EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Intercity 225]

Sovereignty is not something that can be pooled, it is something you either have or you don’t. I don’t want the highest court of appeal in this country to be the ECJ. I don’t want the ability of the U.K. government in parliament to legislate as it deems fit, in its sole discretion, to be fettered by obligations owed to unelected, unaccountable EU overlords.

Sovereignty most definitely can be pooled and it’s something we’ve been doing for generations, not just with the EU either.

I don’t want to take the thread off topic but let me give another example - there are currently a number of RAF bases on the UK mainland that are used exclusively by US military personnel - that’s British soil and British infrastructure under the direct control of a foreign power. The reason we allow that is because it’s in both our and the United States’ shared interests but it requires a pooling of sovereignty in order for it to happen - or do you disagree?

 

[EM2]

The EU doesn’t have a demos because not all of the people are united by common culture, common purpose or even a common geography, such is its scale.

But the UK does? Or Spain? Or France? If the people are united as you suggest, why are there separatist movements in all of these countries?
Taking the UK as an example, we certainly don't have a common culture. Certain parts are common, but other aspects are completely alien to others. You won't find a Pearly King in Stoke-on-Trent, and you can't buy a chicken parmo in Slough. Even in the same county there are differences, such as the Kentish Man and the Man of Kent.
Common purpose? That's clearly not the case, as is amply illustrated by this thread! As for common geography, that's clearly not the case either. Most of Wales and Scotland is open wild and mountainous country, a lot of England is the complete opposite. Life in those areas is completely different. What does my life in suburban Kent have in common with a Highland crofter?

 

[AlterEgo]

But the UK does? Or Spain? Or France? If the people are united as you suggest, why are there separatist movements in all of these countries?
Taking the UK as an example, we certainly don't have a common culture. Certain parts are common, but other aspects are completely alien to others. You won't find a Pearly King in Stoke-on-Trent, and you can't buy a chicken parmo in Slough. Even in the same county there are differences, such as the Kentish Man and the Man of Kent.
Common purpose? That's clearly not the case, as is amply illustrated by this thread! As for common geography, that's clearly not the case either. Most of Wales and Scotland is open wild and mountainous country, a lot of England is the complete opposite. Life in those areas is completely different. What does my life in suburban Kent have in common with a Highland crofter?

I agree; I support Irish and Scottish separatism and the breakup of the UK into its constituent nations.

 

[AM9]

I agree; I support Irish and Scottish separatism and the breakup of the UK into its constituent nations.

How about Cornwall (ethnic/cultural) or even Devon and Cornwall (cultural). Then there's splitting London from the rest of the UK - or at least England (economic). And if those were acceptable then there's the North-East (ethnic in part).
Eventually things would begin to look like feudal Britiain and not far from EM2's borderless world!

 

[EM2]

Eventually things would begin to look like feudal Britiain and not far from EM2's borderless world!

Sounds like there'd be more borders

 

[Howardh]

How about Cornwall (ethnic/cultural) or even Devon and Cornwall (cultural). Then there's splitting London from the rest of the UK - or at least England (economic). And if those were acceptable then there's the North-East (ethnic in part).
Eventually things would begin to look like feudal Britiain and not far from EM2's borderless world!

Politically (small p) Britain (or is it UK?) is a mess.
We have one country, except we don't, we have 4, but the largest doesn't have it's own Parliament but it does, and one of those four is effectively shared with a fifth. And then we have bits spread all over the world which are governed by one or all of the four above except they're not.
Then we have to decide if we're British, English (Scots etc). European, anti-European but it says on our passport United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so we're everywhere at the same time but we're not.
Then geographically we're all part of the British Isles except the extra part doesn't seem to accept that so we are part of something that hasn't got a name.

And Belgium thought it had problems....

 

[OuterDistant]

You won't find a Pearly King in Stoke-on-Trent

Challenge accepted!

 

[AM9]

Sounds like there'd be more borders

Well yes, just like lots of garden fences between families. When the energy and the food and water starts to get scarce, all this my land/your land posturing will degenerate into total decline through eternal warring, or people might actually start co-operating with each other to deal with the real issues.

 

[AM9]

Politically (small p) Britain (or is it UK?) is a mess.
We have one country, except we don't, we have 4, but the largest doesn't have it's own Parliament but it does, and one of those four is effectively shared with a fifth. And then we have bits spread all over the world which are governed by one or all of the four above except they're not.
Then we have to decide if we're British, English (Scots etc). European, anti-European but it says on our passport United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so we're everywhere at the same time but we're not.
Then geographically we're all part of the British Isles except the extra part doesn't seem to accept that so we are part of something that hasn't got a name.

And Belgium thought it had problems....

Well it gives me a bit of entertainment when americans get in a mess over it but I despair when indigenous UK residents (especially in England) get the wrong end of the stick.

 

[Bromley boy]

The sovereignty argument is one I have heard many times before, but the bit I can never understand is why people consider this magical, ever so important concept to have a divine right to belong at the current second level of a governmental system which has 5 or 6 levels, all of which have various democratic problems. Most arguments about the desire for sovereignty could be rewritten for any level of government just by changing the names.

To write that in long form, for someone living in Bromley:


Why does the pooling of sovereignty and the submission to higher authority stop being acceptable at that level?


Why does 'our' mean Britons and not not Bromley-ites, Londoners, the English, or Europeans?

The question I think was asking about what a “demos” is - why are you happy with the entities of Bromley, or London, or England, or the UK, yet not with the EU?

I don’t think this is a difficult question to answer. As I explained earlier, a democracy must have a demos - a “people” - which the EU fundamentally lacks. The nation state is the highest level at which it is possible to be selfless. The EU doesn’t have a demos because not all of the people are united by common culture, common purpose or even a common geography, such is its scale. The denial of the importance of the nation state (because I can hear people about to take to their keyboards in disagreement with me again) is one of the great follies of the current cultural zeitgeist.

People still don’t grasp that Brexit was a huge middle finger to those who disagree with the above. When will some Remainers wake up?

It seems I owe @JonathanP an apology - I completely misconstrued what was a perfectly reasonable post.

Generally I’m in favour of localised government (and preferably small government!) wherever possible. Nation states are somewhat arbitrary but I agree they are (or should) be the largest scale structure which can foster a sense of belonging and participation.

The EU is not a nation state, but it seems that increasingly it is trying to become one. It’s also clear that it is too arrogant to change or listen to any criticism (we never hear the EU reflecting on its own shortcomings, or what might have prompted the Brexit vote in the first place).

My ideal scenario would be to have remained in a much reduced version of the EU - a mutually beneficial trading bloc entered into by independent nation states.

There are some posters on this website who clearly do not value being British, and view that purely as an accident of birth rather than something to be valued and cherished. That is an unusual view in my experience. I believe being British is a lot more than just happening to have been born on the island of Great Britain. I also feel British but do not, and have absolutely no desire to, feel “European”.

 

[Bromley boy]

I don’t want to take the thread off topic but let me give another example - there are currently a number of RAF bases on the UK mainland that are used exclusively by US military personnel - that’s British soil and British infrastructure under the direct control of a foreign power. The reason we allow that is because it’s in both our and the United States’ shared interests but it requires a pooling of sovereignty in order for it to happen - or do you disagree?

I disagree that allowing shared airbases is pooling sovereignty. The British government retains the ability to take the bases back at any time. To use a slightly tortured example, it’s more akin to allowing someone the use of your house for a period of time - it would remain your property throughout.

On a much larger scale, making EU jurisprudence supreme over U.K. law and making our highest court of appeal (on EU matters) the ECJ isn’t pooling sovereignty either, it’s surrendering it.

Nick Clegg is fully aware of that but, being a dishonest little worm, he chooses to describe it as “pooling sovereignty” to make it sound like something different to what it actually is.

 

[Howardh]

It seems I owe @JonathanP an apology - I completely misconstrued what was a perfectly reasonable post.

Generally I’m in favour of localised government (and preferably small government!) wherever possible. Nation states are somewhat arbitrary but I agree they are (or should) be the largest scale structure which can foster a sense of belonging and participation.

The EU is not a nation state, but it seems that increasingly it is trying to become one. .

I understand the sentiment, but have you any actual, tangible evidence of that? I note you using the word "seems" which is as good a get-out clause as any!!
I know the "Euro Army" was a worry to some, but even if that ever happened I can't see how it would prevent each nation being "sovereign" in so far as if any country involved in the "Euro-army" decided it wanted no part in a conflict, it would be obliged to withdraw it's own citizens from that army. But i'll admit to being ignorent of all matters Euro-army on the grounds it hasn't happened, and if it did they, like us, would probably be part of NATO (in which case, why have an Euro-army in the first place?).

The EU to a large extent stayed out of the Catalonia dispute, hasn't prevented Denmark banning face-covering, let us have the OUT vote etc etc. Do you think the EU SHOULD have been involved with the former?

 

[Intercity 225]

I disagree that allowing shared airbases is pooling sovereignty. The British government retains the ability to take the bases back at any time. To use a slightly tortured example, it’s more akin to allowing someone the use of your house for a period of time - it would remain your property throughout.

On a much larger scale, making EU jurisprudence supreme over U.K. law and making our highest court of appeal (on EU matters) the ECJ isn’t pooling sovereignty either, it’s surrendering it.

Nick Clegg is fully aware of that but, being a dishonest little worm, he chooses to describe it as “pooling sovereignty” to make it sound like something different to what it actually is.

I'm not sure why you keep referring to Nick Clegg when responding to me, I've already explained that I'm not a Lib Dem supporter but a member of the Conservatives - albeit one that's more pro-European than most in my party. Clegg didn't come up with the terminology of "pooling sovereignty" either - it's a term that's been used by far more than just him.

To help you understand why I'm both centre-right and pro-EU I've summarised my main reasons below, I don't expect you to agree with them but hope it provides some insight:

1. The EU single market is in itself a centre-right creation, it allows private enterprises to trade with over 510m people without any conditions and usually puts barriers in the way of state owned industry. Considering that the EU contains many of the wealthiest countries in the world and because they're geographically close to us, British businesses have the opportunity to grow by being able to export easily into a prosperous market. The wider British economy as a whole then benefits from this because the enterprises that generate wealth by exporting products and/or services into the EU predominantly reinvest the money back into other UK jobs and industry. In turn this boosts prosperity for us all, even for those of us who don't work with any form of international trade.

* I do accept that some EU nations are currently in a poor condition but even so they're still first world economies with more wealth and a higher quality of life than most countries worldwide.

2. British influence on the world stage is enhanced by pooling our sovereignty with fellow EU nations. The USA is the world's only superpower and the actions of Russia (militarily) or China (economically) could have a worldwide effect to a certain extent. Outside of those three nations, no other single country can claim to have a worldwide influence but the EU as a whole most certainly can. The EU is definitely an economic superpower and also the third strongest militarily (if you combined the capabilities of member states' forces). As a major player in the EU the UK is able to heavily influence it's position and utilise it's wider strength but if we're out we can't.

3. This is perhaps an expansion on the point above but I don't believe that we can strike better trade deals on our own than we can within the EU. I hasten to add that I'm not talking Britain down here, just being realistic. Larger markets generally achieve better trade deals and the EU>Solus UK when it comes to both population size and GDP. Must add that I hope I'm wrong here but unfortunately can't envisage it at this moment in time. Regardless, any future trade deals we strike post-Brexit will still involve pooling sovereignty.

4. Globalisation is real and ever increasing Brexit or no Brexit. With constant improvements in technology and transportation, the world is effectively becoming smaller all the time and I think it makes sense for as much collaboration between nations as possible. I'm not only Pro-EU but also Pro-TTIP, Pro-NATO and Pro-Commonweath. The Commonwealth isn't a viable alternative to the EU though as some Brexiters make out (not suggesting you here by the way) because it's GDP is only c.9% of the size of the EU's as well as being geographically more difficult to trade with. To finish off the worldwide integration point I believe that if we're going to tackle the really great challenges of our current and subsequent generations (e.g. climate change) I think the world needs a globalised approach and I support anything that takes the human race as a whole in that direction.

To return to whether the USA using some of our military infrastructure counts as pooling sovereignty or not, just because we are theoretically able to take the bases back doesn't mean the answer is no - it just means that if we were to do so we'd cease to pool, remember anything pooled can always be reversed because Parliament remains sovereign - this is exactly what we're doing now with the EU Withdrawal Bill.

NATO is actually a prime example of how pooling sovereignty can be used to magnify each members' power - in order to be a member we need to partake in a shared command structure and relinquish some control but in return we get to be part of the strongest military alliance on the planet. A very good deal if you ask me.

 

[greyman42]

Having caught up with a few pages so far (I'm presently at the end of page 287 from 297 in total at the time of this post), to me the Irish conundrum would be complex assuming the status quo is retained. As mentioned in previous posts, the UK and Ireland have the Common Travel Agreement which may or may not be compatible with the freedom of movement between the UK, Ireland, and the remaining EU post Brexit.

Furthermore, Northern Ireland mostly voted to remain, alongside with Scotland and Gibraltar. The suggestions of hard borders between the UK and Ireland I believe neither the UK nor any of the Northern Irish people would want to return to those days before the Good Friday Agreement (if my memory is right), which helped remove the borders/checkpoints between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

In relation to Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon has made several offers to Theresa May for Scotland to be involved in Brexit discussions, but has not come to fruition. There is a democratic deficit in that Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar all voted to remain, but do not have much input in trying to get a good Brexit deal. Although I am not a supporter of the SNP's version of Scottish independence (I am more of a progressive federalism person that would like to see power devolved to the regions and not just to Edinburgh, Cardiff, and Stormont), in the twenty years or so that I have resided in Scotland, I do understand the various catalysts of civic Scottish nationalism. One of these is the results of the General Elections since 1979 in relation to how Scotland has voted, which I have summarised below.

1979: Mainly Labour, got Conservatives
1983: Mainly Labour, got Conservatives
1987: Mainly Labour, got Conservatives
1992: Mainly Labour, got Conservatives (only just, due to a late swing during the day)
1997: Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)
2001: Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)
2005: Mainly Labour, got New Labour (which were not new, and were most certainly not Labour)
2010: Mainly Labour, got Conservative-Lib Dem coalition. It is noted that with the exception of my constituency Glasgow North East that was held by the former Speaker Michael Martin (the 2005 election was obviously a neutral candidate) and reverted to Labour in 2010, all of the constituencies did not change parties at all. This sent a clear message to David Cameron and Gideon George Osborne that they had no mandate to impose cuts on Scotland.
2015: Overwhelmingly SNP, got Conservatives (only just, due to errors in polling methods of the surveys that initially had a possibility of a rainbow coalition)
2017: Mainly SNP (albeit heavily reduced compared to 56 MPs in 2015), got minority Conservative with some support from Northern Ireland's DUP (which the top people were once ringleaders in the UVF during the Troubles)

As can be seen from the above summary of General Elections since 1979, Scotland has not had the government it has voted for. Depending upon how the Brexit negotiations progress and what is offered to the UK, I do understand the recent suggestions of a second Scottish independence referendum, even though I would not be enthusiastic about it so soon after the 2014 referendum.

From 1997 - 2005 Scotland voted mainly Labour and got Labour. There was never a party called New Labour.

 

[Domh245]

but I would agree with you that the current setup (whilst still flawed) is pretty damn good - especially when the Lords start putting the sort of amendments down that the commons should have :P

Speaking of Lords' Amendments, I see in the news that the government is planning a whopping 12 hours of debate on the 15 amendments added to the bill by the HoL. Good to see that they are going to carefully consider and debate the amendments as a Parliament rather than just trying to steamroller them all down...

 

[adrock1976]

From 1997 - 2005 Scotland voted mainly Labour and got Labour. There was never a party called New Labour.

"I'm here to govern as New Labour" - Tony Blair (1997)

 

[AlterEgo]

"I'm here to govern as New Labour" - Tony Blair (1997)

So Scotland voted for New Labour then.

 

[Senex]

Speaking of Lords' Amendments, I see in the news that the government is planning a whopping 12 hours of debate on the 15 amendments added to the bill by the HoL. Good to see that they are going to carefully consider and debate the amendments as a Parliament rather than just trying to steamroller them all down...

This looks like another example of the Tory Brexiteers' contempt for the British Constitution they claim to value so much. Whether any of us likes it or not, the HoL is entitled to consider and amend Bills and pass them back to the Commons for consideration of those amendments. If there is to be any real meaning to what the second chamber does (and therefore if there is to be any real justification for the existence of that chamber), then the Commons really should devote enough time to any amendments made in the Lords to consider them thoroughly and come to a reasoned decision as to whether to accept or reject them. No way can that be possible if only 12 hours is allowed to deal with 15 pretty major amendments, including the time taken up by the ludicrously outdated voting system. This is an attempt to steamroller the right-wing Tory policy through and should be resisted by all those MPs who actually believe in the system and wish to maintain its integrity. They won't, of course ...

 

[WelshBluebird]

I wasn’t particularly impressed with the labour government between 1997 - 2010 but I had to suck it up.

Well except no you didn't have to. You had the ability to campaign or protest about issues you felt the government was failing on. You had the ability to talk to your MP and get them to either oppose the government (if they were an opposition MP) or to at least try to press the MP about why you feel they are wrong (if they were a government MP). You had the ability to vote for other parties other than the Labour in local and other elections (as these are often used to "send a message" to the government mid term). Or of course you had the ability to vote against the government at the next general election. To suggest that you have no option other than to "suck it up" when you do like the current government is pure rubbish.

It was clear that it was in or out. Leave means leave. Yes, Brexit means Brexit.

Errrr what does that mean though? Considering even many leavers are on record saying that a leave vote would not necessarily be a vote to leave the single market etc.

 

[nlogax]

Errrr what does that mean though? Considering even many leavers are on record saying that a leave vote would not necessarily be a vote to leave the single market etc.

Indeed. Anyone still banging that damned 'Brexit means Brexit' drum needs to have their drumsticks removed and possibly shoved where the sun doesn't shine. From these 299 pages and over the last two years everywhere else, Brexit still means a raft of different things to different Leave voters and MPs right across Parliament. Though not much longer now, right..?

 

[fowler9]

It seems I owe @JonathanP an apology - I completely misconstrued what was a perfectly reasonable post.

Generally I’m in favour of localised government (and preferably small government!) wherever possible. Nation states are somewhat arbitrary but I agree they are (or should) be the largest scale structure which can foster a sense of belonging and participation.

The EU is not a nation state, but it seems that increasingly it is trying to become one. It’s also clear that it is too arrogant to change or listen to any criticism (we never hear the EU reflecting on its own shortcomings, or what might have prompted the Brexit vote in the first place).

My ideal scenario would be to have remained in a much reduced version of the EU - a mutually beneficial trading bloc entered into by independent nation states.

There are some posters on this website who clearly do not value being British, and view that purely as an accident of birth rather than something to be valued and cherished. That is an unusual view in my experience. I believe being British is a lot more than just happening to have been born on the island of Great Britain. I also feel British but do not, and have absolutely no desire to, feel “European”.

I don't value being British as such as I'm completely different from millions of other people who are British, I am an individual and also a member of the wider human race. I am glad I was born here as opposed to some other countries but clearly being British does not mean one single way of behaving and thinking or the way the referendum turned out would not have been almost a 50/50 split. I actually feel sorry for people who feel almost wholly defined by where they happened to be born. They can't have much faith in their own personality. That isn't directed at anyone on this forum by any means.

 

[AM9]

I don't value being British as such as I'm completely different from millions of other people who are British, I am an individual and also a member of the wider human race. I am glad I was born here as opposed to some other countries but clearly being British does not mean one single way of behaving and thinking or the way the referendum turned out would not have been almost a 50/50 split. I actually feel sorry for people who feel almost wholly defined by where they happened to be born. They can't have much faith in their own personality. That isn't directed at anyone on this forum by any means.

My sentiment exactly. I've never been one for basking in reflected glory so I can't see why I could be 'proud to be English/British'. I'm quite happy to be British and there are plenty of places that I would be quite unhappy to be a citizen of (the USA to name one). How can somebody take credit for being born in a particular place, it's quite a bizarre concept.

 

[mmh]

My sentiment exactly. I've never been one for basking in reflected glory so I can't see why I could be 'proud to be English/British'. I'm quite happy to be British and there are plenty of places that I would be quite unhappy to be a citizen of (the USA to name one). How can somebody take credit for being born in a particular place, it's quite a bizarre concept.

It's not bizarre at all, it comes from a sense of shared and common experience and history. It's more bizarre to either not understand it exists, or claim to not understand.

Why do you think you'd be unhappy to be a American citizen? That's nigh-on treason there, and it's not tied to any specific political belief either.

 

[NSEFAN]

It's not bizarre at all, it comes from a sense of shared and common experience and history. It's more bizarre to either not understand it exists, or claim to not understand.

Why do you think you'd be unhappy to be a American citizen? That's nigh-on treason there, and it's not tied to any specific political belief either.

It doesn't make sense to be proud to be a nationality just for the sake of it. The shared history and positive contributions to the world (such as lots of invention) are definitely things to be proud of, in my view. These should neither overshadow nor be overshadowed by the bad things we have brought to the world (such as arbitrarily drawn political boundaries in other continents), as both are a part of our history and identity.

Today, we can be proud or not by the things our country does. Brexit and the ramshackled delivery thereof are things I'm definitely not proud of, even though I seemingly have to accept the loss and have no power to do anything about them.

 

[AlterEgo]

I’m amused at the denial by some people of the fact that being born in a certain place is a fundamental part of who you are. I travel all over the world and it’s true that while people are mostly similar in many ways, they’re very different in others.

Those who claim their Britishness as entirely incidental should think about how their values, standards, opinions, culture, and worldview would be different if they were born and brought up in the United States, or Indonesia, or Russia.

I’m not especially proud to be British but I do acknowledge it and don’t claim a load of old guff about “aw I’m just human”. Get out.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I think it's important to know that part of being British doesn't just come from being born in Britain, nor does it just come from your own personal self-proclaimed national identity, nor does it just come from people's own common opinions, ideals, standards, values and culture. What ultimately makes someone British is when it also comes from how you usually go about certain things, such as...

When it comes to fixing objects...

1. Saying "let's have a look"
2. Describing the brokenness
3. Accidentally breaking it a bit more
4. Saying "nah, it's definitely broken"
5. Putting your hands on your hips

Dealing with a noisy passenger train...

• By staring furiously out of the window.

Or ending a phone call like this

• "Alright that's great, brilliant, cool, alright then. See you later, okay, bye, tarra, tarra"

 

[fowler9]

It's not bizarre at all, it comes from a sense of shared and common experience and history. It's more bizarre to either not understand it exists, or claim to not understand.

Why do you think you'd be unhappy to be a American citizen? That's nigh-on treason there, and it's not tied to any specific political belief either.

What shared experience? I work with the British armed forces but don't know what it is like to be in Afghanistan even though I speak to while they are there. As for being unhappy to be an American being nigh on high treason that sums up how utterly ridiculous being proud to have been born somewhere is. I say that as a fellow Brit having the same shared experience as you.

 

[fowler9]

I’m amused at the denial by some people of the fact that being born in a certain place is a fundamental part of who you are. I travel all over the world and it’s true that while people are mostly similar in many ways, they’re very different in others.

Those who claim their Britishness as entirely incidental should think about how their values, standards, opinions, culture, and worldview would be different if they were born and brought up in the United States, or Indonesia, or Russia.

I’m not especially proud to be British but I do acknowledge it and don’t claim a load of old guff about “aw I’m just human”. Get out.

The very fact we don't agree proves you are wrong on that one.

 

[AM9]

It's not bizarre at all, it comes from a sense of shared and common experience and history. It's more bizarre to either not understand it exists, or claim to not understand.

To you, (and some others) maybe.

Why do you think you'd be unhappy to be a American citizen? That's nigh-on treason there, and it's not tied to any specific political belief either.

I've known some Americans and wouldn't like the lifestyle that they have described. Your comment (that I've highlighted) is one of the major issues. I don't aspire to wrapping myself in any flag, especially the stars and stripes. I'm more than happy with my own life and don't need to rely on nationalist arguments. I put nationalism in the same category as religion, i.e. not for me.

 

[NSEFAN]

The very fact we don't agree proves you are wrong on that one.

To be fair, a national identiy is more subtle than everyone thinking the same, banding together and singing Land of Hope and Glory at the top of our lungs. Maybe politely agreeing to disagree is a very British trait?