Steve Analyst

Having pondered it all morning, I'm still incredulous that all that Today programme coverage of migrant hotels at no point (unless I missed it) mentioned why people were here, what they might be fleeing from etc.

Doesn't help that every party has presented our accession as selling out the fishing industry. Politicians who care so much about the fishing industry they did no research of actual pre-accession fishing policy.

When heads of state weighing in on it, was there like some underground movement talking this European Union in the sewers, do you think?

I mean it was the biggest story in the country, in Europe and the World. It seems odd people didn't discuss it.

Tell me, as someone who lived through it, was it illegal to talk about the European Union. Was it like Gilead? Were people forced not to talk about this political union announcement?

That would be a weird thing to be debating when absolutely nothing happened in October 1972 that relates to fish and pineapples, but they did announce the start of the development of the European Union.

Cool. So what do you remember about the debates in October 1972?

The idea that we only talked economics on a political and economic project is a lie that Eurosceptics tell their kids when they go to bed.

Not exactly. The EEC wasn't just a treaty first organisation. So when the EU came about, the political side had been present in one form or another since 1959. Maastricht wasn't a big jump in that direction, beyond the fact the foreign policy chapter was now in the same treaty.

It's not British exceptionalism. It's universal for businesses to think that their regulations could be done better.

That's the problem though. Many businesses complain about regulation. Who doesn't want to vote their government away. Offering to leave a government is an ultimate act of defiance and promise of the freedom of regulation. But it's a fantasy, There are regulations on the other side of the fence.

2% of Dyson's manufacturing business was effected by the EU. Dyson never had any problem with the regulations, he had a problem with not having a measuring standard that supported his USP.

However, I don't think this is what Roland was alluding to.

I never really got that argument. I think W. Rees-Mogg or someone had done a book on it, or something, but never once did I get the feeling they had dedicated 25 years on an economic project which had limited returns.

Any controversial position Farage takes won't be "Reform policy", but if he gets into power, Reform policy will be whatever Farage says on the day.

There is a lot of ill-informed commentary out there suggesting that the Afghan leak superinjunction is a story about transparency vs safety.

That is not true, or at least it is not the full picture.

Thread below.

100%

The ECJ ruled in the 1970s EU law overrides constitutional law, but as the German court ruled, the supremacy of EU law comes from the state law itself. The ECJ has never been given the power by memberstates to create a legal system override national law.

Yes. This is not the first time I've read this week that the principle, or the overall effect of, primacy was something that appeared in the 1980s. As I said in one of my Hugo Young videos, the Law officers approached this as standard conflict resolution.

Things I know about @economist.com
When you say to someone at the Economist "We're only keeping the essentials" they think you mean "We're going to keep everything".

When you say National sovereignty, they think you mean Parliamentary sovereignty.

The can't check the actual context of a sentence.

Yeah, we'll just keep damaging each other. 🤷‍♂️

With another island.

That's what the argument was in 1992. We're an island. Which is why, when Schengen came alone we were pre-opted out of it. They knew we wouldn't accept it.

One of the arguments is cultural. We'd have to move policing in-land, which implies id cards.

As for Schengen, with the migration deal, forget it from this country. We don't have the political will, and while the UK did make this argument in 1992 and won, I don't think it's going to strong enough from the outside.

I think the UK should have an open offer to rewind. I don't think the EU will take it, but it was a compromise, and if they don't want to compromise, we will keep hurting our economies. There is politics which could see us going in without a firm commitment to the Euro (see above).

Further integration of the Euro is being blocked by one country. If they bring the UK into it, they better not complain when they get exactly what they asked for.

Watch the video closely and you might see an extract of the @davidheniguk.bsky.social family tree.

YouTube video by Steve Analyst No Loss of Essential National Sovereignty - The Kilmuir Letter

I've started on the "No Loss of Essential National Sovereignty" series.

In the episode I cover the first year of the campaign to join and how the Kilmuir letter was actually dealt with, in opposed to what we've been told all these years.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCO4...

The logic to do what the founders expected us to do is destruction?

We didn't opt out of Schengen either. We were presented Schengen with the UK already opted out. It didn't need to be in the EU, it existed outside of it.

Another "convenient" optout that is somehow our fault.

We didn't get what we wanted, they got what they wanted, and then they complained at us. If we had all stayed true to the original creators of the European project, it should have been vetoed until we all agreed on something. But they meant they wouldn't have got what they wanted.

That was a compromise. We put forward our version of monetary union in the Maastricht negotiations, and they wanted to do what they wanted to do. Under normal circumstance it would have been vetoed. We allowed them to get what they wanted and circumvented the standard development procedure.

I think it's a British stereotype that a large percentage live up to. It's odd though, because researching the first 1960s EEC debate, I don't see any examples of that at all.