Sovereignty in the Twenty First Century

Generali

I heard an interesting exchange between Ms Lambie (independent although quite an interesting history) and A Minister in the Aussie Parliament today that might enlighten those that think that a Brexit will lead to a new Age of Democracy in the UK where MPs can vote for whatever they want.

So Ms Lambie presented an amendment to a bill which would have forced the Australian Government to buy Australian steel in preference to any other. She made a very compelling case that by at least bringing the vote, MPs would have to put on record whether they supported this or not.

Then A Minister (didn't catch his name, sorry) stood to speak to oppose. He made it perfectly simple: if the Parliament was to vote through the law then it would mean ripping up most trade agreements that Australia has signed with the rest of the world and that would cause chaos and throw lots of people out of work.

This, IMHO, is the nature of Sovereignty in the Twenty-First Century. We have all in the rich countries of the world, and maybe the poor too, ceded a certain amount of Sovereignty in order to gain free trade agreements (FTAs) with other countries. Pulling the UK out of the EU isn't going to reverse that at all. Even assuming the UK can get FTAs signed outside of the EU, not a given, then those will tie the UK into similar binds that Brexiteers find so onerous when members of the EU.

cells

They have sovereignty the problem is not that they cant help the steel industry they can do that. The problem is other nations wont take the protectionism and will subsidise their own industries be it steel or something else. Production would then become more localised and more expensive. Everyone would lose out.

So yes they are free to do what they want, only thing is they dont do the things that will hurt them in the long run. Or at least they shouldnt do

princeofpounds

There is a big difference between the sovereignty sacrificed by being in the EU, and sovereignty sacrificed by entering a free trade agreement.


The former can create legislation that the national parliament is subject to.


The latter is a treaty obligation that a national parliament ratifies.


Debates of 'Buy British/Australian/American etc.' are always a bit stupid.


We all know (at least those of us with sufficient education and sense) that procurement on a nationalistic basis is basically an invitation to voluntarily lower productivity. There is always a net cost for that, which either the taxpayer or the consumer (ultimately all of us) pays.


But you can't say that, and as a politician you often can't act like that, because the nationalism element just overrides sensible debate.


So things like FTAs are actually rather useful policy anchors, because they allow politicians to point to them and say 'well I would love to support those lovely boys down at the steel works, but this horribly complex and legally ironclad treaty ties my hands'.


Furthermore, I'm not sure that Brexiters find these issues especially problematic. Most Brexiters claim that they support a common market, just not a political-legal union. So there is no pretence, quite the opposite really.

Conrad

Generali wrote: »

Pulling the UK out of the EU isn't going to reverse that at all. Even assuming the UK can get FTAs signed outside of the EU, not a given, then those will tie the UK into similar binds that Brexiteers find so onerous when members of the EU.

Of course trade deals will impose rules of engagement, and I'm cool with that, however we do not then need to extend this to oversight of much of our law and every day political dynamics to Brussels. If a remainiac states we make most of our own rules anyway, then this undermines the need for Brussels.


China has no trade deal with the EU, but does massive trade with the EU - we're all far too hung-up on trade agreements.


Sure they help a little and of course we will craft our own bespoke deals but the world wont end even if we didn't have a single deal.

Sovereignty is about US being masters of the deals we do and don't do.


I don't hear aussies crying out for a federal club, they seem to value independence.


General - does it not perplex you that remain state the UK will be less safe and less able to co-operate across borders if independent, when Australia and other independents manage perfectly well? I see Australia sitting on all sorts of global environmental task forces and bodies for example, and yet The Greens and others relentlessly tell us 'global warming does not respect borders, the UK will have no influence if outside the EU'. Do aussies cry at night over so supposed lack of influence?

Generali

princeofpounds wrote: »

There is a big difference between the sovereignty sacrificed by being in the EU, and sovereignty sacrificed by entering a free trade agreement.


The former can create legislation that the national parliament is subject to.


The latter is a treaty obligation that a national parliament ratifies.

TBH I don't think that there is any longer. If you look at the actions of the WTO for example it is increasingly becoming a EU-lite body.

If anything I think that the EU is just a bit ahead of the curve, a bit ahead of how much of the world will look a bit like in a couple of decades. Probably not as much socialist law prescription but large groups of countries setting much of the technocratic rules about banking, banana-curvature, headlight brightness and so on will be set at a supra-national level.

martinsurrey

Conrad wrote: »

China has no trade deal with the EU, but does massive trade with the EU - we're all far too hung-up on trade agreements.

http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/european-commie-solar-panels/

No trade deals and you can find you're getting tariffs slapped on you at the whim of the EU, which you now have no control over at all.

Return to the days of French farmers blocking ports to get their way.

Conrad

princeofpounds wrote: »

Debates of 'Buy British/Australian/American etc.' are always a bit stupid.

I agreed with your post apart from this part. I know Germany and France well, and there has always been a specific national focus on buying your own output - for example their Police forces use their own cars.


Italy, France and others procure their own boats by puting a little catapult on the front of them in order to give them a 'military capacity', whereas we recently gave a large boat building contract to S Korea - this typifies how Britain is hamstrung as we follow rules to the letter.

antrobus

Conrad wrote: »

I agreed with your post apart from this part. I know Germany and France well, and there has always been a specific national focus on buying your own output - for example their Police forces use their own cars.

Italy, France and others procure their own boats by puting a little catapult on the front of them in order to give them a 'military capacity', whereas we recently gave a large boat building contract to S Korea - this typifies how Britain is hamstrung as we follow rules to the letter.

So that explains why Italy and France have such dynamic economies that put ours to shame.

I knew there was a reason.:)

missbiggles1

Conrad wrote: »

I agreed with your post apart from this part. I know Germany and France well, and there has always been a specific national focus on buying your own output - for example their Police forces use their own cars.


Italy, France and others procure their own boats by puting a little catapult on the front of them in order to give them a 'military capacity', whereas we recently gave a large boat building contract to S Korea - this typifies how Britain is hamstrung as we follow rules to the letter.

I didn't know you could do booze cruises to Germany!:rotfl:

Generali

Conrad wrote: »

I agreed with your post apart from this part. I know Germany and France well, and there has always been a specific national focus on buying your own output - for example their Police forces use their own cars.


Italy, France and others procure their own boats by puting a little catapult on the front of them in order to give them a 'military capacity', whereas we recently gave a large boat building contract to S Korea - this typifies how Britain is hamstrung as we follow rules to the letter.

Interesting.

The French claim exactly the same thing about the rest of Europe.

It's the problem with selling free trade: the losses are obvious (60% of the UK's trucking business has gone to Polish firms) but the gains less so (I get to buy stuff for less because the trucking part of the cost is lower). That may seem flippant but our Chief Economist at work (who is no mug) believes that the Japanese restrictive rules on trucking firms that effectively exclude foreign entrants is a major road block (sorry) to Japan's economy improving.

martinsurrey

Conrad wrote: »

Italy, France

Italy unemployment rate 11.3%
France unemployment rate 10.6%

UK unemployment rate 5.1%