[7952]

The regulation element is funny because people blithely assume that changes will always be to ease restrictions. But a significant proportion of the population will reasonably think like me that restricting lead content is just common sense.

Brexit gives an oppurtunity to have more restrictive regulation at some point in the future. And the current government is suprisingly interventionist on many buisness issues. The EU neatly made various issues non-controversial and that may change. Hopefully we can finally reduce fishing to sustainable levels and ban cancer causing pesticides!

[Malarkey73]

Manufacturers will still abide by EU regulations. Otherwise their products won't be able to sell abroad.

The UK government just won't have any input - that's a REAL loss of sovereignty.

[steve19]

No, that is called trade. Likewise EU exporters will have to abide by British regulations (without any input) if they want to sell products to Britain.

The UK does not cede sovereignty to China when they sell China widgets built to Chinese specifications.

[pjc50]

EU exporters will have to abide by British regulations (without any input) if they want to sell products to Britain

Market segmentation applies.

At the moment, if you want to sell a product to the 'west', depending precisely what industry you're in, you need (a) CE marking for the EU AND (b) UL or similar approval for the US. That's two sets of certifications, which can share some but not all lab reports. There are then sub-modifications required for the UK: left-hand-drive cars, BS1363 plugs, etc.

If the UK starts to deviate from that such that CE marking is no longer sufficient, then we're likely to see either manufacturers not bothering or just passing the extra compliance costs on to the customer.

This is before you get onto the question of trade in services, such as the UK's major financial services industry.

(I'd argue that the big undemocratic TPP, TTIP, and WTO agreements are more of a sovereignty impairment than the EU, but that's not a view with much traction)

[mrow84]

How about if the UK had some democratic control over regulations in China, and then gave that control up. Would that be ceding sovereignty?

Given that sovereignty is fairly synonymous with control, it seems difficult to argue that giving up control is not a loss of sovereignty.

[steve19]

By your definition...

... Texas has more sovereignty than the UK, because they are democraticly part of a larger union and get to choose the president of the USA.

... Scotland would lose sovereignty by becoming independent and no longer being represented in British Parliament ...

... Singapore lost sovereignty by leaving the Federation...

... and New Zealand should become a state of Australia in order to gain more sovereignty....

That makes no sense. Sovereignty means supreme power ie. being able to make whatever laws they want (regardless of the consequences or benefits of doing so).

For example the tiny landlocked state of Lesotho is dirt poor but more sovereign than the South African provinces it borders on. It can make foreign policy, they can't.

[mrow84]

But by your definition, you maximise sovereignty by declaring yourself entirely independent. That makes no sense. If you are wholly unwilling to enter into agreements with other people then you will find it very difficult to achieve anything at all - indeed, you are likely to be exploited in some way (in most places in the world this would entail being locked up in prison).

"Freedom" to act is not a state of nature. Others can inhibit your freedom unless you convince them not to, either through agreement or force.

If you don't think that the EU is a power-sharing agreement that the UK has now voted to withdraw from, what do you think it is?

[pjc50]

But by your definition, you maximise sovereignty by declaring yourself entirely independent. That makes no sense.

No, that makes a lot of sense and accords with most people's intuitive understanding of the word. The trouble is, as you say:

If you are wholly unwilling to enter into agreements with other people then you will find it very difficult to achieve anything at all

And economic 'independence' is a real problem if you want to have a non-agrarian society. You need to import oil, electronics, pharmaceuticals. This is what goes wrong in places like Venezuela and Greece when supplies of hard currency start running low.

[steve19]

So do you belive Scotland has more sovereignty now, being in Union with England, than it would if it was independent?

What exactly is your definition of sovereignty?

Am I correct in assuming you are a supporter of the TTIP because you belive it will somehow increase the sovereignty of the EU?

[7952]

At this point talk of "sovereignty" turns everything into an argument over semantics. Better to consider the effect on individual rights and liberty. That is what is completely missing from our national debate.

[mrow84]

Yes, I agree that it devolves into an argument over semantics, but is difficult to have a conversation about individual rights without discussing the structures of power which afford those rights.

I'm not sure, however, that a discussion of rights and liberty is completely absent, it is just that our rights are very complicated, because we enter into a great number of very complicated agreements (which allow us, as individuals, to act with a great degree of freedom, historically speaking). Therefore, discussing, for example, the impact of EU regulation, is a discussion of individual rights, and liberty - it is a discussion about what you are and are not allowed to do, within the framework of the agreements you have signed up to.

[7952]

My point was that they could actually be required to exceed EU regulations in some cases. Similar to how California has tighter regulation than other states.