It's the same, even if we achieved fully shared sovereignty, as if all Yorkshire MP wanted the change Yorkshire wanted. No there's no guarantee that Yorkshire within the UK (or the UK within the EU) gets the change it wants.

In practice I wouldn't agree very much. If we embraced the EU and all our MEPs were fully engaged EU parliamentarians, it's going to be very rare they cant find enough support for something they all really want - it's quite hard to imagine a scenario where there's such unity and cannot find a way forward. If it did happen much then it would likely lead to pressure to leave - probably with good reason as it would mean something very dramatic and serious was going wrong.

I think diebitter wants to imply that there is no democratic process at all, rather than us simply being part of a much larger electorate.

It does seem that way. But almost no-one seems to have a clue about the European parliament, let alone start to buy into it as part of our democracy.

We're still at the stage of arguing about the fact (or not) of pooling sovereignty rather than arguing for it as a good and democratic thing.

Lol how desperate are you?

Just stop being such a blatant troll bull ****er.

Again, no one is debating that, its a conversation no one has had, accept you as a goal post shift.

There was some discussion about the actual factual objective amount of "pooled" sovereignty, but no one ever denied that "pooled" sovereignty existed, though some assumptions have to used there because pooled sovereignty does not mean that much as a term. Also no discussion was had about it being good or bad.

in perpetuity. That's a surrender of sovereignty by here-today, gone-tomorrow politicians enabled by the likes of Major and Blair.

Probably the key reason I voted leave was there is no mechanism in the EU to consider return of some sovereign powers where member states want it on the table. I believe I'd have voted remain if there was a promise to examine this from the EU. Every single part of the EU is concerned with gathering more powers, and there is an implicit assumption that the end goal is a USE. That is a UK concern frankly, and the reason there were UKIP MEPs, and a point never, ever addressed by the remain camp.

Its the issue Cameron said he'd raise as part of the 2015 GE campaign, and core to the referendum during that campaign, it's the reason people switched from UKIP to the tories, and he just bottled it and asked for crumbs (which he didn't get).

This means the only way a country can avoid this ultimate goal of USE (or avoid the calamities that will befall a political entity that is being allowed to grow in power whilst not being properly accountable to democratic scrutiny and process) is to leave, at this point.

Loads of commentators, and the EU itself, acknowledged its need for reform, but when it comes to the EU reforming itself....crickets.

the process to give the member states more power is that they (the member states) decide they want more power and then the national parliaments ratify the new treaty

it takes a little effort because treaty changes can be vetoed by every country but the main reason it doesn't happen is the status quo works pretty well

seriously oaf? There's no shift at all by me. Exactly, as per the article I linked, some sovereignty is being pooled. This along with strong views on the direction of travel is at at the core of the brexit issue.

I'm absolutely clear about where I stand on the EU. I support sovereignty pooling and expect and support a lot more of it in the future as the EU develops - because I believe it's a very good and important thing politically. Alongside that, I expect and want to see and increasingly strong EU parliament. I'm absolutely gutted we might not be part of it and I wont give up.

Where do you stand?

So what you're saying is that, once a country signs that treaty (by temporary politicians rather than referenda), there's no way it can get any powers back unless every single other state agrees to it. Or it leaves.

Gotcha. I'm pretty sure that clarifies whether national sovereignty has been given up or not.

Oh come on, he'll just find something ranty to say and just sidestep the question, as usual.

One bizarre omission in the referendum debate was this unaddressed point - because it straightforwardly isn't true. We have a legal requirement to hold further referendum before any major changes can be made. Gone are the days when the Maastricht or Lisbon treaties can happen without a referendum or with the promise of as referendum that somehow never happens

https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-la...al-requirement

I'm not sure this is a good idea but it is the law.

in practice you can just ask for exemptions on issues and unless it's really essential (like the single market) you'll probably get it. the uk had a bunch of opt outs

but to change any treaties with other countries, eu ones or non-eu ones, you need for them agree, yeah. otherwise you have the choice to leave

it's just helpful to point out that it isn't some imagined eu bureaucracy that decides these things. it's the member countries

forum aside, the unwillingness of the remain camp to make any positive political case is at the heart of the problem. Tactically it might have made some sort of sense during the campaign but, if so, it's only because of decades of allowing the anti-EU brigade to totally dominate the narrative.

How are you guys still debating pooling of sovereignty with diebitter? We've gone over this exact same discussion countless times. It's not going anywhere.

Based on previous discussions, my attempt at diebitter's core beliefs regarding the pooling of sovereignty:
[1] The UK electorate can be trusted to remove unjust laws within the UK, even if they only negatively affect some of the UK electorate. It is therefore fine for e.g. Birmingham to pool its sovereignty within the UK system, even if Birmingham's electorate can't veto/reverse policies by itself.

[2] The EU electorate can not be trusted to remove unjust laws within the EU, especially if they only negatively affect some of the electorate, e.g. the UK. It is therefore not acceptable for the UK to be part of a system where the UK's electorate can't veto/reverse policies all by itself.

Both of these stem from an underlying idea that there is some sense of brotherhood within historically grown nation states and their citizens will generally look out for each other, while members of different nations states essentially just try to exploit each other and can't really be trusted with important decisions.

Did i sum that up roughly right? If so, then any productive discourse would have to challenge these core beliefs first. As long as these beliefs are held, any attempt at a political union will ultimately be viewed as a scheme to exploit the UK in the long term.

I too would really like to hear some positive noise about the EU from British politicians and interests other than 'outside is scary'.

Yep!

All these words trying to convince yourselves that you're educated but you aren't at all. ****ing loonies.

Where do you stand.....Is right wing crackpotism a mental state or something you're just born with?

@ plexiq. That's not unreasonable and we have to challenge those core beliefs.

That means recognising the the political aspects and arguing why pooling sovereignty/etc as part of the EU is a good thing. Also why nationalism isn't so good.

The approach of downplaying (reminds me of thatcher saying 'tiny tiny bit') the political aspect of the EU is tacitly accepting that any political union is a bad thing (or an occasional necessary evil at best).

The question ultimately becomes if there is any realistic path of discourse that could make diebitter reconsider these beliefs. I strongly suspect that they are held in a dogmatic manner and no amount of new information could realistically make him change these beliefs.

I'd want to stay in the EU if membership were tied to each budgetary cycle. IE Every 7 years or whatever it is, the electorate hold referendums in each member state whether to stay in or out.

Then plans are drawn up once it is known who is staying and leaving, based on available budget. (If all states are benefitting, why would any leave?)

This, I believe, would act as a suitable counterweight to creeping EU-ism, and keep the EU in its place as a trade agreement with benefits (environmental, scientific and security collaboration), and keep it strongly focussed on serving all member states well, and preserve the nation-state as the optimal default democratic unit. (I do think some decisions are best localised (resourcing etc), and some best internationalised by agreement and convention, but the default should always be the nation state).

Do you think new information that shows the EU in a strongly negative way would make you reaslistically reconsider your beliefs?

I don't subscribe to the people don't change their minds view but more importantly it's a microcosm of the larger discourse where the idea that EU/Brussels is the enemy has been allowed to take hold over decades by people unwilling to argue that Brussels/EU is a good thing.

I almost agree with your summary, although not that the UK is automatically the right democratic unit of analysis for everything. Cameron might have been right that more devolution might be better than more centralisation.

Since you say these beliefs can only be dogmatic, I'll add a couple of things I think are true:

1. There are no successful examples of political management at this scale. I know the USA has high GDP per capita, I think it has too many other social problems.

2. Businesses are smaller and less complex than countries, and international conglomerates are typically worth less than the sum of their parts because people cannot handle managing them. (Modern tech with digital scale and network effects may be an exception, but obviously for different reasons, and that isn't anything like governement)

3. Given humans have never done a good job of cross-cultural management at this scale, the most likely result is that they again do a bad job of it.

4. A robust political system should acknowledge and understand the above, and be designed around it, not try to take it head on.

Lol gtf with that crap (chezfarage).

People have been told often enough of the benefits of being in the EU, with freedom of movement and trade being just 2 huge benefits.

Some ****s are unwilling to see but we should keep pointing it out anyway.

Piss off

And the ****ing veto the UK has over just about everything else is massive.

Just to say it could with me. The resurgence of the right is pretty scary and if it took hold I would want out.

I also think it's one of the very important reasons we should stay in. It's a time where all liberally minded people should be joining forces and working together.