Surprise Giraffe posted:

What changed in Corbyn's labour after the referendum that reflects that?

forkboy84 posted:

The main thing is that under the British constitution there is the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty. To quote the constitutional historian Stanley B Chrimes, "No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea." So yeah, it's not relevant.

Nuclear Spoon posted:

hey so uh how the gently caress does the house of lords work again

Surprise Giraffe posted:

What changed in Corbyn's labour after the referendum that reflects that?

Nuclear Spoon posted:

hey so uh how the gently caress does the house of lords work again

OwlFancier posted:

To be clear I quite like that the UK doesn't have one right up until the point I am made supreme secretary of the UK at which point I'm writing a very socialist one.

Nuclear Spoon posted:

hey so uh how the gently caress does the house of lords work again

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

Are there any good socialist constitutions out there? I can easily imagine a constitution making platitudes about free services and no inequality and all that, but if a socialist government fails to achieve these, does the constitution offer a path to punish that government in some manner?

Guavanaut posted:

Why are they making these trade and customs treaties political?

quote:

The sovereigntist argument for Brexit, which was one powerful element of the referendum campaign – taking back control of laws, borders and money – is a perfectly legitimate case to make.

If you think the consequences of living in a bloc where the pooling of sovereignty has gone well beyond the technical regulatory domain into huge areas of public life are intolerable for democratic legitimacy and accountability, that is a more than honourable position.

But others who have chosen to pool their sovereignty in ways and to extents which make you feel uncomfortable with the whole direction of the project, have done so because they believe pooling ENHANCES their sovereignty – in the sense of adding to their “power of agency” in a world order in which modestly sized nation states have relatively little say, rather than diminishing it.

They did not want that pooling to stop at the purely technical trade and regulatory domain.

Brexit advocates may think this is fundamental historical error, and has led to overreach by the questionably accountable supranational institutions of their club. They may think that it leads to legislation, opaquely agreed by often unknown legislators, which unduly favours heavyweight incumbent lobbyists.

Fine. There is some justice in plenty of this critique.

Then leave the club. But you cannot, in the act of leaving it, expect the club fundamentally to redesign its founding principles to suit you and to share its sovereignty with you when it still suits you, and to dilute their agency in so doing.

It simply is not going to. And both HMG and Brexit advocates outside it seem constantly to find this frustrating, vexatious and some kind of indication of EU ill will.

We have seen this in both former Brexit Secretaries’ conceptions of how deep mutual recognition agreements should be offered to the U.K., alone of all “third countries” with which the EU deals, and in the initial propositions on both financial services, other services and data.

We saw it with the bizarre – and total non-starter – Schroedinger’s Customs Union FCA proposal of the PM whereby we got all the benefits of staying in a CU whilst leaving it to have a fully sovereign trade policy.

We see it in the constant have your cake and eat it demands which run through every document the European Research Group produce or endorse, and we even see it in the railing against the “subordination to inflexible pooled law of the EU” which Richard Dearlove and others view as intolerable on national security grounds in what the Prime Minister is prepared to sign up to in her proposed deal.

But if by sovereignty we must mean more than purely nominal decision-making power and we mean something about the genuine projection of the UK’s power in a world where autarky mercifully, is not an option, then, as we get into the deeper trade, economic and security negotiations ahead, we are going to need a far more serious national debate about trade-offs.

And the trade-offs are real and difficult. No-one should pretend that all the answers will be great.

To take just one technical example, though it rapidly develops a national security as well as an economic dimension, cross border data flows are completely central to free trade and prosperity – not that you would know it from listening to our current trade debate, which remains bizarrely obsessed with tariffs which, outside agriculture, have become a very modest element in the real barriers to cross border trade.

The EU here is a global player – a global rule maker – able and willing effectively to impose its values, rules and standards extraterritorially.

Before the referendum, we had Brexit-supporting senior Ministers and advisers who should have known better, fantasising about the autonomy we would have to plough our own furrow once sovereignty had been resumed and we were no longer obliged to live under the jackboot of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Sobriety only started to set in in this debate after the referendum, as the implications of a failure on the UK’s part to achieve a so-called “adequacy determination” under GDPR from the EU started to sink in – because corporates across a huge range of sectors started to set them out for Ministers.

But it goes well beyond corporates. Ministers start now to understand that the value of the national security exemption in Article 4.2 of the Treaty on the European Union might have been much easier to defend and enforce when we were in the EU, than it will be from outside.

The same applies to so-called “equivalence decisions” in masses of financial sector legislation. Again, the consequences of failure to achieve such decisions will be the substantial erosion of market access into EU markets by U.K. companies.

What, really, are these “equivalence” and “adequacy” stories about? They are the EU projecting power – it does so quite as well as, probably more effectively than, Washington, in multiple critical regulatory areas – and using its pooling of internal sovereignty to impose its values and standards well beyond its borders.

“Going global”, unless it’s purely an empty slogan, is precisely the ability to project both force and influence beyond one’s borders.

Why does the current U.K. debate on sovereignty leave so many corporate players mystified and cold – and I am not, incidentally, for one minute saying such views outweigh others’?

Because in “taking back control” over our laws and leaving the adjudication and enforcement machinery of what used to be our “home” market, we are privileging notional autonomy over law- making over real power to set the rules by which in practice we shall be governed, since departure from norms set by others when we are not in the room will in practice greatly constrain our room for manoeuvre.

V. Illych L. posted:

the soviet constitution, hilariously, was really good and a lot of opposition made themselves obnoxious for campaigning in favour of enforcement of the constitution

other than that there's cuba's old one, i guess

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1113741905572114434

Tijuana Bibliophile posted:

So yea trade and customs and standards is pretty much how the EU, in particular, does project its political power. It's p mystifying how brexiters managed to convince themselves and others that UK imports of wine and cars meant the EU would just surrender all of that

Jose posted:

its trying to apply the benefit of hindsight with how events have transpired despite the fact that Corbyn campaigning to leave would have crippled the party almost certainly and just empowered the tory leavers who are weakened by May losing her majority

Dejawesp posted:

The Soviet constitution guaranteed stuff like a place to live, healthcare and food to eat which was overwhelmingly enforced after the Stalin era.

namesake posted:

They and their audience are idiots, blind nationalists or stand to make mad bank off of it. Hth.


Sure it's a counterfactual and yes Labour would in reality suffered badly internally to actually argue for Leave but it's not like the idea of things being bad for lots of people was a new or even uncommon idea before the 2017 election, it was just the first time in a long time the reasons and ability to change that had a chance to connected to a left-wing project. Suggesting that the referendum could also have made that connection isn't some insane projection, it's just that it didn't happen.

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/mjhucknall/status/1113713573354790912

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/imajsaclaimant/status/1113568578408734720

Chinese Gordon posted:

Lexit is loving idiotic. Socialism In One Country is an absurd fantasy given the current globalised economic system. A far better and more realistic project would be to remain in and form a socialist bloc to move the EU in the right direction.

V. Illych L. posted:

the soviet constitution, hilariously, was really good and a lot of opposition made themselves obnoxious for campaigning in favour of enforcement of the constitution

other than that there's cuba's old one, i guess

UnlimitedSpessmans posted:

wondering how the #fbpe gang are gona find a way to claim that stopping no deal and securing a long extension had nothing to do with jezza.

V. Illych L. posted:

it also guaranteed things like secret elections and freedom of expression/a judicial state which emphatically were not

V. Illych L. posted:

it also guaranteed things like secret elections and freedom of expression/a judicial state which emphatically were not

Jose posted:

this also completely ignores how the press ignored corbyn during the referendum

Chinese Gordon posted:

Lexit is loving idiotic. Socialism In One Country is an absurd fantasy given the current globalised economic system. A far better and more realistic project would be to remain in and form a socialist bloc to move the EU in the right direction.

namesake posted:

say what needed to change to stop the referendum entirely which is an ever bigger ask.

Dejawesp posted:

None of those can be eaten or shelter from the winter.


Stands in sharp contrast to the US system where people are completely free (to die of exposure or starvation or lack of healthcare) unless they toil like peasants all day long.

Failed Imagineer posted:

Jose posted:

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1113753348463910912

V. Illych L. posted:

call me demanding but i'd quite like to both have a roof over my head and reasonable confidence that my online shitposting doesn't land me in a labour camp

Sanford posted:

Jesus christ. How much closer can we get to an outright statement of "can't you poor people just gently caress off and die somewhere out the way?" This is sickening.

Dejawesp posted:

What you want then is the Brezhnev era. It had the perfect balance of social support and tangible repression. Yeah some people still went to the gulags but at least people knew why and how it could have been avoided, and that's an important part.