4 ms·

When those regulations are about the exchange of information with other EU countries and everyone involved seems to have decided that it is absolutely, totally

by makomk 6y ago

When those regulations are about the exchange of information with other EU countries and everyone involved seems to have decided that it is absolutely, totally crucial for that exchange of information to continue uninterrupted? Absolutely.

geofft 6y ago
Isn't the whole point of Brexit that no, we've decided that it's not actually totally crucial to continue Britain's relationship with the EU the way it has been in the past, and disruptions are totally fine and perhaps to be desired if they are in the service of Britain being free of EU regulation? (I mean, I certainly am of the opinion that allowing that exchange to be uninterrupted is very important, but I also have that opinion about everything else Brexit wants to sever. I'm definitely not the person you need to convince that maintaining relationships with the EU is worth doing even if the cost is abiding by EU regulations.)
- brigandish 6y ago
  > Isn't the whole point of Brexit that no, we've decided that it's not actually totally crucial to continue Britain's relationship with the EU the way it has been in the past, and disruptions are totally fine and perhaps to be desired if they are in the service of Britain being free of EU regulation? You answered your own question with "and perhaps to be desired if they are in the service of Britain". That's what sovereignty is and that's what the whole point has been - or at least a very large part - not to disrupt things for the sake of it. Does leaving the EU mean the UK must become its enemy?
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    You'll have to ask the people who have been threatening gunboat action against foreign fisherman and have spent the best part of the last year threatening to tear up any and all existing agreements with the EU. Sovereignty apparently means whatever they want it to mean. If it means trashing the 80% of GDP devoted to services, strangling small businesses with expensive and time consuming red tape, trampling all over the goodwill that Europe used to have towards the UK by creating a hostile environment for EU citizens, and wasting everyone's time and money on vapid nationalistic posturing - then apparently that's "in the service of Britain." Except it isn't. It's really only in the service of a corrupt, delusional, entitled, and frankly rather stupid rump aristocracy who saw their so-called sovereign power - and ability to evade taxes - being diminished by EU membership and decided to do something about it. The idea that anyone could argue that low-rent cut and paste legal boilerplate is somehow evidence of national sovereignty is - really quite strange.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      I don't think there will be many statues of David Cameron once all the scores are tallied up.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      > and ability to evade taxes I would say this claim has been debunked, but in fairness the debunk is talking about reality while many of the most famous Leave campaigners have explicitly claimed they want to leave because of what they incorrectly believe about what EU law does. https://fullfact.org/online/brexit-not-concealing-offshore-accounts/ https://fullfact.org/online/brexit-not-concealing-offshore-a...
    - brigandish 6y ago
      > The idea that anyone could argue that low-rent cut and paste legal boilerplate is somehow evidence of national sovereignty is - really quite strange. Indeed, which is why no one is. You’ve also got a reply that shows you’re incorrect on the tax claims, and the part about trashing the economy could be pulled from the writings of Nostradamus it needs that much clairvoyance and doom-mongering. When I find I haven’t researched a topic properly and I’m demonising people based on malicious rumour and a mind reading ability I’m not even sure I’d want, that’s a good time to reconsider my opinion.
  - geofft 6y ago
    I guess I don't see the sense in which Britain did not already have its sovereignty and now gains it by this move. If it's in Britain's interest to have binding treaties that include outdated and unwanted EU regulatory text, wasn't that the status quo? Or if it's in Britain's interest to not be bound by EU bureaucracy, doesn't that mean Britain should not be bound by this treaty? Which of the two is it? What is the principle that determines that this treaty is worth signing but also determines that staying in the EU is not worth it? (Maybe the answer is just "The people demanded Brexit out of a sense of identity, but they don't want Brexit as an actual policy, and so this preserves national morale without affecting anything else"?)
    - mutatio 6y ago
      The EU created this legislation, Britain nolonger has to have the archaic restrictions of this legislation with other trade agreements, which it is now able to negotiate independently (an actual benefit of Brexit it can be argued). It seems logical to me the agreement between the two parties inherits from the previous relationship, it's the lowest friction option and these negotiations will be ongoing for years as the UK/EU relationship evolves.
    - brigandish 6y ago
      > What is the principle that determines that this treaty is worth signing but also determines that staying in the EU is not worth it? That question cannot be answered to your satisfaction without answering this: > I guess I don't see the sense in which Britain did not already have its sovereignty and now gains it by this move. The easy way to distinguish the level of sovereignty is not to compare UK/EU treaties before and after Brexit, but to compare them with the treaties and level of sovereignty between the EU and Canada or Japan. The treaty we’re discussing now is of that ilk, and clearly, the level of sovereignty of those countries is of a different level to that of one in the EU. Can the EU make a law that Japan must implement domestically? No, they are covered by international law as a sovereign state. Same goes for Canada, and now the UK. The argument that the UK had full sovereignty in the EU was a popular argument by those opposed to leaving but it was obviously false, which is surely one of the reasons their arguments were unpersuasive. From 22:31 of Vernon Bognador's talk[0] at Yale (which is fascinating from start to finish, by the way): > When Harold Macmillan sought to join, he encountered fundamental difficulties, difficulties which probably have never been resolved, and the essence of the problem was one of fitting Britain into a continental system whose assumptions about constitutions, politics and economics was so different from those held in Britain. > The most fundamental problem, perhaps, was that of fitting a constitutional system based on the sovereignty of parliament and the absence of a codified constitution into one based on a written constitution, the separation of powers, and subordination of the legal systems of the member states to superior system of European law. Vernon Bognador is British Research Professor at the Institute for Contemporary British History at King's College London and Professor of Politics at the New College of the Humanities. He is also Emeritus Professor of Politics and Government at the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford, and has written several books on the British constitution and Brexit. He voted to remain in the EU[1]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMV9wSSLcCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMV9wSSLcCY [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/10/second-referendum-affront-democracy-remainers-can-stop-brexit/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/10/second-refer... Edit: formatting, will I ever get used to this flavour of markdown? </lament>

by makomk 6y ago

geofft 6y ago

Isn't the whole point of Brexit that no, we've decided that it's not actually totally crucial to continue Britain's relationship with the EU the way it has been in the past, and disruptions are totally fine and perhaps to be desired if they are in the service of Britain being free of EU regulation? (I mean, I certainly am of the opinion that allowing that exchange to be uninterrupted is very important, but I also have that opinion about everything else Brexit wants to sever. I'm definitely not the person you need to convince that maintaining relationships with the EU is worth doing even if the cost is abiding by EU regulations.)

brigandish 6y ago
> Isn't the whole point of Brexit that no, we've decided that it's not actually totally crucial to continue Britain's relationship with the EU the way it has been in the past, and disruptions are totally fine and perhaps to be desired if they are in the service of Britain being free of EU regulation? You answered your own question with "and perhaps to be desired if they are in the service of Britain". That's what sovereignty is and that's what the whole point has been - or at least a very large part - not to disrupt things for the sake of it. Does leaving the EU mean the UK must become its enemy?
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  You'll have to ask the people who have been threatening gunboat action against foreign fisherman and have spent the best part of the last year threatening to tear up any and all existing agreements with the EU. Sovereignty apparently means whatever they want it to mean. If it means trashing the 80% of GDP devoted to services, strangling small businesses with expensive and time consuming red tape, trampling all over the goodwill that Europe used to have towards the UK by creating a hostile environment for EU citizens, and wasting everyone's time and money on vapid nationalistic posturing - then apparently that's "in the service of Britain." Except it isn't. It's really only in the service of a corrupt, delusional, entitled, and frankly rather stupid rump aristocracy who saw their so-called sovereign power - and ability to evade taxes - being diminished by EU membership and decided to do something about it. The idea that anyone could argue that low-rent cut and paste legal boilerplate is somehow evidence of national sovereignty is - really quite strange.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    I don't think there will be many statues of David Cameron once all the scores are tallied up.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    > and ability to evade taxes I would say this claim has been debunked, but in fairness the debunk is talking about reality while many of the most famous Leave campaigners have explicitly claimed they want to leave because of what they incorrectly believe about what EU law does. https://fullfact.org/online/brexit-not-concealing-offshore-accounts/ https://fullfact.org/online/brexit-not-concealing-offshore-a...
  - brigandish 6y ago
    > The idea that anyone could argue that low-rent cut and paste legal boilerplate is somehow evidence of national sovereignty is - really quite strange. Indeed, which is why no one is. You’ve also got a reply that shows you’re incorrect on the tax claims, and the part about trashing the economy could be pulled from the writings of Nostradamus it needs that much clairvoyance and doom-mongering. When I find I haven’t researched a topic properly and I’m demonising people based on malicious rumour and a mind reading ability I’m not even sure I’d want, that’s a good time to reconsider my opinion.
- geofft 6y ago
  I guess I don't see the sense in which Britain did not already have its sovereignty and now gains it by this move. If it's in Britain's interest to have binding treaties that include outdated and unwanted EU regulatory text, wasn't that the status quo? Or if it's in Britain's interest to not be bound by EU bureaucracy, doesn't that mean Britain should not be bound by this treaty? Which of the two is it? What is the principle that determines that this treaty is worth signing but also determines that staying in the EU is not worth it? (Maybe the answer is just "The people demanded Brexit out of a sense of identity, but they don't want Brexit as an actual policy, and so this preserves national morale without affecting anything else"?)
  - mutatio 6y ago
    The EU created this legislation, Britain nolonger has to have the archaic restrictions of this legislation with other trade agreements, which it is now able to negotiate independently (an actual benefit of Brexit it can be argued). It seems logical to me the agreement between the two parties inherits from the previous relationship, it's the lowest friction option and these negotiations will be ongoing for years as the UK/EU relationship evolves.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    > What is the principle that determines that this treaty is worth signing but also determines that staying in the EU is not worth it? That question cannot be answered to your satisfaction without answering this: > I guess I don't see the sense in which Britain did not already have its sovereignty and now gains it by this move. The easy way to distinguish the level of sovereignty is not to compare UK/EU treaties before and after Brexit, but to compare them with the treaties and level of sovereignty between the EU and Canada or Japan. The treaty we’re discussing now is of that ilk, and clearly, the level of sovereignty of those countries is of a different level to that of one in the EU. Can the EU make a law that Japan must implement domestically? No, they are covered by international law as a sovereign state. Same goes for Canada, and now the UK. The argument that the UK had full sovereignty in the EU was a popular argument by those opposed to leaving but it was obviously false, which is surely one of the reasons their arguments were unpersuasive. From 22:31 of Vernon Bognador's talk[0] at Yale (which is fascinating from start to finish, by the way): > When Harold Macmillan sought to join, he encountered fundamental difficulties, difficulties which probably have never been resolved, and the essence of the problem was one of fitting Britain into a continental system whose assumptions about constitutions, politics and economics was so different from those held in Britain. > The most fundamental problem, perhaps, was that of fitting a constitutional system based on the sovereignty of parliament and the absence of a codified constitution into one based on a written constitution, the separation of powers, and subordination of the legal systems of the member states to superior system of European law. Vernon Bognador is British Research Professor at the Institute for Contemporary British History at King's College London and Professor of Politics at the New College of the Humanities. He is also Emeritus Professor of Politics and Government at the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford, and has written several books on the British constitution and Brexit. He voted to remain in the EU[1]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMV9wSSLcCY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMV9wSSLcCY [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/10/second-referendum-affront-democracy-remainers-can-stop-brexit/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/10/second-refer... Edit: formatting, will I ever get used to this flavour of markdown? </lament>