[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?

[mrow84]

I'm not sure I have an absolute "definition" of sovereignty, but I think it is approximately a measure of how much power an individual or group have over their own affairs. A failure to recognise that power can be restricted by external agents is simply a failure to confront reality.

pjc50's sibling comment says that maximising sovereignty by declaring one's personal independence accords with most people's intuitive understanding of the word, but I really think that can only be at the most basic level of analysis - a moment's additional thought leads you to how you interact with others, and whether they might, for example (and to be not unhistorically hyperbolic) enslave you.

Sovereignty is about being able to make decisions, and in practice (which is all that really matters) that requires deciding which other people you are going to interact with, and how, in order to get along in the world.

As to your final question, I don't have a good answer. My instinct is to be against TTIP, largely because of the people negotiating it - I imagine it will increase their sovereignty quite a lot, but probably not mine ;-).

[steve19]

Exactly sovereignty is being able to make a decision. When those decisions are made for you, you lose sovereignty.

My friend, 52% of Britain agreed with you and voted to leave 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.