“Sovereignty” described as the “supreme power authority…the authority of a state to govern itself or another state…” (Oxford English Dictionary). The sovereignty of Parliament is proven; otherwise the notion of Brexit would not exist. When the British Empire ruled over vast lands, those countries did not reinstate their own sovereign power. After rebellions, bloodshed and treaties, the countries of the British Empire were eventually granted their freedom. The intrinsic element of “sovereignty” is that Parliament can make or unmake any law and decide how the country should be governed. At first glance, the use of “sovereignty” seems appropriate; “Bureaucrats in Brussels” telling Westminster what to do. It seems straightforward and utterly unseemly; for us British, never having been ruled by any country for almost a thousand years, to be ruled by the EU. Yet, as with all far-right explanations of complicated topics; the meanings are boiled down into simple black and white catch-phrases, which are far from accurate.
Anna Soubry’s recent impassioned speech in Parliament revisited the term “sovereignty” used so freely by Leave on the lead up to, during and after the 2016 result. Her words were cutting to leading Tory MP’s, and rightly so; the consequences of a hard Brexit are unthinkable. Particularly for those of us who rely on our salaries. Soubry stated that “nobody voted leave on the basis that somebody with a gold-plated pension and inherited wealth will take their job away from them”. Soubry continued to point out the loss of “hundreds of thousands of jobs…” is the price for MP’s regaining their sovereignty. This is somewhat contrary to the responsibility MP’s and Parliament have for the people of Britain. So why are our jobs being risked for a term used mostly by lawyers, politicians and academics? Did we lose our sovereignty when we joined the European Union, or did we agree to the rules of an economic community and trade group?
Imagine, a normal street with 28 houses. For years the houses of The Street have been at war; causing destruction to the land, bankruptcy and death. Almost whole generations wiped out, whilst economic collapse, political extremism and hateful propaganda raged for decades. Then one day members of some of the leading houses came together to discuss terms of peace. To secure these peace terms, the houses created mutual economic interests through trade. These agreements created rights for the individuals of their houses, both at work and in their private lives. It was the beginning of a new time; of peace.
Prosperity grew through the decades; The Street had become a superpower within the community. To achieve this, every house had to agree to follow the same rules. This harmonisation allowed trade to happen as seamlessly as possible, and individuals could enter other houses without barrier, to carry out their duties. Goods could travel freely without tariffs, which reduced the price of goods made and sold on The Street. The workers received the same protections, regardless of which house they lived in. However, the greatest accomplishment of The Street was the peace experienced for the longest period in their history.
The Street would not have worked had everyone written their own laws. An agreement requires all parties follow the same rules to create consistency and efficient processes. The agreement was written by the houses’ leaders, who continue to vote on amendments and new laws.
Britain did not give up sovereignty to an outside power. The European Union created a trade agreement, which all 28-member states agreed to. So, why has Britain gone on this quest to regain sovereignty? Perhaps it is the “red tape” Leave talk so strongly about; to unburden businesses? Regulations, also known as “red tape” are workers’ rights. 28 days paid holiday, maternity pay, maximum working hours and entitlement to breaks to name a few. Many of these rights, such as 28 days paid holiday are not automatic rights in many advanced countries outside the EU. Whilst some of the regulations need to be amended or repealed, many include our rights.
The quest for sovereignty is not about the people “taking back control” of “our country” but about reducing our workers’ rights to speed up the capitalisation of business. The European Communities Act 1972 created constitutionally protected rights through joining the European Union. Essentially, Brexit will pass control to a Conservative government who, for example, voted against the Labour Bill to make private lettings fit for human habitation over a year ago. This was voted on just after the Grenfell Tower tragedy; an example of the law protecting businesses and not people.
Should Soubry be correct that “hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost” (knowingly by members of the Cabinet), then where will we stand when demand for jobs becomes even greater? Hundreds, maybe thousands may go for the same job, which means companies will have their pick. There will be less negotiation of contract terms because the need for a job will become so great. Should Parliament create new laws to reduce Worker’s rights, people will have no choice but to accept weak statutory contracts. Will the pound become worthless? Will the NHS still exist? What does a country look like after economic collapse? Look no further than Germany in the 1920’s.
Are we swapping our jobs, homes and futures for a political quest, to give more power to a government who would take away our rights?
Children playing with money, in Germany because it was worthless:
Opinions of a Snowflake 