The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[Tal]

Some people don’t want uncontrolled immigration

Some people want sovereignty

It really isn’t complex

FYP.  Seems like it was too complex for you.   You don't speak for British people, just yourself.  People had all kinds of different reasons to vote Brexit.  

FWIW We never had uncontrolled immigration and it is up in the air what kind of immigration we get in the future.  I suspect a big chunk of the same people who were unhappy with "immigration" before will stil be unhappy with it in the future.

and our sovereignty wasn’t compromised in any meaningful sense by our membership of the EU. It will to some extent be compromised now and for a still undefined period going forward though, due to trade dependency. They just tell us what to do now, for a while.

Would you explain this, please? How can the practicalities of trade and exit negotiations impinge on the principle of the UK's parliamentary and national sovereignty?

Surely the act of exiting the EU is the ultimate demonstration of national sovereignty, whether you agree with the exercise or not?

This seems like a conflation of principle and practice.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/16/long-read-brexit-and-the-sovereignty-of-parliament-a-backbenchers-view/

It’s clearly complicated, cliffs:

We will still be subject to EU laws and judicatures. We will no longer have a say over what they are.

In the interim period, the divorce analogy is the simplest one: the wife's life remains affected by the husband's and the husband's by the wife's. But the wife chooses the relationship she has with the husband and vice versa. Those choices might heavily be affected by common interests (children/companies = trade/movement deals) but they still have their own sovereignty.

It all depends on the terms of the agreement, as there could be maintenance requirements, drug tests and so on, just as the UK could agree to be bound by some or all EU rules.

The argument that the withdrawal compromises our sovereignty is conceptually wide of the mark and it's not how I read that article, which is more an expansion on the myriad practical problems ahead.

Some believe it's worth it, others don't.

It's arguable that the debate about whether we are sovereign proves the point of those who say we need to make sure of it. Historically, the question of "how can the UK be sovereign while it is in the EU?" was answered by "because we can always leave", so something's gone wrong if the same folk are now changing their minds. 

[BigAdz]

Some people don’t want uncontrolled immigration

Some people want sovereignty

It really isn’t complex

FYP.  Seems like it was too complex for you.   You don't speak for British people, just yourself.  People had all kinds of different reasons to vote Brexit.  

FWIW We never had uncontrolled immigration and it is up in the air what kind of immigration we get in the future.  I suspect a big chunk of the same people who were unhappy with "immigration" before will stil be unhappy with it in the future.

and our sovereignty wasn’t compromised in any meaningful sense by our membership of the EU. It will to some extent be compromised now and for a still undefined period going forward though, due to trade dependency. They just tell us what to do now, for a while.

Would you explain this, please? How can the practicalities of trade and exit negotiations impinge on the principle of the UK's parliamentary and national sovereignty?

Surely the act of exiting the EU is the ultimate demonstration of national sovereignty, whether you agree with the exercise or not?

This seems like a conflation of principle and practice.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/16/long-read-brexit-and-the-sovereignty-of-parliament-a-backbenchers-view/

It’s clearly complicated, cliffs:

We will still be subject to EU laws and judicatures. We will no longer have a say over what they are.

In the interim period, the divorce analogy is the simplest one: the wife's life remains affected by the husband's and the husband's by the wife's. But the wife chooses the relationship she has with the husband and vice versa. Those choices might heavily be affected by common interests (children/companies = trade/movement deals) but they still have their own sovereignty.

It all depends on the terms of the agreement, as there could be maintenance requirements, drug tests and so on, just as the UK could agree to be bound by some or all EU rules.

The argument that the withdrawal compromises our sovereignty is conceptually wide of the mark and it's not how I read that article, which is more an expansion on the myriad practical problems ahead.

Some believe it's worth it, others don't.

It's arguable that the debate about whether we are sovereign proves the point of those who say we need to make sure of it. Historically, the question of "how can the UK be sovereign while it is in the EU?" was answered by "because we can always leave", so something's gone wrong if the same folk are now changing their minds. 

I suspect the reason we are struggling to get where we want to be in negotiations, is because we don't raise this fact enough.

If May went back to basics and remind people we all joined because we knew we could leave, yet the "EU" is making it so it cant, then maybe its constituent members may act a little differently.

Or maybe I am still just very naive.

[kukushkin88]

Some people don’t want uncontrolled immigration

Some people want sovereignty

It really isn’t complex

FYP.  Seems like it was too complex for you.   You don't speak for British people, just yourself.  People had all kinds of different reasons to vote Brexit.  

FWIW We never had uncontrolled immigration and it is up in the air what kind of immigration we get in the future.  I suspect a big chunk of the same people who were unhappy with "immigration" before will stil be unhappy with it in the future.

and our sovereignty wasn’t compromised in any meaningful sense by our membership of the EU. It will to some extent be compromised now and for a still undefined period going forward though, due to trade dependency. They just tell us what to do now, for a while.

Would you explain this, please? How can the practicalities of trade and exit negotiations impinge on the principle of the UK's parliamentary and national sovereignty?

Surely the act of exiting the EU is the ultimate demonstration of national sovereignty, whether you agree with the exercise or not?

This seems like a conflation of principle and practice.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/16/long-read-brexit-and-the-sovereignty-of-parliament-a-backbenchers-view/

It’s clearly complicated, cliffs:

We will still be subject to EU laws and judicatures. We will no longer have a say over what they are.

In the interim period, the divorce analogy is the simplest one: the wife's life remains affected by the husband's and the husband's by the wife's. But the wife chooses the relationship she has with the husband and vice versa. Those choices might heavily be affected by common interests (children/companies = trade/movement deals) but they still have their own sovereignty.

It all depends on the terms of the agreement, as there could be maintenance requirements, drug tests and so on, just as the UK could agree to be bound by some or all EU rules.

The argument that the withdrawal compromises our sovereignty is conceptually wide of the mark and it's not how I read that article, which is more an expansion on the myriad practical problems ahead.

Some believe it's worth it, others don't.

It's arguable that the debate about whether we are sovereign proves the point of those who say we need to make sure of it. Historically, the question of "how can the UK be sovereign while it is in the EU?" was answered by "because we can always leave", so something's gone wrong if the same folk are now changing their minds. 

I suspect the reason we are struggling to get where we want to be in negotiations, is because we don't raise this fact enough.

If May went back to basics and remind people we all joined because we knew we could leave, yet the "EU" is making it so it cant, then maybe its constituent members may act a little differently.

Or maybe I am still just very naive.

Good points guys. I probably didn’t cite the best article, I’d listened to many hours of DG on the subject and made some assumptions about what would be covered 🤦‍♂️. Too busy now but I’ll revisit it.

[doubleup]

Any treaty of any kind with another country cedes some sovereignty. 

btw could the leavers please explain what they are going to do with this reclaimed sovereignty and how it will make their lives better, tyia.

[kukushkin88]

On the sovereignty one, I’m not aware that they’ve changed their position since this. Basically coming back to the ‘we are subject to rules that constantly change “EU acquis’”and over which we have no control’ angle.

[kukushkin88]

On the sovereignty one, I’m not aware that they’ve changed their position since this. Basically coming back to the ‘we are subject to rules that constantly change “EU acquis’”and over which we have no control’ angle.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.politico.eu/article/eu-ministers-uk-gets-no-say-over-blocs-rules-during-brexit-transition/amp/

[StuartHopkin]

Some people don’t want uncontrolled immigration

Some people want sovereignty

It really isn’t complex

FYP.  Seems like it was too complex for you.   You don't speak for British people, just yourself.  People had all kinds of different reasons to vote Brexit.  

FWIW We never had uncontrolled immigration and it is up in the air what kind of immigration we get in the future.  I suspect a big chunk of the same people who were unhappy with "immigration" before will stil be unhappy with it in the future.

and our sovereignty wasn’t compromised in any meaningful sense by our membership of the EU. It will to some extent be compromised now and for a still undefined period going forward though, due to trade dependency. They just tell us what to do now, for a while.

Would you explain this, please? How can the practicalities of trade and exit negotiations impinge on the principle of the UK's parliamentary and national sovereignty?

Surely the act of exiting the EU is the ultimate demonstration of national sovereignty, whether you agree with the exercise or not?

This seems like a conflation of principle and practice.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/16/long-read-brexit-and-the-sovereignty-of-parliament-a-backbenchers-view/

It’s clearly complicated, cliffs:

We will still be subject to EU laws and judicatures. We will no longer have a say over what they are.

In the interim period, the divorce analogy is the simplest one: the wife's life remains affected by the husband's and the husband's by the wife's. But the wife chooses the relationship she has with the husband and vice versa. Those choices might heavily be affected by common interests (children/companies = trade/movement deals) but they still have their own sovereignty.

It all depends on the terms of the agreement, as there could be maintenance requirements, drug tests and so on, just as the UK could agree to be bound by some or all EU rules.

The argument that the withdrawal compromises our sovereignty is conceptually wide of the mark and it's not how I read that article, which is more an expansion on the myriad practical problems ahead.

Some believe it's worth it, others don't.

It's arguable that the debate about whether we are sovereign proves the point of those who say we need to make sure of it. Historically, the question of "how can the UK be sovereign while it is in the EU?" was answered by "because we can always leave", so something's gone wrong if the same folk are now changing their minds. 

I suspect the reason we are struggling to get where we want to be in negotiations, is because we don't raise this fact enough.

If May went back to basics and remind people we all joined because we knew we could leave, yet the "EU" is making it so it cant, then maybe its constituent members may act a little differently.

Or maybe I am still just very naive.

How are they making it so we cant leave?

[BigAdz]

Some people don’t want uncontrolled immigration

Some people want sovereignty

It really isn’t complex

FYP.  Seems like it was too complex for you.   You don't speak for British people, just yourself.  People had all kinds of different reasons to vote Brexit.  

FWIW We never had uncontrolled immigration and it is up in the air what kind of immigration we get in the future.  I suspect a big chunk of the same people who were unhappy with "immigration" before will stil be unhappy with it in the future.

and our sovereignty wasn’t compromised in any meaningful sense by our membership of the EU. It will to some extent be compromised now and for a still undefined period going forward though, due to trade dependency. They just tell us what to do now, for a while.

Would you explain this, please? How can the practicalities of trade and exit negotiations impinge on the principle of the UK's parliamentary and national sovereignty?

Surely the act of exiting the EU is the ultimate demonstration of national sovereignty, whether you agree with the exercise or not?

This seems like a conflation of principle and practice.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/16/long-read-brexit-and-the-sovereignty-of-parliament-a-backbenchers-view/

It’s clearly complicated, cliffs:

We will still be subject to EU laws and judicatures. We will no longer have a say over what they are.

In the interim period, the divorce analogy is the simplest one: the wife's life remains affected by the husband's and the husband's by the wife's. But the wife chooses the relationship she has with the husband and vice versa. Those choices might heavily be affected by common interests (children/companies = trade/movement deals) but they still have their own sovereignty.

It all depends on the terms of the agreement, as there could be maintenance requirements, drug tests and so on, just as the UK could agree to be bound by some or all EU rules.

The argument that the withdrawal compromises our sovereignty is conceptually wide of the mark and it's not how I read that article, which is more an expansion on the myriad practical problems ahead.

Some believe it's worth it, others don't.

It's arguable that the debate about whether we are sovereign proves the point of those who say we need to make sure of it. Historically, the question of "how can the UK be sovereign while it is in the EU?" was answered by "because we can always leave", so something's gone wrong if the same folk are now changing their minds. 

I suspect the reason we are struggling to get where we want to be in negotiations, is because we don't raise this fact enough.

If May went back to basics and remind people we all joined because we knew we could leave, yet the "EU" is making it so it cant, then maybe its constituent members may act a little differently.

Or maybe I am still just very naive.

How are they making it so we cant leave?

Really?

[RED-DOG]

Some people don’t want uncontrolled immigration

Some people want sovereignty

It really isn’t complex

FYP.  Seems like it was too complex for you.   You don't speak for British people, just yourself.  People had all kinds of different reasons to vote Brexit.  

FWIW We never had uncontrolled immigration and it is up in the air what kind of immigration we get in the future.  I suspect a big chunk of the same people who were unhappy with "immigration" before will stil be unhappy with it in the future.

and our sovereignty wasn’t compromised in any meaningful sense by our membership of the EU. It will to some extent be compromised now and for a still undefined period going forward though, due to trade dependency. They just tell us what to do now, for a while.

Would you explain this, please? How can the practicalities of trade and exit negotiations impinge on the principle of the UK's parliamentary and national sovereignty?

Surely the act of exiting the EU is the ultimate demonstration of national sovereignty, whether you agree with the exercise or not?

This seems like a conflation of principle and practice.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/16/long-read-brexit-and-the-sovereignty-of-parliament-a-backbenchers-view/

It’s clearly complicated, cliffs:

We will still be subject to EU laws and judicatures. We will no longer have a say over what they are.

In the interim period, the divorce analogy is the simplest one: the wife's life remains affected by the husband's and the husband's by the wife's. But the wife chooses the relationship she has with the husband and vice versa. Those choices might heavily be affected by common interests (children/companies = trade/movement deals) but they still have their own sovereignty.

It all depends on the terms of the agreement, as there could be maintenance requirements, drug tests and so on, just as the UK could agree to be bound by some or all EU rules.

The argument that the withdrawal compromises our sovereignty is conceptually wide of the mark and it's not how I read that article, which is more an expansion on the myriad practical problems ahead.

Some believe it's worth it, others don't.

It's arguable that the debate about whether we are sovereign proves the point of those who say we need to make sure of it. Historically, the question of "how can the UK be sovereign while it is in the EU?" was answered by "because we can always leave", so something's gone wrong if the same folk are now changing their minds. 

I suspect the reason we are struggling to get where we want to be in negotiations, is because we don't raise this fact enough.

If May went back to basics and remind people we all joined because we knew we could leave, yet the "EU" is making it so it cant, then maybe its constituent members may act a little differently.

Or maybe I am still just very naive.

How are they making it so we cant leave?

Really?

Well yes, really.

How can the EU stop us from leaving?

[Tal]

On the sovereignty one, I’m not aware that they’ve changed their position since this. Basically coming back to the ‘we are subject to rules that constantly change “EU acquis’”and over which we have no control’ angle.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.politico.eu/article/eu-ministers-uk-gets-no-say-over-blocs-rules-during-brexit-transition/amp/

The best argument is that sovereignty hasn't changed at any point, at least on its most pure level: we can choose to come and go. The practical and political consequences of those choices are what's changing and what affects how these decisions work.

Those saying we are reclaiming sovereignty disagree with this statement just as strongly as those saying we lose a bit of it by deciding to leave.

[BigAdz]

Some people don’t want uncontrolled immigration

Some people want sovereignty

It really isn’t complex

FYP.  Seems like it was too complex for you.   You don't speak for British people, just yourself.  People had all kinds of different reasons to vote Brexit.  

FWIW We never had uncontrolled immigration and it is up in the air what kind of immigration we get in the future.  I suspect a big chunk of the same people who were unhappy with "immigration" before will stil be unhappy with it in the future.

and our sovereignty wasn’t compromised in any meaningful sense by our membership of the EU. It will to some extent be compromised now and for a still undefined period going forward though, due to trade dependency. They just tell us what to do now, for a while.

Would you explain this, please? How can the practicalities of trade and exit negotiations impinge on the principle of the UK's parliamentary and national sovereignty?

Surely the act of exiting the EU is the ultimate demonstration of national sovereignty, whether you agree with the exercise or not?

This seems like a conflation of principle and practice.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/16/long-read-brexit-and-the-sovereignty-of-parliament-a-backbenchers-view/

It’s clearly complicated, cliffs:

We will still be subject to EU laws and judicatures. We will no longer have a say over what they are.

In the interim period, the divorce analogy is the simplest one: the wife's life remains affected by the husband's and the husband's by the wife's. But the wife chooses the relationship she has with the husband and vice versa. Those choices might heavily be affected by common interests (children/companies = trade/movement deals) but they still have their own sovereignty.

It all depends on the terms of the agreement, as there could be maintenance requirements, drug tests and so on, just as the UK could agree to be bound by some or all EU rules.

The argument that the withdrawal compromises our sovereignty is conceptually wide of the mark and it's not how I read that article, which is more an expansion on the myriad practical problems ahead.

Some believe it's worth it, others don't.

It's arguable that the debate about whether we are sovereign proves the point of those who say we need to make sure of it. Historically, the question of "how can the UK be sovereign while it is in the EU?" was answered by "because we can always leave", so something's gone wrong if the same folk are now changing their minds. 

I suspect the reason we are struggling to get where we want to be in negotiations, is because we don't raise this fact enough.

If May went back to basics and remind people we all joined because we knew we could leave, yet the "EU" is making it so it cant, then maybe its constituent members may act a little differently.

Or maybe I am still just very naive.

How are they making it so we cant leave?

Really?

Well yes, really.

How can the EU stop us from leaving?

Well, yes, I think you know what I mean as well......


Yes, of course we can leave, but at the start did they tell us that, "yes you can leave, but fuck me, we will make it hard work for you leave with anything worthwhile"?

[Sheriff Fatman]

The first tangible impact of a post-Brexit Britain.  The 2019 Tour De France route starts in Brussels (some cover story about Eddy Merckx, apparently) and then does it's best to stay as far away from the UK as possible.

[doubleup]

btw could the leavers please explain what they are going to do with this reclaimed sovereignty and how it will make their lives better, tyia.

So no answer

in other words

The majority of British people want sovereignty

is drivel

[StuartHopkin]

Some people don’t want uncontrolled immigration

Some people want sovereignty

It really isn’t complex

FYP.  Seems like it was too complex for you.   You don't speak for British people, just yourself.  People had all kinds of different reasons to vote Brexit.  

FWIW We never had uncontrolled immigration and it is up in the air what kind of immigration we get in the future.  I suspect a big chunk of the same people who were unhappy with "immigration" before will stil be unhappy with it in the future.

and our sovereignty wasn’t compromised in any meaningful sense by our membership of the EU. It will to some extent be compromised now and for a still undefined period going forward though, due to trade dependency. They just tell us what to do now, for a while.

Would you explain this, please? How can the practicalities of trade and exit negotiations impinge on the principle of the UK's parliamentary and national sovereignty?

Surely the act of exiting the EU is the ultimate demonstration of national sovereignty, whether you agree with the exercise or not?

This seems like a conflation of principle and practice.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/16/long-read-brexit-and-the-sovereignty-of-parliament-a-backbenchers-view/

It’s clearly complicated, cliffs:

We will still be subject to EU laws and judicatures. We will no longer have a say over what they are.

In the interim period, the divorce analogy is the simplest one: the wife's life remains affected by the husband's and the husband's by the wife's. But the wife chooses the relationship she has with the husband and vice versa. Those choices might heavily be affected by common interests (children/companies = trade/movement deals) but they still have their own sovereignty.

It all depends on the terms of the agreement, as there could be maintenance requirements, drug tests and so on, just as the UK could agree to be bound by some or all EU rules.

The argument that the withdrawal compromises our sovereignty is conceptually wide of the mark and it's not how I read that article, which is more an expansion on the myriad practical problems ahead.

Some believe it's worth it, others don't.

It's arguable that the debate about whether we are sovereign proves the point of those who say we need to make sure of it. Historically, the question of "how can the UK be sovereign while it is in the EU?" was answered by "because we can always leave", so something's gone wrong if the same folk are now changing their minds. 

I suspect the reason we are struggling to get where we want to be in negotiations, is because we don't raise this fact enough.

If May went back to basics and remind people we all joined because we knew we could leave, yet the "EU" is making it so it cant, then maybe its constituent members may act a little differently.

Or maybe I am still just very naive.

How are they making it so we cant leave?

Really?

Well yes, really.

How can the EU stop us from leaving?

Well, yes, I think you know what I mean as well......


Yes, of course we can leave, but at the start did they tell us that, "yes you can leave, but fuck me, we will make it hard work for you leave with anything worthwhile"?

Almost

I think they said

"yes you can leave, but fuck me, it will be hard work for you to leave with anything worthwhile"

They were always clear about no cherry picking and not splitting the 4 freedoms.

[RED-DOG]

Some people don’t want uncontrolled immigration

Some people want sovereignty

It really isn’t complex

FYP.  Seems like it was too complex for you.   You don't speak for British people, just yourself.  People had all kinds of different reasons to vote Brexit.  

FWIW We never had uncontrolled immigration and it is up in the air what kind of immigration we get in the future.  I suspect a big chunk of the same people who were unhappy with "immigration" before will stil be unhappy with it in the future.

and our sovereignty wasn’t compromised in any meaningful sense by our membership of the EU. It will to some extent be compromised now and for a still undefined period going forward though, due to trade dependency. They just tell us what to do now, for a while.

Would you explain this, please? How can the practicalities of trade and exit negotiations impinge on the principle of the UK's parliamentary and national sovereignty?

Surely the act of exiting the EU is the ultimate demonstration of national sovereignty, whether you agree with the exercise or not?

This seems like a conflation of principle and practice.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/02/16/long-read-brexit-and-the-sovereignty-of-parliament-a-backbenchers-view/

It’s clearly complicated, cliffs:

We will still be subject to EU laws and judicatures. We will no longer have a say over what they are.

In the interim period, the divorce analogy is the simplest one: the wife's life remains affected by the husband's and the husband's by the wife's. But the wife chooses the relationship she has with the husband and vice versa. Those choices might heavily be affected by common interests (children/companies = trade/movement deals) but they still have their own sovereignty.

It all depends on the terms of the agreement, as there could be maintenance requirements, drug tests and so on, just as the UK could agree to be bound by some or all EU rules.

The argument that the withdrawal compromises our sovereignty is conceptually wide of the mark and it's not how I read that article, which is more an expansion on the myriad practical problems ahead.

Some believe it's worth it, others don't.

It's arguable that the debate about whether we are sovereign proves the point of those who say we need to make sure of it. Historically, the question of "how can the UK be sovereign while it is in the EU?" was answered by "because we can always leave", so something's gone wrong if the same folk are now changing their minds. 

I suspect the reason we are struggling to get where we want to be in negotiations, is because we don't raise this fact enough.

If May went back to basics and remind people we all joined because we knew we could leave, yet the "EU" is making it so it cant, then maybe its constituent members may act a little differently.

Or maybe I am still just very naive.

How are they making it so we cant leave?

Really?

Well yes, really.

How can the EU stop us from leaving?

Well, yes, I think you know what I mean as well......


Yes, of course we can leave, but at the start did they tell us that, "yes you can leave, but fuck me, we will make it hard work for you leave with anything worthwhile"?

Before I answer can I just say that I think you have been one of the more reasonable and fair contributors to this thread, and yes, I do know what you mean, but the reality is, it was always going to be hard to leave and in fairness to the EU they have absolutely no incentive to make it easier.