I’m afraid I think this definition of sovereignty (“freedom to make your own law”) is either useless or incoherent.

Very large numbers of international treaties require the UK to make, or not make, law. The UN Treaty requires us to impose sanctions. The Antarctic Treaty requires us to prohibit unlicensed operators organising tours to Antarctica. GATT restricts our ability to set tariffs.
@SBarrettBar appears to think that such provisions do not infringe his definition of “sovereignty”, but he fails to explain why not.
He asserts, without explaining why, that a level playing field term would infringe “sovereignty”. But the LPF terms being discussed simply set out actions that the EU is able to take if the UK legislates (or does not legislate) in certain ways.
Why is that different in legal principle from WTO rules that (for example) allow other states to impose high tariffs on our widget industry if we exercise our sovereign freedom to pass laws that exempt widget-making from UK tax?
Ultimately, the error here is to see “sovereignty” as something you either have or don’t have: a binary. But it isn’t, unless your definition is one that leaves only North Korea as a “sovereign” state.
It’s a very English peculiarity - possibly dating back to Hobbes, certainly to Dicey - to think about sovereignty in that peculiar reductionist, binary, way.
In the US, for example, States are often talked of as “sovereign” though their sovereignty is limited by the Constitution (which as from 1865 it has been clear they cannot leave): and even where they are sovereign their conduct is often affected by eg conditional federal grants.
In any event, if those invoking “sovereignty” want to wave it around as the basis for taking highly consequential political decisions, they need to do rather better at explaining what they’re talking about, and why things they dislike infringe it and things they like don’t.
NB there is a useful sense in which the EU Treaties affect sovereignty in the way that eg GATT doesn’t: the EU Treaties require Member States to accept as law - and to require their courts to apply - rules made collectively by the EU. Direct effect.
Note that in that sense the Withdrawal Agreement infringes UK sovereignty, since eg the NI Protocol and citizens rights provisions have direct effect and allow EU rules to have direct effect.
Parliament can always legislate to the contrary - and stop that happening in domestic law - but then it always could have done that while the UK was in the EU.
But as far as I can see nothing in the EU’s proposals for an FTA require direct effect. In Stephen’s language, no elephant (if that’s how he defines it).

More from For later read

1. The death of Silicon Valley, a thread

How did Silicon Valley die? It was killed by the internet. I will explain.

Yesterday, my friend IRL asked me "Where are good old days when techies were


2. In the "good old days" Silicon Valley was about understanding technology. Silicon, to be precise. These were people who had to understand quantum mechanics, who had to build the near-miraculous devices that we now take for granted, and they had to work

3. Now, I love libertarians, and I share much of their political philosophy. But you have to be socially naive to believe that it has a chance in a real society. In those days, Silicon Valley was not a real society. It was populated by people who understood quantum mechanics

4. Then came the microcomputer revolution. It was created by people who understood how to build computers. One borderline case was Steve Jobs. People claimed that Jobs was surrounded by a "reality distortion field" - that's how good he was at understanding people, not things

5. Still, the heroes of Silicon Valley were the engineers. The people who knew how to build things. Steve Jobs, for all his understanding of people, also had quite a good understanding of technology. He had a libertarian vibe, and so did Silicon Valley
Nice to discover Judea Pearl ask a fundamental question. What's an 'inductive bias'?


I crucial step on the road towards AGI is a richer vocabulary for reasoning about inductive biases.

explores the apparent impedance mismatch between inductive biases and causal reasoning. But isn't the logical thinking required for good causal reasoning also not an inductive bias?

An inductive bias is what C.S. Peirce would call a habit. It is a habit of reasoning. Logical thinking is like a Platonic solid of the many kinds of heuristics that are discovered.

The kind of black and white logic that is found in digital computers is critical to the emergence of today's information economy. This of course is not the same logic that drives the general intelligence that lives in the same economy.

You May Also Like

Ivor Cummins has been wrong (or lying) almost entirely throughout this pandemic and got paid handsomly for it.

He has been wrong (or lying) so often that it will be nearly impossible for me to track every grift, lie, deceit, manipulation he has pulled. I will use...


... other sources who have been trying to shine on light on this grifter (as I have tried to do, time and again:


Example #1: "Still not seeing Sweden signal versus Denmark really"... There it was (Images attached).
19 to 80 is an over 300% difference.

Tweet: https://t.co/36FnYnsRT9


Example #2 - "Yes, I'm comparing the Noridcs / No, you cannot compare the Nordics."

I wonder why...

Tweets: https://t.co/XLfoX4rpck / https://t.co/vjE1ctLU5x


Example #3 - "I'm only looking at what makes the data fit in my favour" a.k.a moving the goalposts.

Tweets: https://t.co/vcDpTu3qyj / https://t.co/CA3N6hC2Lq