Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Takedap

LHW99 wrote: »

[/I]






I hope you do not intend to imply that the FCO document from 1972 is "fake news"?
Specifically it should be borne in mind that the document discussed the then EEC, without the later treaty changes creating the EU. Nevertheless, if one has the patience to read a little further, there is a long discussion of sovereignty, and how it could be affected by enlargement of the community:
Again, without being able to copy from the document:


For eample .......it is not correct to regard the European Community treaties as involving solely matters of a legal significance equivalent to other existing treaties.......we shall be accepting an external legislature which regards itself as having direct powers of legislating with effect within the UK even in derogation of UK statures and as having in certain fields exclusive (sic) legislative competance so that our own legislature has none.


By accepting Community Treaties we shall have to admit the whole range of subsidiary law which has been made by the Communities. Not only this but we shall be making provision in advance for the unquestioned direct application (ie without any further participation of Parliament) of Community Laws not yet made.


IMO these points do amount to relinquishing powers of the National Parliament, and (also IMO) may explain why when Parliament is expected to take the wish of the people and act upon it they have been singularly unable to agree on ANY way through, and give very little sign of ever being able to.

As you correctly state, there is a long discussion on sovereignty. However, you fail to mention that most of that discussion is concerned with the way that British people were being led to perceive the question of sovereignty. Without being too blunt, the authors of the document were worried about how if would be used by the nay-sayers.



I'm not going to waste time with it all (although no doubt I'll be accused of selective quoting) but the section starting on page 30 of the PDF are particularly interesting.


These public concerns clearly include:


i) National Identity
We are all deeply conscious through tradition, upbringing & education of the distinctive fact of being British. Given out island position & long territorial & national integrity, the traditional relative freedom from comprehensive foreign, especially European, alliances & entanglements, this national consciousness may well be stronger than of most other nations. When “sovereignty” is called into question in the debate about entry into the community, people may feel it is this “Britishness” that is at stake. Hence Mr Rippon's pointed question, “Are the French any less French” for their membership. There is another, less attractive, aspect of this national pride. This is a large measure of dislike & mistrust of foreigners that persists in Britian.Nancy Mitford's Uncle Matthew was not alone in considering that “Abroad is Hell & foreigners are fiends.


ii) Change
However it is presented, entry into the Community will mean major change. It is natural & inevitable that this should be disliked & resisted my many. Even though the “loss of sovereignty” may be limited to fairly precise areas of Government & Parliamentary powers and without significance for the lives of most of the country, still the phrase conjures up a spectre of major and uncontrollable change & of adjustments that will have to be made that are deeply disturbing. “Loss of Sovereignty” may be a euphemism for fear of change & of the unknown.


Further down the page, it continues;


The British have long been accustomed to the belief that we play a major part in ordering the affairs of the world & that in ordering our own affairs we are beholden to none. Much of this is mere illusion. So we are dependent on others both for the effective defence of the United Kingdom and also for the commercial & financial conditions which govern our own economy. But this fact, though intellectually conceded, is not widely or deeply understood; instinctive attitudes derive from a period of greater British power.




It looks like nothing has really changed over the years.

Takedap

BikingBud wrote: »

It seems logical to deduce therefore that at the time of the 2016 Referendum the UK electorate decided that they were no longer content with the loss of sovereignty and the lack of influence of British Parliamentarians in the European Parliament.

Surely the lack of influence of British Parliamentarians in the European Parliament has more to do with the fact that when the British people were given a choice of who to send, they decided to send representatives whose stated aim was to destroy the institution that they were elected into.

SouthLondonUser

@tromking,

I didn’t mean to say that the UK could possibly become like North Korea. What I meant is that only a hermit country like North Korea, with basically no kind of relationships with (most of) the world, needn’t worry about trade deals and agreements with other countries. In that sense, North Korea is possibly the most sovereign country of the world, because it is not bound by treaties agreements etc like most of the other countries are, since any kind of interaction with other countries involves willingly limiting one’s “sovereignty”.

Bent bananas were fake news. Chlorinated chicken is not. I admit I do not know enough about that to fully know whether it would be dangerous or not. I am, however, deeply worried by the effect that a UK-US deal, outside of the EU, could have on the NHS. The NHS currently sets the price of most drugs centrally; drug companies clearly don’t like that and prefer the US system, with very decentralised buyers. All the talks about providing full, non-discriminatory market access to US products might very well spell trouble for the NHS.

You talk about the clout that comes with being the world’s 5th largest economy. What clout? It is true that the UK ranges between the 5th and the 7th largest economy by (nominal) GDP (depending on the source, the kind of calculation, etc). It is also totally misleading and almost irrelevant. Look at the top ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
US: $20.5 tn
EU $18.75 tn
China $13.4 tn
Japan $ 4.9tn
…
UK $2.8 tn

The EU is the second largest economy on the planet. The American, European and Chinese economies dwarf the next largest (Japan).
I ask again: what bargaining power would the UK have by going it alone?
Do you have any evidence of a large economy, not part of a larger block (India Brazil Canada Korea Australia … take your pick) being able to negotiate better terms with the world’s superpowers (US and China) than a large block like the EU?

SouthLondonUser

Takedap wrote: »

The British have long been accustomed to the belief that we play a major part in ordering the affairs of the world & that in ordering our own affairs we are beholden to none. Much of this is mere illusion. So we are dependent on others both for the effective defence of the United Kingdom and also for the commercial & financial conditions which govern our own economy. But this fact, though intellectually conceded, is not widely or deeply understood; instinctive attitudes derive from a period of greater British power.

THIS!

Shocking how the Express didn't quote this, right?

That's a polite way of saying that people are ignorant idiots who don't understand the world around them. No politician could ever put it in those terms, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Takedap

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

THIS!

Shocking how the Express didn't quote this, right?

That's a polite way of saying that people are ignorant idiots who don't understand the world around them. No politician could ever put it in those terms, but that doesn't make it any less true.

You're putting it in a much less polite way than I tried to use In my original post, I had used the phrase "Little Englander" but eventually decided on "Nay-Sayer" as I thought it would be less controversial. But I see you got it!

Tromking

Takedap wrote: »

You're putting it in a much less polite way than I tried to use In my original post, I had used the phrase "Little Englander" but eventually decided on "Nay-Sayer" as I thought it would be less controversial. But I see you got it!

What you both seem to have got, is a dose of the sort of Leftist self-loathing drivel that so dominates the Remain narrative.
The whole of the last century was a lesson in the slow decline, economic and politcal of a once great colonial power, namely Britain.
The very idea that Brexit was driven by a latent desire to re-discover those feelings by a population mourning the loss of its Empire is borderline pathetic and simply not true.
The whole of the UK's post war outlook has been based on alliances, be it military, cultural, political and economic, yet because a majority of the British people have sought to end a what many view as merely a economic partnership, somehow this is an example of Britons displaying a post colonial hang up of not wanting to be bedolden to any other country.
If the UK and its people has any particular character trait it is an indepence of spirit borne out of history and our island location, a trait perhaps not felt so keenly on the mainland of our continent, and it perhaps this that has engengered a feeling that a federal Europe is not for us.That said if you don't think that the narrow self interest of France and Germany does not dominate EU politics then you're deluded.
I see the UK again last week has been seen as the EU country with the most positive attitudes toward inward migration.
Little Englanders eh?.......Change the record, its getting boring.

Takedap

Tromking wrote: »

The whole of the last century was a lesson in the slow decline, economic and politcal of a once great colonial power, namely Britain.

Nope. The last quarter of the last century was the start of a resurgence of British power & influence, enabled by being part of a greater entity.


It stopped the spiralling decline of the "Sick Man of Europe" & put us back on the world stage.

Tromking

Takedap wrote: »

Nope. The last quarter of the last century was the start of a resurgence of British power & influence, enabled by being part of a greater entity.


It stopped the spiralling decline of the "Sick Man of Europe" & put us back on the world stage.

Nope.
As much as it pains me and my Labour and trade unionist sensibilities to say it, the resurgance began with the election of Thatcher and her pro-business and anti-Union agenda. Her success in turning around a country lost in a post colonial torpor was witnessed by the rest of Europe and not caused by our membership of the EEC.
Historical revisionism seems to be another Remain trait.

Herzlos

Tromking wrote: »

What you both seem to have got, is a dose of the sort of Leftist self-loathing drivel that so dominates the Remain narrative.

Only based on what we've seen from the Brexiteers - how Brexit will be a success because we survived the war, or how we've fallen from Empire to Vassal.

The very idea that Brexit was driven by a latent desire to re-discover those feelings by a population mourning the loss of its Empire is borderline pathetic and simply not true.

Indeed. The problem seems to be that some Brits have an unrealistic outlook on international co-operation - that we should be dictating to Europe instead of playing along. It's apparently in most of the hard-brexit arguments.

The whole of the UK's post war outlook has been based on alliances, be it military, cultural, political and economic

Yup, which is why walking away from the EU is so counter-intuitive. Co-operation has clearly been good for us, but co-operating with the EU is apparently a step too far - presumably because it makes rules we don't like.

somehow this is an example of Britons displaying a post colonial hang up of not wanting to be bedolden to any other country.

Not being beholden to any other country is directly from Brexiteer rhetoric.

If the UK and its people has any particular character trait it is an indepence of spirit borne out of history and our island location

You see independent, most of the world sees stubborn.

I see the UK again last week has been seen as the EU country with the most positive attitudes toward inward migration.
Little Englanders eh?.......Change the record, its getting boring.

Citation? The whole UK isn't made up of Little Englanders, though there's a reasonable proportion of Brexit voters who could be described as Little Englanders.

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

Only based on what we've seen from the Brexiteers - how Brexit will be a success because we survived the war, or how we've fallen from Empire to Vassal.

Claptrap.
Most leave voters view the current UK as well able to exist as an independent trading nation without reference to past glories.
You peddle the remain narrative without thinking as usual.

Herzlos wrote: »

Indeed. The problem seems to be that some Brits have an unrealistic outlook on international co-operation - that we should be dictating to Europe instead of playing along. It's apparently in most of the hard-brexit arguments.

The UK is a well known 'player alonger' of EU rules and regs. There is just a longstanding disconnect between the British people and the final destination of the European project. The Brexit vote was just the latest manifestation of that disconnect. What are Hungary, Italy and Poland trying to do at the moment with their attempts to dictate to the rest of Europe? Do they have an unrealistic outlook on international co-operation too?
We've made an honest choice to leave, if we do leave then Brussels is free to do what it wants free from the UK and its unrealistic expectations.

Herzlos wrote: »

Yup, which is why walking away from the EU is so counter-intuitive. Co-operation has clearly been good for us, but co-operating with the EU is apparently a step too far - presumably because it makes rules we don't like.

Its only counter-intuitive to someone who believes that the UK's entire future is dependent on its membership of the EU. Some of us disagree.

Herzlos wrote: »

Not being beholden to any other country is directly from Brexiteer rhetoric.

Not really.
It means not being beholden as in being like most others nations on earth when it comes to trade.

Herzlos wrote: »

You see independent, most of the world sees stubborn.

Stubborn in the face of what?
Membership of a trading bloc with prestensions to becoming a federal entity is not a given or an unstoppable rite of passage.
A country isn't stubborn because it chooses in a democractic vote to end its continued memebership of the EU.
Its merely made a choice you disagree with.

Herzlos wrote: »

Citation? The whole UK isn't made up of Little Englanders, though there's a reasonable proportion of Brexit voters who could be described as Little Englanders.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/02/britons-more-sold-on-immigration-benefits-than-other-europeans

You'd better add Little Swedes, Germans and French to your list.