Is there a point to sovereignty?
(c) dustydavidson
So, David Cameron has completed his ‘U-turn’ on Europe. That is, having promised a referendum on the EU treaty, UNLESS the Czechs, Irish and Poles ratified it before they came into power, he has …
(c) dustydavidson
So, David Cameron has completed his ‘U-turn’ on Europe. That is, having promised a referendum on the EU treaty, UNLESS the Czechs, Irish and Poles ratified it before they came into power, he has now done, well, precisely that. How this qualifies as a U turn, I’m not quite sure. It’s much like me telling you that I’ll call you tomorrow unless I’m held up at work. Having been held up at work, and not called you, is this a u-turn? I think not.
Rant over, I am plagued by this ever more debated and pertinent question – just what is the point of sovereignty? There was once a solid concept behind it. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 was drawn up to protect feudal nations from constantly warring. Of course, it didn’t prevent the Napoleonic wars, the Franco-Prussian war, the First World War or the Second World War, but it did establish a very solid new unit of international organisation. The nation state.
The nation state is meant to be sovereign. That is, those who rule the state are meant to be sovereign both within it and outside of it. External forces are meant not to interfere in your affairs. Whilst the most obvious example of this is that of an enemy state moving their army into your territory and not so politely kicking you out, the modern world throws up many new ways in which sovereignty can be eroded.
Financially, we’ve all suffered due to the overtly risky sub prime mortgages that some not so clever but quite opportunistic American bankers indulged in for their customers. Once the US is in a recession, we’re all in one. Apart from China.
And the Chinese for that matter, are not strangers to the modern world of sovereignty breaches. The Tianammon Square massacre of 1991 was caught nice and live on world television. Some were saved from death in the World Trade Centres after being called by relatives in Britain alerting them to what had happened before the second plane hit their tower. And most recently, the Iranian people have been fighting their oppressive government, using Twitter.
Perhaps it is Twitter’s cousin, Facebook, which best represents this world of global causality. But in such a world, is the Conservative opposition to Europe really viable? It would seem not. David Cameron has now promised a ‘sovereignty act’, which gives British law precedence over EU law. This logic is somewhat flawed. This would only give British law precedence in the eyes of the British courts. The European Courts would still consider EU to supersede British law if a case came before them. Indeed, the only way Britain still has sovereignty over its affairs with the EU is in the fact that we have an opt out clause from the original treaty we signed to join.
Beyond the meaningless of this promise, Britain’s desire to retain its ‘sovereignty’ is somewhat defeatist. What sovereignty we once had was lost forever around the 1900s, when pacts were signed between the European powers, realising that they were no longer able to sufficiently provide security for their people alone. In the modern world, economics rules, rather than armies, and economics dictates that our interests are best served by being in Europe, and being part of the European community which comprise 80% of our foreign trade.
It is in the context of understanding the nature of today’s world that we can understand the irony of it being a Conservative government who did take us into the European Union originally in the 1970s. But it appears to still be the flaw of some of the older heads in the opposition, that they seem to cling to the fading glories of Britain’s past. Perhaps it is because we were once the most powerful nation, that we resist integration with Europe more than any other. But Britain is no longer the power we once were.
So, can anyone tell me if there is still any relevance in the idea of sovereignty? In the modern world, no one country can sustain itself and isolate itself off from the rest of the world. Actions in one country directly affect all others; for example, the environment. China and India are two of the world’s biggest pollutants, and their failure to sign the Kyoto treaty is the main reason behind the US’ failure to sign up. Without these three on board, the whole world will be affected by the actions of these respective nations, and that is a truth we must face up to. Not even Britain can be a 21st century island state.
Tweet
[...] there’s another interesting discussion over at the-vibe.co.uk which poses the question: “Is there a point to sovereignty?” Possibly related posts: [...]
Fantastic article, my thoughts exactly!
The ideas of sovereignty and the nation state are simply not relevant in a postmodern world. In fact I believe they actively contribute to the major problems of the world.
Ban the nation state and lose the Palestinian / Israeli conflict. Humanitarian crises across the world would be attacked with a new vigor once the suffering couldn’t be hidden behind the argument that its for each country to sort out its own problems.
This is why I find the EU so exciting, it is a first step in this process. It removes the relevancy of a strong nation state but is not quite a full replacement on its own. It provides the greenhouse within which self determination can flourish.
I think it’s more a question of principle than of actual outright application of it. People need to be able to retain the idea that they are sovereign and that their rights take precedents over larger governing bodies. It’s the same as having a national identity, we may all be more European than we are english french german spanish or anything else, but we like to say we are those instead of answering we are European. It’s like an American who tells you he is from california as opposed to just saying “the US”.
I think the nation state must continue to exist as banning it would create way too much mayhem, people need to feel they belong somewhere and also, with no more nation states there would be a never ending battle for the “supreme power” as surely someone would want to represent all these pieces of land? how would that work, or have I misunderstood?
Emma, I see your logic. But is any individual really sovereign over themselves? No individual is in sole and complete control of his actions, in reality. Most of us behave within the constraints of the rule of law, recognising that we cannot act as and how we wish.
Likewise, the world is so globalised that surely no individual nation really should be able to act how and as they wish regardless of any other countries? For one country’s actions inevitably impact upon all others, much in the same way that my decision to take an item that belongs to you without asking may impact upon you – and so the rule of law constrains me.
And people may say they’re from one country or another, but look at the UK. It’s a sovereign state within which there are Scots, Irish and Welsh, who identify themselves as being from those countries. Further than that, Liverpudlians identify themselves as Liverpudlians, Londoners as Londoners, and beyond that – in London some identify themselves as North London and some as South. Then it’s the North East V North West and then you get into rival areas within those rough geographical divides! You can take the identity thing so far, as Bennedict Andersen points out (I don’t know if you’ve read him or not, if not, you should – he’s great!). Nations are quite arbitrary in their nature, and identity is such a vague concept and can be taken only so far, in my view. There comes a point where we have to recognise that nation states and the principles of sovereignty simply cannot work anymore, doesn’t there?
I agree that banning the nation state may not quite work, were it to happen somehow, like Tom I wouldn’t exactly mourn its loss!
I think the idea of sovereignty has such a strong hold in the UK because, firstly, ‘we’ are an island nation, geographically separate from the rest of Europe and, secondly, because of our Imperial past – too many people seemingly cannot let go of the ‘glorious past’ and accept that nowadays the UK is, to quote John Updike, “A soggy little island huffing and puffing to keep up with Western Europe.”
As you, David, and Tom rightly suggest sovereignty is, in very practical terms, redundant in the 21st century, and even the most cursory look at history suggests the UK, even at the height of its power, was never truly sovereign in that the Empire depended very much on the acquiescence and support of the governed; look how quickly it unravelled after WW2. Further, we are a mongrel nation made up of the mixture of nations and races that have pitched up here down the years, going back to the Vikings, Jutes, Angles and Saxons etc.
However, I also hold with Emma’s comments regarding the principle of sovereignty, in that the symbolism of the pound, the Union Flag etc is incredibly powerful, and it cannot be underestimated how people cleave to these in terms of forging their own identity. There are enough people who enjoy being identified as ‘British’, and the symbolism is such a politically useful tool, that no government would countenance the abandonment of British sovereignty-as-identity.
Isn’t the real point of sovereignty one of effective governance? Surely the concept of sovereignty, as with all international conventions, is simply another form of ‘realpolitik’. It’s adhered to, in the main, because is suits the majority of powerful players and provides an international model in which individual nation states can interact with each other. Sure, it doesn’t prevent international conflict (just ask Tony Blair), but it does provide a breaking mechanism on conflict escalation, and ensures that the vast majority of state interaction is economic interaction.
In my opinion, the reason so many people get a little hot-under-the-collar about British Sovereignty, is because the sovereignty that is under threat is not economic sovereignty, which has never really existed, but legal and political sovereignty. If we’re honest, our membership of the EU is truly about allowing supra-national institutions to create law that affects us, and as such, affect the type of society we live in. Personally, I am comfortable with this idea as long as the thing that we ascribe the power to is democratic; unfortunately, the EU is anything but.
Leave your response!
Events run by The Vibe
Balloon Debate: What is the best superpower (e.g. the ability to fly)?
Come along to our debate / social with the Central London Debating Society at the Harcourt Arms (Harcourt Street, W1H 4HX) on 26th August at 6.30pm
Debate and Discussion on The Vibe
Random Posts
catch 21 latest video post
be social
monthly archive
Popular Posts