Brexit Penny Dropping?

[RecklessAbandon]

9 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Meanwhile arch-Brexiteer James Dyson now announces 1000 job cuts in the UK as the country's industries flourish.

Dyson are framing it as "global restructuring" to remain competitive.

 

[quilp]

It's nothing new, from 4 years ago...

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/manufacturing/dyson-blames-covid-19-as-it-cuts-900-jobs-worldwide-1.4312207

[La Colombe]

Lol, Reform already elbowing out the brown one! Didn't take long! Maybe they want to replace him with an AI one. 

[John Wright]

2 hours ago, La Colombe said:

Lol, Reform already elbowing out the brown one! Didn't take long! Maybe they want to replace him with an AI one. 

Context is everything. He’d become a dissident. He’s been replaced by Zia Yusuf, who doesn’t exactly sound Aryan or Anglo Saxon or Caucasian or whatever you were implying.

What this confirms is the total control that Farage has over Reform Ltd, where he is the only person with significant control as a 60% shareholder. 

[La Colombe]

Lol, some top quality Reform infighting going down! 

[The Voice of Reason]

This may help those having difficulty with the concept of sovereignty:-
 

UK's puffin protection laws at centre of post Brexit row https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9rrpn955qo 

[John Wright]

41 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

This may help those having difficulty with the concept of sovereignty:-
 

UK's puffin protection laws at centre of post Brexit row https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9rrpn955qo 

Except it demonstrates the exact opposite of what you and Woolley maintain. You see sovereignty in black and white terms. In reality, it’s nuanced, curtailed, shared pooled

In today’s world there can be no such thing as absolute sovereignty. Not even for pariah states like North Korea or Myanmar. They may not belong to international or supranational or regional bodies governed by treaties. But, due to political and economic restrictions imposed by other countries their freedom of action is circumscribed.

This issue, the puffins v sand eels, has no different outcome, in or out of the EU or EEA. Except that in the EU UK helped make the fishing rules. It could still ignore them and introduce conservation rules. If it did it would have been fined and action taken via the European Court of Justice. Outside the EU GB has no influence over the fishing rules, but is party to a treaty by which it recognises those rules. It can still make its own conservation rules, but where there is a clash the issue goes to arbitration and there are consequences such as tariffs or trade restrictions.

Its a bit of you pays your money and takes your choice, but the result is pragmatically no different.

And there’s the rub. The UK is a signatory to thousands of treaties, by which it makes its own laws and freedom of action subsidiary to those in the treaty or of the international body created by the treaty.

They all have a cost, they all have consequences if ignored, or if UK withdraws.

The test for any isn’t sovereignty, sovereignty is illusory and temporary, it changes from decade to decade, century to century. Even as to where it is vested, countries, areas, territories, jurisdictions, parliaments, electorates, royal families with sway over people of different ethnicities, linguistic and religious backgrounds.  The only tests are, force if it’s by conquest, or by the populace getting fed up with a status quo and agreeing something else, by revolution, peaceful divorce, national feeling. And safety, security, economic benefit/detriment, freedom of movement of goods, people, capital,  has to be a big component of any such decision.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

23 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Except it demonstrates the exact opposite of what you and Woolley maintain. You see sovereignty in black and white terms. In reality, it’s nuanced, curtailed, shared pooled

In today’s world there can be no such thing as absolute sovereignty. Not even for pariah states like North Korea or Myanmar. They may not belong to international or supranational or regional bodies governed by treaties. But, due to political and economic restrictions imposed by other countries their freedom of action is circumscribed.

This issue, the puffins v sand eels, has no different outcome, in or out of the EU or EEA. Except that in the EU UK helped make the fishing rules. It could still ignore them and introduce conservation rules. If it did it would have been fined and action taken via the European Court of Justice. Outside the EU GB has no influence over the fishing rules, but is party to a treaty by which it recognises those rules. It can still make its own conservation rules, but where there is a clash the issue goes to arbitration and there are consequences such as tariffs or trade restrictions.

Its a bit of you pays your money and takes your choice, but the result is pragmatically no different.

And there’s the rub. The UK is a signatory to thousands of treaties, by which it makes its own laws and freedom of action subsidiary to those in the treaty or of the international body created by the treaty.

They all have a cost, they all have consequences if ignored, or if UK withdraws.

The test for any isn’t sovereignty, sovereignty is illusory and temporary, it changes from decade to decade, century to century. Even as to where it is vested, countries, areas, territories, jurisdictions, parliaments, electorates, royal families with sway over people of different ethnicities, linguistic and religious backgrounds. 

 

Sure, yes in specific circumstances and on a case  by case, issue by issue, basis the UK can ( and should, enter into) treaties with mutual  benefits, say in respect of  environmental issues where cross border cooperation is essential.  Working together with other interested parties to achieve the best result for all. 

This of course is totally different to a wholesale subjugation of internal laws to the supremacy of  EU laws when no particular issue has been identified.

Its the difference between saying “ yes that’s sensible we agree to that”  as opposed to saying “ yes, we accept that we will have to do whatever you say in respect of everything for ever ” without even knowing what particular issues will arise and how the UK would be impacted by EU legislation.

Edited July 14 by The Voice of Reason

[John Wright]

24 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Sure, yes in specific circumstances and on a case  by case, issue by issue, basis the UK can ( and should, enter into) treaties with mutual  benefits, say in respect of  environmental issues where cross border cooperation is essential.  Working together with other interested parties to achieve the best result for all. 

This of course is totally different to a wholesale subjugation of internal laws to the supremacy of  EU laws when no particular issue has been identified.

Its the difference between saying “ yes that’s sensible we agree to that”  as opposed to saying “ yes, we accept that we will have to do whatever you say in respect of everything for ever ” without even knowing what particular issues will arise and how the UK would be impacted by EU legislation.

You forget the veto, which, even after the introduction of Qualified Majority Voting, still applied to all the most important issues.

Of course, UK was one of the main instigators of the design of the Common Fisheries Policy. That, for whatever reason, it stopped being favourable to UK fishermen was down to UK legislation and lack support. It was still highly favourable to export of UK and UK landed fish and shell fish. But the UK didn’t regulate ownership of vessels or quota.* That’s a bit like Freedom of Movement and benefits, and housing. All within the ability of Westminster to control, by amending UK rules as to entitlement to meet the actual parameters of the EU rights.

* all in the blind following of de regulation. Thatcherite economics.

[manxman1980]

@John Wright  I wonder if Nigel Farage had actually turned up to meetings about fishing regulations and quotas when he was an MEP rather than just taking the money then things may have been different. 

[John Wright]

9 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

@John Wright  I wonder if Nigel Farage had actually turned up to meetings about fishing regulations and quotas when he was an MEP rather than just taking the money then things may have been different. 

I’m sure that the Reform MP’s will have as much disdain for attending Westminster as they did for Brussels and Strasbourg. They’ll turn up for big set pieces where they can say something outrageous to garner publicity.

[woolley]

On 7/14/2024 at 6:42 PM, The Voice of Reason said:

Sure, yes in specific circumstances and on a case  by case, issue by issue, basis the UK can ( and should, enter into) treaties with mutual  benefits, say in respect of  environmental issues where cross border cooperation is essential.  Working together with other interested parties to achieve the best result for all. 

This of course is totally different to a wholesale subjugation of internal laws to the supremacy of  EU laws when no particular issue has been identified.

Its the difference between saying “ yes that’s sensible we agree to that”  as opposed to saying “ yes, we accept that we will have to do whatever you say in respect of everything for ever ” without even knowing what particular issues will arise and how the UK would be impacted by EU legislation.

This is the plain unvarnished truth of it no matter what @John Wright and his ilk may tortuously argue. Sovereignty is indivisible. "Pooling sovereignty", a fantasy term much loved by adherents of the EU, is impossible. Of course a nation can enter freely into treaty obligations. That's a completely different matter to ceding the right to do so, with no redress, on a whole range of issues to a supranational body whose laws and courts override those of the member state for as long as membership lasts.

Qualified majority voting is how most EU legislation is adopted now, and the push to enlarge its scope is continual. The veto on "the most important issues" is a red herring. "Most important" is subjective, and the status quo isn't cast in stone.

It's fairly obvious that the acceptance of supremacy of the EU over national institutions derives from a liking for Brussels policy by those who see it as more liberal and socialist than the norm in the UK. You should remember that this isn't cast in stone for all time either.

[manxman1980]

14 hours ago, woolley said:

Sovereignty is indivisible. "Pooling sovereignty", a fantasy term much loved by adherents of the EU, is impossible. Of course a nation can enter freely into treaty obligations. 

And still you cannot see that the UK in itself is a pooling of sovereignty between England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.  The UK is even worse than the EU as there is no option for a single country to leave unless it can get a motion passed through Westminster which is controlled by the MP's of England in any majority vote. 

[The Voice of Reason]

4 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

And still you cannot see that the UK in itself is a pooling of sovereignty between England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.  The UK is even worse than the EU as there is no option for a single country to leave unless it can get a motion passed through Westminster which is controlled by the MP's of England in any majority vote. 

The UK is the country that was in the EU, not the four nations individually.

How many times does this have to be explained to you?

If any of those four nations held a referendum on independence ( like the Brexit one and Scottish Indyref ) and the outcome was that they wanted to leave the UK then it would happen. (Although in theory the result could be ignored but the political consequences of doing so would not bear thinking about.)

Your  motion would be passed in the same way that the result of the “advisory” Brexit referendum was put into play.

[John Wright]

5 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

The UK is the country that was in the EU, not the four nations individually.

How many times does this have to be explained to you?

If any of those four nations held a referendum on independence ( like the Brexit one and Scottish Indyref ) and the outcome was that they wanted to leave the UK then it would happen. (Although in theory the result could be ignored but the political consequences of doing so would not bear thinking about.)

Your  motion would be passed in the same way that the result of the “advisory” Brexit referendum was put into play.

You’re missing the point. 

Wales, Scotland and NI can’t hold an indyref without ( in effect ) the prior agreement of England.

The UK didn’t need EU agreement to hold the Brexit referendum.

UK therefore, at all times, retained sovereignty in the black & white terms you view it.