Someone has passed to me the text of an interview on the World at One which discusses this notion of 'sovereignty:
Start
Sarah Montague (SM)
Theresa May's former Ambassador to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers, has described the the plan agreed at Chequers on Friday as “representing the biggest loss of sovereignty since 1973”. It proposed that after Brexit the UK keeps the same rules as the EU for industrial goods and agrifoods so the UK can stay in that part of the single market. Professor Vernon Bogdanor (PVB) is the leading expert on the British constitution. He is professor of Government at Kings College London and I asked him if he thought Sir Ivan was right.
PVB: Either we diverge completely from the European Union, in which case we don't get frictionless trade, or we align ourselves with the European Union, in which case you may ask, what is the point of Brexit. Now if we align ourselves it's true that parliament is sovereign in a technical sense, that parliament can always alter the alignment, but if it does it looses frictionless trade. So we have in a way the shadow of parliamentary sovereignty but we've lost the actual substance of being able to do what we like and we also have no role outside the European Union in making rules by which we will be bound.
SM: So it is the biggest loss of sovereignty since '73?
PVB: It is a loss of of sovereignty in the sense of giving us leeway to do what we might like to do. If we are tied to the rules of the European Union without having a vote on what these rules actually are.
SM: So you either accept that or the alternative is a hit on the economy?
PVB: Well the alternative is a global Britain. That means trying to become a global, free-trade hub, like Singapore or New Zealand, which means unilateral reduction of tariff, deregulation, radical reductions in personal and corporate taxation, to encourage entrepreneurs to come to Britain. A kind of revenge of Margaret Thatcher from beyond the grave if you like; a forth term of Margaret Thatcher. Now that might work in the long run but it would cause a lot of disruption in the short-run and Patrick Minford, one of economists who's advocated that, has said it would mean the end of British manufacturing industry so it's by no means a painless alternative. But there's a certain logic to it. Now the governments position is that there is a third way by which, somehow, you can align yourself partially with the European Union, while still retaining the freedom to have trade agreements with other countries. It's not yet clear whether the European Union would accept that.
SM: But do you accept that there might be that third way?
PVB: If you're resigning from a tennis club, because you think the subscription is too high and you don't like the rules and then say “I'd like to play on the tennis courts on the same basis as those who are members”, it might be a bit difficult.
SM: The criticism that this third way represents a loss of sovereignty - there been a suggestion from one EU official that “there is no such thing as a sovereign country any more. It's an illusion the Brits are all chasing but it has gone.” Do you have some sympathy with that; that actually, in the world as it is today, everybody pools sovereignty.
PVB: We have to distinguish between parliamentary sovereignty and national sovereignty. It terms of parliamentary sovereignty we will recapture that, but national sovereignty is very difficult for a medium sized country like Britain. To exert influence you have to work with other people and that may involve a sacrifice of sovereignty it's certainly true. America doesn't have to sacrifice her sovereignty, and Russia doesn't or China, but we're not quite in that position. Perhaps we were in the 19th Century when we had an empire.
End
I have always found the Leavers' notion of 'sovereignty' difficult to understand in view of the fact that any international agreement, whether it be a trade deal, aviation regulations or trading under WTO rules, involves some loss of sovereignty just because, as Prof. Bogdanor points out national sovereignty is very difficult for a medium sized country like Britain. To exert influence you have to work with other people and that may involve a sacrifice of sovereignty it's certainly true.
To me, the huge risk involved in cutting loose from the EU seems utterly pointless when it would only involve regaining nominal 'sovereignty' and would certainly involve tremendous hardship for much of the population.
I've also never been able to understand the assumption that 27 other distinct and proudly individual countries would be any more willing to surrender their sovereignty than the UK is.
