David Hills suggests an "associate unmembership" scheme to offer to keen Leavers where the UK remains in the EU but they can have the "benefits" of leaving - e.g. requiring visas and health insurance to visit the EU and a work permit to take a job there. Clearly this is simply a humorous way of presenting the drawbacks of Brexit, as Leavers didn't vote for those. However it does bring up an important point: What would the actual benefits be for the unmembers?
The promises made by the Leave campaign (money for the NHS and reduced immigration, amongst others) seem destined never to be honoured. Which leaves sovereignty.
I understand that to Leavers "sovereignty" means being able to make our own laws, and presumably not having to make laws if we don't want to. Clearly we can and always have been able to make our own laws, so presumably Leavers object to the laws passed by our own Parliament in order to keep us in line with the EU. These are laws which protect human rights and our privacy, and promote trade, so seem odd to object to them - it seems the Daily Mail's alternative facts campaigns worked.
It seems some also object to the fact that British subjects can, as EU citizens, appeal to the European Court of Justice (ECJ)... except that isn't true. The ECJ deals with the application of EU law to national law. It is up to UK courts to refer questions to the ECJ.
The court ordinary people can appeal to is the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which is nothing to do with the EU. It was established by the Council of Europe, and we will remain a member - irrespective of Brexit. This is the court that generates headlines about repatriating terrorists, so I suppose the Daily Mail editor is actually rather glad we are keeping it. However if sovereignty is important we really do need to give them the heave-ho too.
Maybe we should have a referendum on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment