I actually have a fair bit of sympathy for the arguments around sovereignty. It's just reconciling that to practical reality gets messy. Like you say, it's about compromises to achieve certain objectives in an interconnected world. There's an argument that some/many(?) Leavers are motivated by a desire to remove themselves/the country from that set of choices and consequences. It's the old Bennite idea that Britain can pull up the drawbridge to the things we don't want while lowering it for the things we do. Which works with a global Empire set up around that idea, I suppose. One area where the sovereignty argument is going to play a huge part is in the idea of dispute resolution in our future relationship with the EU. Lords' summary of some of the issues. eg How do we have a 'neutral' arbiter when the EU, by their own rules, can only accept rulings from the EU Court of Justice? Or what about somewhere like Northern Ireland where we're going to replace two forms of rights holders (ie EU/Irish/Brit and Non-EU) with up to nine, many of whom will be able to appeal to the EU courts over the top of the UK's if we're to maintain the Good Friday Agreement?
Actually framing the counterargument in equally simple terms to the "rules takers vs rules makers" line is tough though, and that's part of the problem I suppose. As we've discussed in threads past about needing a narrative and vision for Britain rather than 'just' pointing out the mess Brexiters seem determined to make.
I think the argument on Sovereignty while we are in the EU and a trade deal that will give us a neutral arbitrator to settle disputes after we leave are 2 separate arguments.
Yeah, I can see Mays point of view on relying on EJC rulings won't give us a neutral arbitrator after we leave the EU. it has nothing to do with the argument on Soverignty while we are in the EU though.
The implications of not finding another way of solving disputes is massive, it is a real concern as it will bring about many project fear predictions, many of us raised these predictions to point out why we have to find solutions, I never believed they would actually happen because I never expected us to stand so firm on ECJ rulings. I actually said many times she will have to give in on ECJ as the implications are massive. I think theres a far bigger chance of project fear happening now, if we don't get things sorted quickly then we will run out of time.
It still might not happen but it will unless we find a solution quickly.
If we don't find solutions then companies will be breaking laws, the planes will be grounded. everyone will say this is madness and it will be but it will still make no difference. wanting it not to happen and stopping it from happening is the problem.
People are still thinking nobody wants project fear predictions to happen so it won't happen. it's a bit more complicated than that, if we don't find solutions on arbitration then things will grind to halt as companies will be breaking laws. they wont be able to operate under the law.
I posted a video of Benn months ago arguing why the EU will give us what we want if we leave. he made the they need us more than we need them argument. he has been proved wrong on that argument.
None of us know all the ins and outs on all the EU rules and regulations. it's how we look at it I suppose. I always wonder why they've come up with the regulation. theres intention behind the rule, it's there for a reason, it's not something sinister the EU are forcing upon us for no reason. I think that's one of the biggest difference between remain and leave voters. they view the EU as sinister, forcing these rules on us while I think theres a reason for this rule. if am interested I will do some research why they have the rule.
The best example is protectionism. Frottage etc telling everyone protectionism is bad. tariffs from outside the EU are bad. people never gave it much thought, it sounds a logical argument, what can possibly be wrong with cheaper goods coming into the country, well we have tariffs to protect our standard of living, we don't have them to give us a lower standard of living. we have to earn, we have to be employed to have a decent standard of living, we are now going to be competing with lowly paid workers in bad working conditions and poor workers rights, the British worker will be forced to take pay cuts in years to come, their rights and conditions at work will be tossed in the bin as they will have to be more competitive to survive. protectionism isn't as sinister as many people believe.