Brexit 5

No, it doesn't mean that JessM. The dictionary definition of 'sovereignty' is:

1. supreme power or authority.
"the sovereignty of Parliament"

2. the authority of a state to govern itself or another state.
"national sovereignty"

3. a self-governing state.

The word Sovereign implies that it is a county run by a monarch who rules absolutely. Of course now it seems to mean something else. But what?
That parliament acts like a monarch, I assume. This is surely a very outdated concept. (and there have been more than a few dodgy monarchs in our history) Since WW2 countries have co-operated and agreed standards that they will adhere to, in the interests of international cooperation and the avoidance of war etc etc
Should we leave the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the International Criminal Court perhaps? What about the Geneva Convention? And all the other treaties we have signed.
Was it Boris Johnson in his days as a joke EU correspondant who first used the S word in this context? Or was it the delightful NF?
Has anyone yet written some sort of satirical play based on a 16th Century monarch who fancied splitting the Uk off from the Catholic Church. Now that was an issue of "sovereignty"!

Fight hotting up between the Tories and the issue of the single market. Will be seeing a lot of this.

Interested in May's version of Christianity. Wonder what she thinks "Suffer little children" means?

Why does Theresa May still insist on not showing her cards? Every other EU country knows what cards she has.

I noticed today that Johnson has told four EU ambassadors in a private meeting that he supports free movement of people in the EU!
What was Brexit all about?
Still hedging his bets.

I am sure, roses, if someone else had written that and put a smiley face after it, you wouldn't have been upset by it.

Thanks MaizieD, that last link gives a full and balanced picture which I'm not going to precis, suffice to say that there's a lot of room for exaggeration regarding EU input into British law. As ever, it's complicated and the way it is interpreted and reported relates to the intent of the reporter!

It's fair enough to complain about stereotyping but that works both ways and I'm pretty tired of seeing Remoaner being flung about as an insult along with other insults when people are quite rightly asking questions or debating issues.
I have only just noticed Cunco that you are bloke (!) which explains why you didn't, to my relief, respond tartly to my querying who others were in your earlier post about us attempting to educate ourselves as part of the process of debating. Probably this is a cat amongst the pigeons comment that'll get me into trouble but men seem to have a different way of needling the jugular!!

That's interesting, CelticRose, because this guy reckons that the 1997 - 2010 Labour governments passed far too many laws and if you look at his examples they didn't emanate from the EU.

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/7482778/Bad-Laws-Labour-has-clowned-around-with-our-freedom.html

But of course, you might argue that the article is just a bit of right wing polemic (which is true) and so not to be taken seriously.

It might be worth looking at this somewhat more considered view of the influence of the EU on our legislation. Fact is, no-one can say with any certainty just how much our laws are influenced/driven by EU law.

fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

exactly Cunco some are happy to trot out these stereotypical
remarks at every opportunity.It shows very little understanding, except for their own point of view.

Perhaps DJen you should think about changing yours to Rudejen since you make every remark so personal.Am sure that HQ would be happy to oblige you.

Oh dear, back to the old stereotype of the Leave voter as narrow-minded Nationalist who harks back the glorious days of the past. I remember having that one levelled at those wishing to Keep The Pound back in 1995, mainly by far-sighted Liberal Democrats who said we must join the Eurozone or have our economy left behind. Nothing could have been further from the truth, both in the accusation or the outcome.

I saw The Guardian were touting the same sort of stereotype going into the Referendum. It makes me very angry that some people who, quite rightly, would condemn the use of stereotypes against other groups seem happy to use them against Leavers.

I think the question of countries leaving bigger groups might be usefully put to Scottish Nationalists. If we look to history, how about the USA leaving the British Empire or, indeed, any relevant Commonwealth countries who have gone off on their own? Of course, New Zealand didn't so much go off on its own as, economically, were set loose by the UK when we joined the EEC.

I would not argue that leaving the EU implies a level of risk but so does staying in because it is headed to an ever-closer Union which implies further loss of sovereignty. Many of my friends who voted Leave (and I have as many who didn't) did so because of the sovereignty issue and a vision of the future, not the past.

Why, I wonder, did taking up the EU flag create more jobs in British government, and yet decision making for this country was made in Bruxelles. British politicians such as Mr Bliar had very little decision making other than to pass on directives from the EU Parliament. And then laid blame at this door for all financial troubles.

You didn't answer the question.
You should change your name to rosetintedglasses, looking back to a glorious past when we ruled the empire.

We were not always in it you know, and did rule ourselves for a bit ( a lot) and it is quite likely there will be other breakaways on the horizon from the EU.

Which countries have split from a bigger group and are better than they were in that group?

Going it alone as a sovereign nation is not a bygone thing Azie and many nations do it. We are still part of Europe and part of Nato.

Bad sentence construction at the beginning of my second paragraph, I mean of course the destruction left behind in France and Germany, post WWII.

Like JessM I find it difficult to imagine what loss of sovereignty means beyond a concept. As the world divides into trading blocks and perhaps becomes less safe because of terrorism, the resurgence of Russia and a loose cannon US president, I'd rather be part of the group of nations that is Europe. Our police force and armed forces, border control, intelligence unit have all suffered from austerity. I think I read that our 3(?) remaining warships are obsolete. I think the notion of going it alone as a sovereign nation is a bygone thing.
As to ever closer union, France and Germany have always had that as their aim because of the destruction of both countries post WWII. However, with a right wing swing in both countries and resistance to further integration from some Eastern European countries, I can't see closer union being achieved beyond legislation concerned with climate change and the environment and I see that as a good thing. In fact climate change is likely to do for us all in the end anyway.

People can take sovereignty for granted until they realise that they have lost it; and when they do, it can become the most important issue of all.

I suspect that a very large section of the UK population has been completely indifferent to the issue of 'sovereignty' for years and years.(I realise that a host of indignant Gransnet 'Leavers' will now rush to tell me that it has been a constant worry to them for the last 40 years)

When it became 'take back control' in the run up to the EU referendum very few people I spoke to seemed able to articulate just what they meant by 'taking back control' apart from 'being tired of being told what to do by unelected EU bureaucrats...' They certainly weren't able to explain how 'loss of sovereignty' had blighted their lives, or irreparably damaged the UK..

'I believe the veto is for significant issues like treaties (rather than legislation).' Surely legislation, along with regulations and directives, is significant to a view on sovereignty.

When proposed EU legislation comes to the vote, I read 'The UK usually votes with the majority, but is now on the losing side more than any other nation.' This is a quote from the Full Fact website.

I agree the 'sovereignty thing' is difficult. It has not been a vote winner in the UK so it has been pushed to the sidelines. Even the significant issue of keeping the Pound in 1997 and 2002 was deemed less important than the usual election issues. How important it proved to be; and if Gordon Brown was responsible for keeping us out of the Eurozone, he deserves a vote of thanks.

People can take sovereignty for granted until they realise that they have lost it; and when they do, it can become the most important issue of all.

Nobody really ever seems to put their finger on this "sovereignty" thing.
EU laws have influenced our laws to the better in areas like employment rights, environmental protection and food safety.
I believe the veto is for significant issues like treaties (rather than legislation).
Like in the recent issue in which there was a trade agreement with Canada waiting to be ratified. One Belgian region was against it and the whole of the rest of the EU wanted to sign. They did sign in the end but it was touch and go.

My concern is not only where we are but where we are headed.

I think that is everyone's concern, Leavers and Remainers.

Agree totally with your post Cunco

I do so agree that we need to co-operate and trade with Europe. I have friends living in Europe; I take holidays in Europe; and I want friendly relations with Europe. My objection is only to the EU, not to Europe or its citizens.

I have not had time to research fully the national Veto but it is not true that a country can veto anything it does not like. As usual with the EU, it is not straightforward but reading this link to the end, it states: 'So the UK has to accept some EU decisions that it didn't vote for.'

fullfact.org/europe/british-influence-eu-council-ministers/

My concern is not only where we are but where we are headed. The EU is headed to 'an ever-closer Union' with more powers controlled at the centre. Quite how long the UK could sensibly retain its position in the EU but outside the Eurozone is a guess but I suspect it is untenable long term, as do fans of the EU such as Michael Heseltine.

The loss of sovereignty is already significant. It is not complete but, in my view, it is likely to move away from the UK over time if we stay in the EU. What powers we have to veto could ultimately be reduced or eliminated. I would view our grand-children's future in a United States of Europe as an environment where they have even less say in their own government than we do; and we don't have much.

I am very impressed by that site, fullfact.org.uk. I did think though that we'd made ourselves unpopular by vetoing legislation, especially the sort giving welfare and employment rights along with environmental protection. Sorry, don't have details at my fingertips.
I'm interested in the difference in European thinking that tries to make life better for the disadvantaged. For instance the legislation that has made facilities for the disabled mandatory. This may seem like wandering away from the central Brexit question, but, in Stockholm last year I was stunned to see so many people in wheelchairs out and about, to see how buses and street furniture is adapted for the disabled (and thus for mother's with buggies, the elderly with walkers etc). Most amazing of all was waiting in a queue for a bus, the queue was a mix of old and young, able and disabled and when the bus came, the disabled and less able were happily allowed on first with no hurry or angst.

I think this is the sort of thing that needs to be led from the top down and my experience of the UK is that there is increasing privatisation, decreasing provision of public facilities and caring for the less able and disabled is always 'too expensive'. So I suppose I am grateful to the EU for what membership has brought and what has seemed like a dragging along of the UK Parliament into a kinder world. An ex neighbour of mine, elderly herself but rather well off and very anti EU has ranted at length to me about 'the money spent on changing infrastructure and how many people in wheelchairs do you see about then, day to day' she'd say, thrusting her face in mine. Very ugly.

So from what I've read, I don't believe our sovereignty is really threatened but I do think we need to cooperate with other governments, it's not just about trade and money, and I think we can learn from our European neighbours how to allocate resources for the benefit of all. In my lifetime I have felt the EU has been proactive in this. Sorry if this seems like a long post.

Precisely, Welshwife. EU legislation is always referred to as though it comes fully formed out of the ether. Whereas, in fact, it is a result of debate and negotiation among the EU countries.

Another point is that much of the regulation is related to goods which are traded in the EU. We would be required to conform to product related regulations with most countries we traded with outside the EU, without any input in forming them. Of course, countries wishing to import to us would have to comply with our product standards but these could well be diluted if we have a weak hand in negotiating future trade agreements and have to accept lower standards. And, if we wish to continue to trade with the EU we will still have to conform to their product related regulations...

This is true but when these laws/regulations are being made all 28 states need to agree before it goes onto the books. Everyone has a veto and I believe the UK has exercised this right more than any other state. So nothing goes against what our government has agreed.