3 ms·

"We do know the UK has kept its sovereignty" As opposed to, say, Germany or France?

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
Yes, as opposed to Germany and France. Surely being a part of a supranational union that has its laws and courts means you renounce at least a part of your sovereignty.
- sorokod 6y ago
  To some extent you always do, it's a give and take. Just wait and see what the future trade agreements will bring. Spoiler alert - India is really keen on making it easy for their IT people to work in UK.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    Allowing high skilled immigration as part of a trade deal would not only be a massive benefit to both parties, but also wouldn't be anything at all like allowing another state to make law in your nation. The sovereignty part is about being able to decide your immigration policy, not about having one.
    - sorokod 6y ago
      You believe that being an EU member prevented having the "massive benefit to both parties" in the past? Is it not more likely that a government that has publicly committed to reducing immigration was not interested in such benefits if indeed they existed?
      - brigandish 6y ago
        Firstly, that’s a different point. You compared an immigration policy with sovereignty or the ability to make law in a different state. Since you want to move the goalposts, yes, the public was and is interested in reducing overall immigration, especially of low skill. Even if it wasn’t, you appear to be suggesting that any immigration would be opposed, especially from India. Not sure where you get that idea from.
brigandish 6y ago
A better comparison might include a non-EU country. For example, can the EU create law (known as a regulation[1]) that would be enforceable in Canada or Japan? No, but it could be done for Germany and France. EU law is legally supreme in EU member states. Now, you may argue that France is not less sovereign than Canada because of this because France acceded to this via its own sovereignty. However, if you told me you're still your own boss because you let your boss be your boss I wouldn't be persuaded quite as much as if you were actually your own boss, and that might indicate how persuaded I'd be by the France's-acceding-is-full-sovereignty argument. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)
- sorokod 6y ago
  Canada is a good example - as a member of USMCA [1], Canada made a sovereign decision to extend the length of copyright to be compatible with US. Is Canada it's own boss? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Mexico%E2%80%93Canada_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Mexico%E...
  - brigandish 6y ago
    Clearly, yes. If the US had made a law that Canada didn’t even need to legislate, then it would be equivalent to an EU regulation. I’m not sure why you think being part of NAFTA, a free trade agreement, is equivalent to being an EU member and thus accepting law from a supra state, you’d have to explain that.
    - sorokod 6y ago
      Two observations: * Sovereignty is not a binary concept - it is not the case that you either have 1 or 0 sovereignty. * The geopolitical game is not a zero sum game. Both observations are trivial and I am surprised that they need to be stated here at all. Canada choose to amend it's law [1] for the sole reason of complying with USMCA. Thus Canada sees the agreement a mutually beneficial (no zero sum). Canada "clearly yes" still a sovereign state so you seem to agree that sovereignty is not binary. To remain in the game, UK will have to enter into trade agreements with other players and as a consequence enact compromises either in law or in policy. Immigration is a good example because 1. one of the stated benefits of leaving the EU is tighter control and reduction of immigration and 2. as a consequence of the need to negotiate with trade partners, it may very well need to relax those controls. Finally note that UK was not forced to join the EU. It did so by choice as a sovereign state. While in EU, it was a major member of the club and could and did steer policy and legislation to suit it's own needs. [1] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-the-amendments-to-the-usmca-mean-92634/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-the-amendments-to-the...

Yes, as opposed to Germany and France. Surely being a part of a supranational union that has its laws and courts means you renounce at least a part of your sovereignty.

sorokod 6y ago
To some extent you always do, it's a give and take. Just wait and see what the future trade agreements will bring. Spoiler alert - India is really keen on making it easy for their IT people to work in UK.
- brigandish 6y ago
  Allowing high skilled immigration as part of a trade deal would not only be a massive benefit to both parties, but also wouldn't be anything at all like allowing another state to make law in your nation. The sovereignty part is about being able to decide your immigration policy, not about having one.
  - sorokod 6y ago
    You believe that being an EU member prevented having the "massive benefit to both parties" in the past? Is it not more likely that a government that has publicly committed to reducing immigration was not interested in such benefits if indeed they existed?
    - brigandish 6y ago
      Firstly, that’s a different point. You compared an immigration policy with sovereignty or the ability to make law in a different state. Since you want to move the goalposts, yes, the public was and is interested in reducing overall immigration, especially of low skill. Even if it wasn’t, you appear to be suggesting that any immigration would be opposed, especially from India. Not sure where you get that idea from.

brigandish 6y ago

A better comparison might include a non-EU country. For example, can the EU create law (known as a regulation[1]) that would be enforceable in Canada or Japan? No, but it could be done for Germany and France. EU law is legally supreme in EU member states. Now, you may argue that France is not less sovereign than Canada because of this because France acceded to this via its own sovereignty. However, if you told me you're still your own boss because you let your boss be your boss I wouldn't be persuaded quite as much as if you were actually your own boss, and that might indicate how persuaded I'd be by the France's-acceding-is-full-sovereignty argument. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)

sorokod 6y ago
Canada is a good example - as a member of USMCA [1], Canada made a sovereign decision to extend the length of copyright to be compatible with US. Is Canada it's own boss? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Mexico%E2%80%93Canada_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Mexico%E...
- brigandish 6y ago
  Clearly, yes. If the US had made a law that Canada didn’t even need to legislate, then it would be equivalent to an EU regulation. I’m not sure why you think being part of NAFTA, a free trade agreement, is equivalent to being an EU member and thus accepting law from a supra state, you’d have to explain that.
  - sorokod 6y ago
    Two observations: * Sovereignty is not a binary concept - it is not the case that you either have 1 or 0 sovereignty. * The geopolitical game is not a zero sum game. Both observations are trivial and I am surprised that they need to be stated here at all. Canada choose to amend it's law [1] for the sole reason of complying with USMCA. Thus Canada sees the agreement a mutually beneficial (no zero sum). Canada "clearly yes" still a sovereign state so you seem to agree that sovereignty is not binary. To remain in the game, UK will have to enter into trade agreements with other players and as a consequence enact compromises either in law or in policy. Immigration is a good example because 1. one of the stated benefits of leaving the EU is tighter control and reduction of immigration and 2. as a consequence of the need to negotiate with trade partners, it may very well need to relax those controls. Finally note that UK was not forced to join the EU. It did so by choice as a sovereign state. While in EU, it was a major member of the club and could and did steer policy and legislation to suit it's own needs. [1] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-the-amendments-to-the-usmca-mean-92634/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-the-amendments-to-the...