Popular Post HanoiVillan Posted June 5, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted June 5, 2016 The problem with 'sovereignty' as an argument is that it starts from an assumption that the nation state is the 'natural' place for sovereignty to decide, and that any and all deviation from this is automatically wrong. Yet I don't this argument convincing. Firstly, the UK is part of a number of an alphabet soup of international 'clubs'. We're part of the EU, but we're also part of the European Court of Justice, Interpol, the UN, the International Criminal Court, the International Atomic Energy Agency, NATO, the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation, the IMF and the OECD. And that's just off the top of my head. Each of these organisations presents some challenge to 'sovereignty', but sovereignty is not in itself the key factor in our membership or otherwise of these organisations. Membership is instead decided on cost-benefit analyses; by giving up a little sovereignty (the 'right' to pursue an aggressive, offensive nuclear weapons capability, for example) we get a reward (the ability to persuade other countries not to do likewise). Of course, with the EU we give up more sovereignty, but then the benefits are much more immediate as well. Nobody at all is prepared to argue that we haven't benefited from the single market, for example. Complete national sovereignty is a pipe dream, and the actual examples we have that come anywhere close to it - Kim's North Korea, Hoxha's Albania - suggest that it wouldn't be worth getting in any case. Shouting 'democracy' isn't enough either - the EU is more democratic than any of the other organisations listed above, even though it isn't very democratic at all. Ultimately, the discussion still comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Secondly, as I say, I just don't agree with the idea that legitimate sovereignty can only be found in Westminster. Arguably, there should be a level of individual 'sovereignty' as well. So if the EU protects me from the sort of bonfire of worker's rights proposed by Beecroft, for example, then that could be argued to be protecting my sovereignty. Freedom of movement, working conditions, health and safety and environmental standards - these are things the EU have improved that have improved my freedom, and those of most others. Workers rights are democratic in themselves. Thirdly, Britain definitely has a 'democratic deficit' all of its own. In a country with first-past-the-post elections, and non-mandatory voting leading to turnouts of 65 or 70%, governments now regularly come into power with a mandate of no more than a quarter or a third of voting-age adults. The upper legislative chamber is the second largest legislative body in the world, yet contains not a single elected member. The head of state isn't elected. Furthermore, not only do the people crying 'democracy' have no interest in changing any of this, but they have no interest in other democratic reforms either, and usually the reasons for that are instructive. In America, for example, most states directly elect judges. So why don't those complaining most bitterly about democracy propose this? Probably because they've performed a mental cost-benefit analysis, and quite rightly concluded the idea has way more costs than benefits. Again, 'more democratic' is not an exact synonym for 'better'. We need to look past the buzzwords. 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, chrisp65 said: I'm sure the 24% of the UK electorate that voted tory wholeheartedly agree with that. As will all those we voted in to the House of Lords. As will the next minister deciding to use a statutory instrument. As will the tory advisers and aids neck deep in secretly pushing TTIP forward. Playing the democracy card really doesn't work for either side, other than to get an easy cheer out of people looking for something to cheer. Which is something I've particularly noticed about both sides in TV and radio debates. It's like the whole thing is going to be decided on a clapometer. Just say anything to get a cheer from the hired hands we brought here on a bus. 36.9% from the figures I've seen, but a debate against FPTP wasn't my intention was actually going to say so in my OP, we have the option to change things like this as we did with the voting referendum in 2011. I'm failing to see how pointing out other undemocratic areas is in anyway a defence of the EU, I'm all for reforming those. Edited June 5, 2016 by penguin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 5, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted June 5, 2016 On 3 June 2016 at 17:22, tonyh29 said: Emily Pankhurst Emmiline Pankhurst. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 5, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted June 5, 2016 2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said: The problem with 'sovereignty' as an argument is that it starts from an assumption that the nation state is the 'natural' place for sovereignty to decide, and that any and all deviation from this is automatically wrong. Yet I don't this argument convincing. Exactly. And it's a kind of false argument anyway. Most stuff we do make our own laws about - all the crime stuff, the deciding to do a war stuff, the tax stuff, the everyday rules on speed limits and parking and shop opening hours and so on and so on. The EU stuff only applies really to the things we decided to do jointly with other nations as part of the EU to enable trading and for good stuff like anti pollution, workers rights etc. Basically we are a sovereign nation with some pooled sovereignty like just about every other nation on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 Yes, exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 1 hour ago, penguin said: 36.9% from the figures I've seen, but a debate against FPTP wasn't my intention was actually going to say so in my OP, we have the option to change things like this as we did with the voting referendum in 2011. I'm failing to see how pointing out other undemocratic areas is in anyway a defence of the EU, I'm all for reforming those. It was 36.9% of those that voted. Unfortunately, a third of the electorate didn't vote. So in round numbers, they are running the country on a mandate of one third of the two thirds of voters that turned out. 24.3%. I'm taking those figures from the conservativehome website. The 'defence' of the EU is that we currently have something of a brake on some excesses of a government that very few people voted for. That the brake comes from another body that very few people voted for is equally sad. But I will happily take a democratically dubious brake over no brake. As opposed to voting to give more control to more locally unrepresentative people. Or hoping Prince Charles writes a stern letter. If they don't represent me or know the needs of my area, I'm not overly fussed if they are from Brussels or the Bullingdon club. --- Incidentally, just to go off on another riff. 10% of people in Scotland voted Conservative. They were previously told that the only way they could guarantee remaining in the EU was to vote to remain in the UK. Having voted to remain in the UK, they are now potentially being lead out of the EU by a party decision from a party only 1 in 10 of them voted for. I'd personally like them to remain in the UK. But I can fully understand the rumblings of a second independence debate if they end up out of the EU, with a party only 1 in 10 of them wanted in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 53 minutes ago, blandy said: Emmiline Pankhurst. Emmeline, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 1 hour ago, blandy said: Emmiline Pankhurst. Emily to her friends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 I never mentioned sovereignty. I said that the power of the president to veto the democratic choice of a member state's government was not very democratic. In Juncker we have a President from a country with a population the size of Liverpool, which is one of the most secretive tax-havens in the world (fifth on the financial secrecy index), who is handing down threats to all and sundry. This seems like too much power for one man to have considering he's appointed and not directly elected. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Dave & Nige just starting on ITV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 7, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) There isn't enough money in the world that could make me watch that. I think the only way I'd be capable of watching Farage would be if he'd been nominated to open the Ark of the Covenant and they were live streaming his face melting off. And Cameron is just a unlikable clearing in the woods. Edited June 7, 2016 by Chindie 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Still undecided Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 LEAVE now pulling away in the polling: YouGov: Remain 41%, Leave 45% ICM: Remain 43%, Leave 48% TNS Online: Remain 41%, Leave 43% This really is going to actually happen isn't it. FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 1 hour ago, coda said: Still undecided Me too. I'm just left thinking that if Dodgy Dave and George Osborne think staying in is a good thing, its probably best we leave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 7, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted June 7, 2016 The only people I've met, in real life, who say they're going to vote to leave seem to have really shit reasons for it. That's not to say it's the wrong thing to do. They just seem to have arrived at their absolutely massive decision in a really stupid way. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NulliSecundus Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 42 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: LEAVE now pulling away in the polling: YouGov: Remain 41%, Leave 45% ICM: Remain 43%, Leave 48% TNS Online: Remain 41%, Leave 43% This really is going to actually happen isn't it. FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: LEAVE now pulling away in the polling: YouGov: Remain 41%, Leave 45% ICM: Remain 43%, Leave 48% TNS Online: Remain 41%, Leave 43% This really is going to actually happen isn't it. FFS. the Ashcroft polls are a rather interesting and in depth focus on the how and why of people's voting intent if you haven't seen them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: The only people I've met, in real life, who say they're going to vote to leave seem to have really shit reasons for it. That's not to say it's the wrong thing to do. They just seem to have arrived at their absolutely massive decision in a really stupid way. And the people you've met in real life who are going to vote remain ? Most popular reason I've seen here on VT ( so more La La world than real world ) is "well if X wants to leave I'm def voting to remain " i don't doubt you are right with your conclusion , I just don't think it's unique to one side Edited June 7, 2016 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamus Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: LEAVE now pulling away in the polling: YouGov: Remain 41%, Leave 45% ICM: Remain 43%, Leave 48% TNS Online: Remain 41%, Leave 43% This really is going to actually happen isn't it. FFS. Curtice's site has 2 more recent (ORB 52, 40 and YouGov 43, 42) http://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/should-the-united-kingdom-remain-a-member-of-the-eu-or-leave-the-eu/ Not that I trust the pollsters on this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Stevo985 said: The only people I've met, in real life, who say they're going to vote to leave seem to have really shit reasons for it. That's not to say it's the wrong thing to do. They just seem to have arrived at their absolutely massive decision in a really stupid way. Sadly it seems over the last few weeks/months, many see this a vote on immigration rather than a wider decision on the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts