn’t really set the pulse racing. Of course we can’t do what we want, but the benefits of signing up outweigh the limitations that signing up places on our freedom to act. Complaining about it is not exactly going to get people manning the barricades.

The claim that we has lost our sovereignty goes far far beyond that. It hints at a nation being emasculated. It hints of dark foreign powers that threatened us with invasion in the last century and the centuries before. It represents a challenge to our national identity and our place in the world. It’s bullshit to say we have lost our sovereignty, of course, but it speaks to our very sense of identity.

Is this deliberate? In my view it is. The argument that membership of the EU involves a loss of sovereignty (in terms what sovereignty actually technically means) is advanced either by those who don’t understand what it means, or do understand it and advance the argument dishonestly. My view is that the argument emanated from the latter and has been taken up by the former. The proponents of the argument that we have lost sovereignty are also those who said we could send the £350m we currently send to Brussels every week to the NHS. They are the people who put up a poster during the referendum campaign about immigration containing the headline ‘breaking point’ showing a series of black faces when thre is not a single EU member state that does not have a majority white population. I could go on. The claim we have lost our sovereignty stands alongside the other emotive, dishonest claims that came from the leave side.

I’m not going to post any more on this subject in this thread because it’s probably gone off at too much of a tangent already, so feel free to reply or not as you choose. But if you are going to reply I ask you this. If, as I think by now you acknowledge, there is no actual loss of sovereignty involved in membership of the EU, who was it that first described the constraints that do follow from membership as a loss of sovereignty? And what did they have to gain from describing it dishonestly?
Click to expand...

Yet again i applaud you on a very well put together post. I don't disagree with any of it tbh.

For myself, i do not repeat the accusations of loss Sovereignty for reasons of national paranoia or xenephobia or nationalism or whatever. It rings true with me because it looks that way from the casual observer. The EU threatening Ireland with bankrupcy if it didn't do what it was told may not have been technically a desolution of its Sovereignty for the reasons you quote, and may well have been a direct consequance of its EU membership, but to those looking externally, it absolutly was. I don't think the reporting of it as such was bullshit either. The charge and public feeling was very real at the time.

The claim that we has lost our sovereignty goes far far beyond that. It hints at a nation being emasculated. It hints of dark foreign powers that threatened us with invasion in the last century and the centuries before. It represents a challenge to our national identity and our place in the world.
Click to expand...
Right, this is the crux of this argument isn't it?
The Public can clearly see that the more involved with the membership of the EU we become (Became?) the more Autonomy we lose. The British public (esp. English i think) do not like that. That loss of autonomy may well be just a natural process of being in a Union, but to the average punter, it is a loss regardless of its name, be it autonomy, self will, sovereignty, etc.

who was it that first described the constraints that do follow from membership as a loss of sovereignty? And what did they have to gain from describing it dishonestly?
Click to expand...
Both sides of the Brexit debate imho, The Leave campaign used it to stir up a defensive emotion wrt the EU, insinuating that the UK is effectively under attack from its union with its European partners(!). The Remain campaign used it as a stick to bash the bus brigade with and paint them as string vest wearing little Englanders.

It isn't about sovereignty. It is about the sacrifices one has to make to your autonomy (or whatever phrase is valid) to be part of that union and that a large part of the UK does not like that sacrifice and does not want it either to continue or possibly get worse.

I think it is a valid point in some respects, specifically with the € and indeed, the UK decided for itself (How very sovereign!) that it was not prepared to sacrifce its own fiscal autonomy for the sake of the €. (And thank fuck for that).

Perhaps the bit in bold is what all of this Brexit is about. I have listened to numerous people complaigning about the loss of identity in the UK (England specifically).
Scots, Welsh, Irish, all have a strong and well celebrated and well cared for identity, yet in England people feel this is under attack. Principly because of the scale of FOM in the UK. There are parts of the UK which are more in common with Pakistan/India/Asia than Britian. I don't want to drag this answer into a statement on race, because it isn't what i am saying, but it is a very real fact. A fault of ourselves in the management of FOM principly (i've said before it is an issue of integration not immigration) which is being pushed as the EU's fault due to its own FOM laws.

A loss of identity, a loss of autonomy, and fear of the esculation of same is at the very heart of Brexit. It is a failure of governance (integration and unchecked FOM) and politics (education and tolerance) which has brought us to where we are.
 
Armchair Supporter said:
You know, i am in these threads to learn as much as comment, i don't profess to be an expert in anything, nor should i. You are clearly articulate and intelligent, so if you could just back off the "Too stupid to post mantra" for a bit, i would like to learn and appreciate your side of the issues ('ive already applauded one of your posts previously, so it's not that i am too stuborn to accept the other side of a discussion).

I'll have a read of your post at lunch (its rather long and i want to pay it due justice) and revert accordingly.
Click to expand...
Every day's a school day.
 
So within the last hour this lot have become as pointless as we knew they were.

tenor.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.