Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Don said:
I suppose it means that the UK isn't completely free to implement whatever legislation we want because our ability is constrained by EU laws. Of course by extension that means that the UK shouldn't engage in any international treaties whatsoever because to a greater or lesser extent, they constrain our ability to do exactly what we want.

For example, the Paris Accord limits our ability to pollute as we see fit and other international busybodies prevent us torturing people, laying landmines indiscriminately and seizing the whole of Antarctica.

An argument can be made that other international treaties are limited in their scope whereas the relationship with the EU is much broader and has many more touch points. That said, as I understand it, the UK has voted in favour of the vast majority of EU legislation and will usually have an opt-out where the terms are too onerous.

IMO there is a risk that other counties may actually have greater leverage on the UK post-Brexit than the EU currently have and as a consequence, our sovereignty will be even more constrained and curtailed.
Click to expand...

So why did our own government in their own White Paper say last year that "we never lost sovereignty". Are they lying?
 
Explorer said:
So why did our own government in their own White Paper say last year that "we never lost sovereignty". Are they lying?
Click to expand...

No they are not. The UK still has sovereignty it's just that, like almost every other country, practically it's constrained to a degree by our international treaty obligations.

Of course we can make any law we like, whether it's unilaterally closing our border to EU immigrants or suspending democracy and declaring a dictatorship, but we're likely to to earn censure from whatever body or bodies oversee the international agreements we have signed up to.

The only way to retain full sovereignty is to become completely isolationist and even then you may find your neighbours curtailing your sovereignty for you.
 
The Don said:
No they are not. The UK still has sovereignty it's just that, like almost every other country, practically it's constrained to a degree by our international treaty obligations.

Of course we can make any law we like, whether it's unilaterally closing our border to EU immigrants or suspending democracy and declaring a dictatorship, but we're likely to to earn censure from whatever body or bodies oversee the international agreements we have signed up to.

The only way to retain full sovereignty is to become completely isolationist and even then you may find your neighbours curtailing your sovereignty for you.
Click to expand...

Well yes. I have always thought of our sovereignty, and that of the rest of the 27 member states, as sharing a small proportion of it with each other, rather than losing any of it. The analogy would be my BT wifi contract with FON. A bit of the band width is allocated for other members to pick up in my vicinity should they need it, free of charge, and it is reciprocated in the same way, when I am in the location of their vicinity. In the meantime, I carry on using the rest of my own dedicated bandwidth without let or hindrance quite happily.
 
Lothian said:
No, to you it will feel like something you would prefer British people to decide, but you will probably be unable to explain why other than just feeling right.
Click to expand...
You think it's xenophobic that a person would prefer that British people decide how Britain is governed? That the non-xenophobic point of view to have is that Britain should be governed by the nations of Europe collectively?

Curious. But to each their own.
 
Seismosaurus said:
You think it's xenophobic that a person would prefer that British people decide how Britain is governed? That the non-xenophobic point of view to have is that Britain should be governed by the nations of Europe collectively?

Curious. But to each their own.
Click to expand...

You think it's xenophobic that a person would prefer that ManningtreeWP people decide how Manningtree is governed? That the non-xenophobic point of view to have is that Manningtree should be governed by the parishes of England collectively?

Curious. But to each their own.
 
Lothian said:
Sovereignty to me has no real meaning in context of the brexit debate other than being a euphemism for xenophobia.

You seem to confirm that.
Click to expand...
Xenophobia usually means hostility to people in one's environment who are perceived as outgroup because of ethnicity.
That is not necessarily implied by a wish to be governed by people perceived as ingroup.

That said...

Seismosaurus said:
You think it's xenophobic that a person would prefer that British people decide how Britain is governed? That the non-xenophobic point of view to have is that Britain should be governed by the nations of Europe collectively?
Click to expand...
Let's take this context of ethnicity, ingroup/outgroup, and government and think of the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Can you see how your attitude might cause problems?
For that matter, would it be possible for Scotland to stay part of the UK if everyone shared your approach?
 
Seismosaurus said:
You think it's xenophobic that a person would prefer that British people decide how Britain is governed? That the non-xenophobic point of view to have is that Britain should be governed by the nations of Europe collectively?
Click to expand...
Yes I do.

I find it really weird that British people are happy for decisions to be taken by their local council, their regional authority, their national parliament,The UK parliament, commonwealth, NATO, WTO, Interpol, OECD.

All those bodies have different membership and involve making collective decisions that affect the constituents differently. It could be paying the council for services you don't use or agreeing tariff rates for commodities you don't trade.

People who don't have a problem with that feel that a European level organisation is offensive and renders them impotent. Why are people happy to form some collectives but not others? What is special about an EU level cooperation that people focus on the issue of who makes the decision as opposed to what costs and benefits the cooperation gives.

It is the focusing on the who, which in my view moves the issue toward xenophobia. When someone complains they don't want Germans deciding on acceptable pollution rates instead of complaining that the pollution rates are too high, they have crossed the line. 9 times out of 10 digging deeper into "sovereignty" you will find it is the 'who' that caused offence not the what. Some people are happy paying 27 times as much to make similar or identical decisions but have those decisions taken by Brits. I do think that is xenophobia. It may be at the mild end but it is in that territory.
 
Seismosaurus said:
You think it's xenophobic that a person would prefer that British people decide how Britain is governed? That the non-xenophobic point of view to have is that Britain should be governed by the nations of Europe collectively?

Curious. But to each their own.
Click to expand...

Except the British people do decide how Britain is governed.

In a small subset of cases our international treaty obligations, whether they are to the EU, the WTO, the UN and so on do rule out some options, but even so Britain still gets to choose. :confused:
 
Lothian said:
Yes I do.

I find it really weird that British people are happy for decisions to be taken by their local council, their regional authority, their national parliament,The UK parliament, commonwealth, NATO, WTO, Interpol, OECD.

All those bodies have different membership and involve making collective decisions that affect the constituents differently. It could be paying the council for services you don't use or agreeing tariff rates for commodities you don't trade.

People who don't have a problem with that feel that a European level organisation is offensive and renders them impotent. Why are people happy to form some collectives but not others? What is special about an EU level cooperation that people focus on the issue of who makes the decision as opposed to what costs and benefits the cooperation gives. It is the focusing on the who, which in my view moves the issue toward xenophobia. When someone complains they don't want Germans deciding on acceptable pollution rates instead of complaining that the pollution rates are too high, they have crossed the line. 9 times out of 10 digging deeper into "sovereignty" you will find it is the 'who' that caused offence not the what. Some people are happy paying 27 times as much to make similar or identical decisions but have those decisions taken by Brits. I do think that is xenophobia. It may be at the mild end but it is in that territory.
Click to expand...


Jonathan Harmsworth - he doesn't like those foreigners - well to be fair his family have liked one or two foreigners like that Hitler bloke.
 
GnaGnaMan said:
Xenophobia usually means hostility to people in one's environment who are perceived as outgroup because of ethnicity.
That is not necessarily implied by a wish to be governed by people perceived as ingroup.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It seems to me that "I would prefer Britain to be governed by the British and not the Germans" (for instance) would only be xenophobic if it were based on fear or hatred of German people. I have no problem with Europeans, who I'm sure are fine people for the most part. I simply don't wish to be governed by them.

Think of it like a family. My family gets together to hang out in little gatherings sometimes. I wouldn't want my neighbours to come to those gatherings, not because I hate or fear my neighbours but because they're family gatherings and my neighbours are not my family.

GnaGnaMan said:
Let's take this context of ethnicity, ingroup/outgroup, and government and think of the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. Can you see how your attitude might cause problems?
Click to expand...
No, I cannot. I've said I think Britain should be governed by the British. Mayor Khan is British. What's the problem that would be caused by my attitude, exactly?

For that matter, would it be possible for Scotland to stay part of the UK if everyone shared your approach?
Click to expand...
Huh? If the people of Scotland took the view that Britain should be governed by the British, then I would think that would be a reason for them to stay part of the UK.

I assume that what you mean is that if the Scottish took the view that Scotland should be governed purely by the Scottish people, that would be a problem? That's not my approach. But sure, if they thought that way then they would leave the UK. Of course the last time anybody asked them, they didn't think that way.

Lothian said:
Why are people happy to form some collectives but not others? What is special about an EU level cooperation that people focus on the issue of who makes the decision as opposed to what costs and benefits the cooperation gives.
Click to expand...
That's a good question. I made a comparison to family gatherings earlier; one could ask why somebody should care about their family more than their neighbours - wouldn't it be a better party if the neighbours came too? And I couldn't argue that they're wrong; I can merely say that I disagree. In the end, those people you think of as "we" and those you don't are always going to be a subjective sort of thing.

It is the focusing on the who, which in my view moves the issue toward xenophobia. When someone complains they don't want Germans deciding on acceptable pollution rates instead of complaining that the pollution rates are too high, they have crossed the line.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think that line gets crossed when somebody doesn't want Germans deciding such things because they don't like Germans or perceive Germans as unpleasant, untrustworthy, etc.

And of course there would be many such people who voted for leave. It's a shame to be in such company, but it's an imperfect universe.

As for me, I could think that Germans are the finest, smartest, most moral, most all-around wonderful group of people in the history of the human race. I'd still prefer that they didn't run my country.
 
Last edited:
Seismosaurus said:
As for me, I could think that Germans are the finest, smartest, most moral, most all-around wonderful group of people in the history of the human race. I'd still prefer that they didn't run my country.
Click to expand...

As for me, I could think that women are the finest, smartest, most moral, most all-around wonderful group of people in the history of the human race. I'd still prefer that they didn't run my country.

As for me, I could think that black people are the finest, smartest, most moral, most all-around wonderful group of people in the history of the human race. I'd still prefer that they didn't run my country.

As for me, I could think that the physically disabled are the finest, smartest, most moral, most all-around wonderful group of people in the history of the human race. I'd still prefer that they didn't run my country.


Sorry I am trying to rationalise your reply and am struggling.
 
Seismosaurus said:
As for me, I could think that Germans are the finest, smartest, most moral, most all-around wonderful group of people in the history of the human race. I'd still prefer that they didn't run my country.
Click to expand...


At what cost?

Unless you're an ideologue, there will come a point at which you decide that allowing collective, European decisions into which all parties have input is preferable to the damage that the country will suffer due to not being part of a larger trading bloc (like almost every other non-superpower in the world is or wants to be). For you, where is that point?
 
Lothian said:
Sorry I am trying to rationalise your reply and am struggling.
Click to expand...
Well, it's not important that my views make sense to you. It's only important that they make sense to me.


3point14 said:
At what cost?

Unless you're an ideologue, there will come a point at which you decide that allowing collective, European decisions into which all parties have input is preferable to the damage that the country will suffer due to not being part of a larger trading bloc (like almost every other non-superpower in the world is or wants to be). For you, where is that point?
Click to expand...
That's already been asked upthread. I don't know that it's an answerable question, really. Check back in twenty five years and see if people think it was worth it then.
 
Seismosaurus said:
That's already been asked upthread. I don't know that it's an answerable question, really. Check back in twenty five years and see if people think it was worth it then.
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked. For you, personally what cost, either foreseen or forthcoming, would cause you to decide / realise it wasn't worth it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom