Skip to main content

Why sovereignty won't save us from climate change or help us regulate banks

I had a short, but fairly intense, discussion with an avid Brexiter about the EU referendum the other day. His fundamental case for voting to break away on June 23rd was to reclaim British ‘sovereignty’. He yearned for a country with a Parliament that could make its own laws.

Of all the arguments advanced by the ‘leave’ campaign, the reclaiming of sovereignty is, to my mind the least compelling. Merriam-Webster defines the term as ‘unlimited power over a country’ or ‘a country’s independent authority and the right to govern itself’. It sounds fine in principle. Who could possibly disagree? But what exactly does it mean in the world of 2016?

Naturally I’m keen for the UK Parliament to retain power over matters that affect the British people. But over the past 20 years or so, we’ve made decisions that have transferred much of that power to other bodies, institutions and executives. The Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament are the most obvious examples, although the London Mayor has been slowly accruing more responsibilities too. Manchester was recently granted the power to control its health spending, conceivably paving the way for a two-tier NHS.

So we’re quite happy to transfer power downwards when we believe that certain decisions are better taken regionally or locally. And the reality is that other decisions are best taken at a level that goes beyond our national borders. Particularly when we’re talking about issues that transcend the boundaries of individual nation states. Climate change, for instance. Security against terrorism. The regulation of corporations and global financial institutions.

In order to act effectively at a multinational level, we need multinational government, just as much as we need local and regional government. And in order to achieve this goal, we pool our sovereignty with others. We make compromises. It’s what grown-ups do.

When we joined NATO, we accepted that our ability to make autonomous decisions on defence was limited. Under Article V, if one of our allies is attacked, we commit to defend them. We’re bound by the treaty to do so. We consciously restrict our ‘independent authority’ because we would like our allies to support us if we were attacked.

Of course, the Brexiters would no doubt say that the EU has become a monolithic bureaucracy, which sets its own agenda and direction under the influence of Germany and France. But the reality is that enormous checks and balances are included in the system – including the incredibly restrictive requirement for every single member state to agree most important changes. Perhaps if the UK had been a more willing and energetic participant in the European Union over the years, we would have shaped it in a way which is far more to our liking.

There are all kinds of figures kicked around for the percentage of UK laws supposedly originating in Brussels. But one thing the Brexiters need to be asked is exactly which of these laws cause them such great anxiety. Is it the ones that enhance the rights of employees? Those which give us clean beaches on which to sunbathe? Or the regulations that provide protection for consumers?

If you ask, you’re likely to get vague waffle about ‘red tape’ and a hotch-potch of old wives’ tales about the regulation of the size and shape of fruit. Put them on the spot. If they start talking about human rights, it’s hardly worth pointing out that the European Convention actually has nothing to do with the EU. Just tell them that most people actually quite like having some rights. Perhaps they’d care to explain why they don’t?

Allied to the protests about sovereignty is the bleating about democracy. Our government is democratic, whereas the EU is not. Well, our Parliament has an unelected second chamber of people appointed through political patronage. Hardly a paragon of democracy.

Our elected House of Commons survives on an archaic first-past-the-post voting system which wouldn’t pass the scrutiny of intelligent primary school children if they were told how it worked and asked to compare it to alternatives. Government ministers regularly use sweeping powers including so-called ‘statutory instruments’ to make changes to existing Acts of Parliament.

The European Parliament has actually gained in power and stature over the years. It was granted greater authority by the Single European Act in the 1980s and by treaties such as Maastricht and Lisbon. Has the authority of the British legislature been enhanced in any way over the same period?

So spare me the lectures. The EU isn’t perfect, but it might well be a much better place to tackle the really important issues facing all of us in the coming 50 years. Provided it’s not destroyed by those who hate its social agenda and politics of compromise.








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

After more than 30 years, I leave Labour at 11.46am tomorrow.

Barring some kind of minor miracle - on a par perhaps with CETI announcing first contact with the Vulcans or the Great British Bake Off returning to the BBC – Jeremy Corbyn will be re-elected on Saturday as Leader of the Labour Party. The announcement is due at around 11.45 am. So after three decades or so of membership, my association with the party will end at 11.46. Yes, that’s all folks.  I’m afraid I really do mean it this time.  Party card in the shredder.  Standing order cancelled.  It’s goodnight from me. And it’s goodnight Vienna from Labour.  I threatened to quit when the Jezster was first elected, but people persuaded me to stay on in the hope that the situation could be rescued.  I wanted to go when Angela Eagle was unceremoniously dumped in favour of Owen Smith, but was told I couldn’t desert at such a critical moment and should rally behind the PLP’s chosen challenger. Stay and fight, my friends say.  But over what?  The burnt-out shell o

Use your vote wisely. And then pray.

There’s only one desirable outcome to any general election at the end of 2019, but unfortunately it’s not something that any of us can vote for. We need another hung parliament. Preferably one that allows a little more room for mathematical manoeuvre and – critically - one in which both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn have both suffered a severe setback. Never in modern history have both the major parties been simultaneously so unfit to govern.  Johnson has transformed the Conservative Party into radical right-wing movement, intent on delivering Brexit come what may and winning back the votes lost to Nigel Farage’s movement. Dominic Cummings serves as a Rasputin-like figure in the court of Tsar Boris, seemingly responsible for devious plotting and manipulation. But he is just one figure in a coterie of hardline advisers and ministers that the Prime Minister has gathered around him. The Tories break with constitutional norms and even threaten to defy the law. The

Time for Red Ken to head into the sunset

Voice for 2012: Oona best represents modern Londoners Pin there, done that: Livingstone's campaign is a throwback to the 1980s Ken Livingstone may have lost his grip on power, but he hasn’t lost his chutzpah. The former London mayor was full of chirpy bluster a week ago in Southall, west London, when I popped over to listen to him debate with his rival for the current Labour nomination, Oona King. The contrast between two candidates couldn’t be more striking. Oona is chic, whereas Ken is pure cheek. She talks passionately about the threat posed by gang warfare which currently divides kids in her East London neighbourhood, while he waxes nostalgically about his working-class childhood in post-war council housing. It’s clear that Livingstone has been cryogenically preserved and then defrosted. The only question is when exactly the wily old geezer was put in the freezer. The mid-1980s would be a fair bet, which is when I remember him on a stage in Jubilee Gardens on the south bank