If TM had lost then there was a real prospect of Johnson being leader and he’s quite happy to leave without a deal, the worst possible outcome. Rightly or wrongly a second public vote may be the only sensible outcome as parliament looks like it will never agree on any deal whatsoever.
I don’t think you understand the basic needs of a country that wants to prosper. What you are saying is that you are happy to allow the living standards, health, housing, nutrition, education, opportunity for arts and sports to list a few to suffer so you can have this wonderful thing sovereignty. What a weird outlook on life and a huge lack of concern for your country. Mind you you don’t care because you don’t live there, you are enjoying the freedom of movement that you look forward to seeing other people lose.
6 Likes
Please explain how we lost “sovereignty” in the first place, and what we actually lost - I want specifics here, not hand-waving. Please also explain what we will be able to do having left the EU that we could not before - and again specifics, not hand waving.
8 Likes
I have been posing the same uestion ever since the phrase appeared, and have yet to see an answer anywhere. Taken literally it sounds as if the EU want to remove the Queen, Parliament, House of Lords?Obvious nonsense?
Taken more widely it could read ‘take over our way of life’. . British Way of Life? What could this include - Playing Cricket? Eating Fish & Chips? Drinking warm beer? Watching EastEnders - or whatever the lates series is? Stopping Wimbledon, Henley Regatta, Ascot Races?Eating English Marmalade, following football,? What?
Overthrowing Human Rights? (Remember it was the Brits who wrote the Charter anyway) Stopping immigration- Britain never signed up to Schengen anyway so have always had full control of their borders. Never signed up to the Euro - so can’t say they have lost their currency. So what exactly are the 'loss ’ situations?
Seriously what does ‘Sovereignty’ mean if if doesn’t mean the Royal Family? Britain dumped or released all their colonies long before the EU became an issue, so that can’t apply?
Can’t do independent Trade deals? Of course they can, every country does, but they can’t be a secondaey conduit to undercut the EU. Call
led ‘protectingjobs’ in case it needs spelling out- including British ones.
I have not heard of te EU wanting to change anything in these areas - so please stand up and tell me what is meant by loss of sovereignty
3 Likes
Actually it happens to be something that I fervently believe in, and thus I find your use of the word ‘posturing’ somewhat offensive.
Presumably then you would not have been in favour of the UK entering WW11 as it certainly was not good for living standards, health, housing, nutrition etc.
By the way “Freedom of movement” is not a pre-requisite for being able to relocate to another country. There are many British people resident in non EU countries who will attest to that.
On your first point — How about the inability of the UK Gov’t to set it’s own VAT rates ----- they have to conform to EU rules.
On your second point ---- How about entering into our own individual trade agreements with non EU countries.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make on either count. Keep trying though, I’m sure you will eventually come up with one reason for leaving the EU but you will never find one to justify the disaster that Brexit will be for future generations. Next?
2 Likes
But different EU countries have different VAT rates so why does the EU arrange that?
Surely the advantageous trade deals only made possible by being part of a huge global trading block outweigh any small trade deal that might be impossible.
1 Like
Perhaps if you could explain what you understand by sovereignty the rest of us might understand why it’s worth paying such a huge price for. If you find that impossible perhaps you should move out of the dark ages.
2 Likes
Or perhaps out of Europe !!
2 Likes
Actually both are to do with my second point.
Even within the EU the UK has freedom to set VAT rates above the EU minimum of 15% - the fact that the UK government chooses to set a rate of 20% might give you a clue as to what would happen once we leave the EU - very little.
In fact there are a wide range of exceptions and derogations applied to VAT rates and the EU commission is looking into a simpler and more flexible system which gives member states more control over rates.
More generally this is something we agree to do as part of gaining access to the single market on the same basis as everyone else - which bit of “level playing field” are you uncertain about.
We all give up a little freedom when we join a group, to gain whatever advantage the group offers. If we live in a shared house we agree to do stuff like keep communal areas tidy, respect each other’s privacy, not play loud music at 2AM. If we join a gym there are rules about not damaging the equipment etc. Choosing to give up a little personal freedom to do absolutely as we wish in order to gain a shared benefit is a pretty common occurrence - it does not rob us of our overall self-determination.
OK, so being in the single market means we agree a “common external tariff” along with all of the other members which means we cannot negotiate a different tariff with another party.
But it is a Brexiteer myth that there are scores of nations lining up to do deals with us outside of the EU. Liam Fox has come back empty handed and even when some governments (India, China) were willing to talk almost the first demand was increased access to work visas. We still give up something to gain something - the difference is that the people who want to change what we give up and who we snuggle up to are not being totally honest about their motives.
Presumably we would want to do a deal with a large and wealthy market such as the USA (this is the one so beloved of most Brexiteers) - do you really think that the USA negotiates trade terms? If so you are mistaken; it sets them. The amount of control the UK will have is the square root of sod all. Our “sovereignty” would extend only to whether to start the process. The power to choose which lion cage to enter is not exactly all that useful.
We benefit from trade deals that the EU negotiates - for example the EU-Japan deal which has just been announced. To replicate all of those deals we will have to do a lot of running to stay still and, being a smaller economy than the EU possibly won’t get such good terms.
Finally - all of this supposes that we have no input into the process. There is British representation within the EU, you know. In fact we have been very successful in sculpting our particular niche within the community with a wide range of opt outs, exceptions and tweaks to suit our particular needs. We have also pushed a good few agendas through to the benefit of all (wasn’t Galileo mostly championed by the Brits in the early stages).
So, not terribly convinced on either of those points. Got any better ones?
4 Likes
There were two main reasons why people voted to leave: sovereignty and immigration. Paul has comprehensively explained the fallacy behind the first. The second, the dislike of immigrants, is often undeniably linked to racism.
The supreme irony is that the Europeans, who are leaving because of Brexit, are now being more than replaced by people from other countries. Talk about unintended consequences; if it wasn’t so patheticly tragic you’d have to laugh.
4 Likes
As ever Ivan Rogers is worth reading - his latest talk on Brexit is linked below. He deals with sovereignty in point #2 and point #5.
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/
Edit - just halfway through reading the text myself, it’s pretty excoriating stuff.
1 Like
I can’t help thinking that immigration would increase after Brexit. There will be no incentive for France to restrict immigrants crossing at Calais - plus the work visa issues that Paul highlights above.
2 Likes
What really gets me is British nationals who are resident in France complaining that the EU has prevented Britain controlling immigration (and opening the doors to benefit scroungers). Anybody who lives in France will know that working within EU guidelines France does not allow any other EU nationals to remain in France unless they meet fairly rigorous standards when it comes to income, healthcare and accommodation. The fact that an EU immigrant entering Britain can step off the ferry and register with a doctor on the way to the benefits office is down to the British government’s controls.
7 Likes
I think David has experience of the German system and I was briefly looking at both German and Spanish requirements for residence - even as an economically self-sufficient EU citizen they look more complex than France which seems very relaxed in its “turn up, move in and as long as you play by the rules we’re cool with that” attitude.
I finished off reading Ivan Rogers’ speech - I had only read the first couple of “lessons” he suggests we need to learn when I posted the link. It is pretty powerful stuff, as I said excoriatingly critical of May’s missteps and own goals, clear in his arguments regarding sovereignty and why tariffs are not, in fact, what really matters. He also makes a powerful argument that the EU are formidable negotiators and when we move out to 3rd nation status while not necessarily an enemy we will be a rival and competitor and we can expect the full force of EU negotiating strength to be directed our way.
I have never failed to be impressed with his insight into our position, how we got where we are and importantly (he was ambassador to the EU for some time) his deep understanding of the EU itself. I dearly wish he was in a position of more influence.
Mr Hodges would do well to read his speech, thoroughly.
2 Likes
Robert, if you do fervently believe in it, then perhaps you could explain to others, like me, exactly what is IS you believe in, and where ‘loss of sovereignty’ comes into it?
Absolutely, David! Did you read Charles Clark and Alan Johnson’s piece on this (We don’t need to leave the EU to control immigration, Mrs May | Charles Clarke and Alan Johnson | The Guardian)?
And an upvote for Ivan Rogers too: “A Brexit debate characterised by evading and obfuscating choices”