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

The common understanding of propaganda is that it is intended to brainwash the masses. Supposedly, people get exposed to the same message repeatedly and over time come to believe in whatever nonsense authoritarians want them to believe /1

And yet authoritarians often broadcast silly, unpersuasive propaganda.

Political scientist Haifeng Huang writes that the purpose of propaganda is not to brainwash people, but to instill fear in them /2


When people are bombarded with propaganda everywhere they look, they are reminded of the strength of the regime.

The vast amount of resources authoritarians spend to display their message in every corner of the public square is a costly demonstration of their power /3

In fact, the overt silliness of authoritarian propaganda is part of the point. Propaganda is designed to be silly so that people can instantly recognize it when they see it


Propaganda is intended to instill fear in people, not brainwash them.

The message is: You might not believe in pro-regime values or attitudes. But we will make sure you are too frightened to do anything about it.
the whole point of Dunks was you could go cop them at VIM whenever you wanted for $65. this shit is like having to enter a raffle to buy milk.


like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.

the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more

the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500

adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160—and modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"

You May Also Like