Whilst there is a suspicion amongst the more ardent Remain supporter that Brexit was simply about immigration, there were those who claimed that, by voting to leave the European Union, we could reclaim our sovereignty, taking back control, as they put it.
Now, I’m in a sense relaxed about that, in that if that was their genuine wish, then it is at least philosophically consistent. Yes, the question of cost was never really discussed – like the Scottish independence campaign, the supposed benefits were in the headlines, the price in minuscule type, if it was ever mentioned at all. Fair enough, one might suppose – there is yet to be the political salesman that raises the relative drawbacks of their product.
But the problem is that sovereignty is a concept that, in a complex, inter-related world, is becoming increasingly blurred. Do nation states have the ability to “take back control” any more?
In his recent Ditchley Lecture, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer spoke of the increasingly complex nature of jurisdiction, noting that the United States has signed more than 800 international agreements, most of which defer supervision of some element of our lives to transnational, unelected, unaccountable bodies – the internet being the most universal of its type – yet which go virtually unnoticed by the general public.
And, of course, the United Kingdom is in a similar position, having many more close neighbours, with mutual arrangements that are subject to arbitration structures and managed by international secretariats.
To make matters worse, over recent decades, both capital and business have become more mobile, with the ability of governments to tax multinational companies made more complex by a web of international tax agreements. And if a company can physically move its corporate headquarters, what of internet-based businesses? The solution? International agreements made to create common accounting standards, or the proposed Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base that would simplify multinational company taxation within the European Union, for example.
All of these require co-operation and, whilst there is no reason why a post-Brexit United Kingdom can’t enter into such agreements, or remain within the existing ones, each requires a pooling of sovereignty. But, of course, the Brexiteers are against that sort of thing, aren’t they…
The North Sea is a shared resource, with a number of European Union countries, and Norway, having entered into agreements regarding fishing stocks. Does the United Kingdom withdraw from those arrangements – the “our fish” argument? Or, given that the fish inconveniently swim around, does the United Kingdom enter into a new agreement with its neighbours? And would that deal be as good in terms of quota as the existing one? Fishermen in Lowestoft, Grimsby or Peterhead might be interested in the answer to that question.
Oh, and yes, we have a deficit – a large one. To finance it, we borrow from international banks, institutions and private lenders. Policy is set in such a way as to keep them sweet, lest they decide that we are not an attractive home for their investments. As someone rather smarter than I has noted, a nation cannot easily walk away from its debts and once it has them, it has given up some perhaps imperceptible amount of its sovereignty given the price paid by such as Argentina.
These are just a few examples of the sovereignty dilemmas that face those who claim to represent us. They are complex problems in an environment where the media and some of the public demand simple isolationism. Yes, you can tell the world that you want it to stop, that you want to get off. But it seldom ends well.
And, as the Conservative administration turns ever more hawkish on taking back control, they are likely to discover that, far from taking back control, they have to make more compromises to protect British industry, jobs and public services. Those compromises will not be cost-free. But the price is worth paying, however much it may be, even if it includes Marmite. That’s right, isn’t it, my Brexiteer friends?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1532
New Makerfield by-election poll gives Burnham a five point lead
From cinema to book shop
Caron Lindsay
Neil Hickman
expats
Jana
39 Comments
Harold Wilson called an unprecedented referendum in the interests of party unity.
David Cameron and Theresa May prioritise party unity.
Where does the national interest lie? and who decides it?
All of these require co-operation and, whilst there is no reason why a post-Brexit United Kingdom can’t enter into such agreements, or remain within the existing ones, each requires a pooling of sovereignty
But the difference between those (and things like NATO) and the EU is that those are specific-purpose arrangements with a fixed scope.
Whereas being in the EU involved being subject to a Parliament and a Court which claimed authority to generate new legislation in many many areas, well beyond what was considered when the original treaties were signed.
That’s a qualitative difference, one that means the EU was less like either a bilateral international agreement, or a forum for international co-operation (like NATO) and more like a would-be federal state, with Westminster operating almost as a devolved regional parliament operating within the scope of powers granted to it by Brussels, just like Holyrood is not a sovereign parliament but is a devolved regional assembly operating under the tolerance of and within the limits of scope set by Westminster.
No other international agreements, that I am aware of, have this ‘wannabe federalist’ character: not NAFTA, not NATO, not the UN, not the WTO.
So it doesn’t seem at all unreasonable to say that this is an aspect of sovereignty we can regain and retain, while still entering into international agreements, as long as we ensure they are the kind of limited-scope agreements for particular purposes that every other international agreement is, and never again surrender to an agreement which establishes a superior legislative body over Westminster or a superior Court over the UK courts.
@Dav The Treaty of Lisbon has a fixed scope. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Defined_policy_areas
But it includes pretty much everything: ‘transport’, ‘energy’, ‘environment’. And ‘freedom, security and justice’ for goodness’ sake! These are all massive areas where EU legislation overrules member state legislation.
To claim that its scope is limited is like Jeremy Corbyn claiming he only ever rebelled over three things: issues of war and peace, social and economic policy and matters of liberty. thing is those three cover just about everything a government can do…
Why does a free trade area need to poke its nose into ‘freedom, security and justice’ anyway? That has nothing to do with trade rules, or common market regulations, or tariffs. The only reason to have that there is if the intent is to move towards a federal system like the United States.
Mark
I quite often hear this kind of argument from Remainers. Its logic consequence is that we should simply give up on the tired old nation-state all together. The problem is that the people will not buy it. Finally, they had to have their say……….
Brexit allows us to take back control by: ceasing to send MEPs to attend a Parliament that represents no-one; avoiding the pronouncements of an unelected Commission; escaping the imperious European Court of Justice; setting our own tariff policy and executing our own trade deals; establishing our own immigration policy; enacting our own legislation through a democratically elected Parliament and so much else. That sounds like lots of ” control” to me. The UK will quite properly enter into numerous treaties with foreign countries but these in no way limit its sovereignty. The EU treaties were not real treaties, they had constitutional status.
Sovereignty is really quite simple.
William Ross,
The people narrowly did not buy the idea on June 23rd 2016.
However, the under 30 generation DO buy the idea that the nation state is an anachronism in the modern world. And in a few years time they will be the majority.
This year the old forced their outmoded views of sovereignty on the young, who are the ones who will have to pay the consequences.
Andy
I regret to say that you may be right regarding the young generation’s current view of sovereignty, but they ( and you) show a ” League of Nations” level of naivety, which will not survive contact with reality. The nation-state educates us, provides us health services, pays our benefits and pensions and defends us. Our country matters and is worthwhile fighting for.
The EU is an airy nothing. It was very interesting to me that the Remain campaign focused solely on economics. You must surely have known that no-one in their right mind would be convinced by arguments lauding Jean Claude Juncker and soulless Brussels.
@William ceasing to send MEPs to attend a Parliament that represents no-one
They’re elected. By people. So they represent the people in their constituencies.
@Dav ‘transport’, ‘energy’, ‘environment’. And ‘freedom, security and justice’ Those areas are shared competencies, so expanding them beyond the current status requires a Directive, which needs to be approved by Council (consisting of democratically-elected representatives of the member states) and the EU Parliament, consisting of democratically-elected representatives of the people.
And ” ‘freedom, security and justice’” does apply to a trade area, because if one part of it bans unions and suspends rights, e.g., then it can unfairly compete with the rest of it. See?
Those areas are shared competencies, so expanding them beyond the current status requires a Directive, which needs to be approved by Council (consisting of democratically-elected representatives of the member states) and the EU Parliament, consisting of democratically-elected representatives of the people.
But the very fact they can be expanded means that the UK is no longer sovereign in those areas, as at any time the EU could so expand its powers.
Compare with, say, a trade agreement, or a treaty, or an organisation such as the UN or NATO, none of which have such powers to decide to over-ride an area of their member states’ laws.
And ” ‘freedom, security and justice’” does apply to a trade area, because if one part of it bans unions and suspends rights, e.g., then it can unfairly compete with the rest of it
Well, (a) whether to ban unions and suspend rights should be up to the individual country: if they want to compete that way it should be up to them, just like it should be up to the Irish if they want to compete by offering low business tax rates. So that’s a unreasonable restriction of national sovereignty right there.
And (b) the area ‘freedom, security and justice’ is so vaguely worded it could apply to anything: it could, for example, be held to encompass the European Parliament compelling member states to make certain behaviour criminal, whether they want to or not (or, contrariwise, to strike down member state laws making a certain behaviour criminal if the European Parliament doesn’t think it should be so). That is definitely no concern of a free trade area!
Daniel
The MEPs certainly represent their constituencies but the Parliament represents no-one because no European nation really exists except in the fevered minds of the Ode to Joy brigade.
A model free trade area is NAFTA is which there is no free movement of people. We cannot straighten out all differences between nations and nor should we try.
In fact yes: name one other treaty or international agreement which includes ‘ratchet clauses’ like the EU treaties, allowing its scope to be expanded pretty much indefinitely. Just one.
Dav,
In other words, you’re happy to pool sovereignty on a limited basis. Which leads to the obvious question, I guess, i.e. what are the acceptable limits? And you’ll note that this is an open question, because I’m genuinely interested in your answer.
NATO is perhaps not an ideal example for you to give though, as our membership commits us to go to war in defence of a treaty partner – rather more drastic than anything our European Union membership commits us to currently.
William,
The list of things that you indicate can be repatriated by leaving the European Union is a credible one. It would be foolish to deny that. But you set up a straw man by suggesting that the alternative is the giving up of the concept of a nation state. Life is not black and white like that.
Sometimes, you pool sovereignty in order to achieve defined benefits which may or may not be tangible. Does a trade deal actually benefit your national economy? Without a control case, you can only conjecture. It is simply a matter of judgement based on your past experience and expert opinion. You and I are probably in different places on that subject. I’m of the view that the benefits of our membership outweigh the costs, and that, inside the Union, we can and should seek reforms. You, I presume, deem that unlikely.
@Dav whether to ban unions and suspend rights should be up to the individual country: if they want to compete that way it should be up to them, just like it should be up to the Irish if they want to compete by offering low business tax rates.
Well, except that some rights are universal and nations-states should not be able to abrogate them. (which of course requires there to be an entity of some sort to enforce them – happily we don’t seem to be planning to leave the jurisdiction of the ECHR) If we disagree on this point I fear our differences are not bridgeable.
@William Ross but the Parliament represents no-one because no European nation really exists
I am pretty sure that nations are not the only bodies that have Parliaments, even if not usually by that name. The Church of England has the General Synod, for example, and the UN has the General Assembly, The WI and the Co-op have elected boards, and so forth. I simply don’t accept that such a body is illegitimate *because* it is not representing a nation. The EU Parliament represents the citizens of the European Union, and is elected by them. That is a reasonable source of authority and legitimacy.
As for the low business rates, Ireland is entitled to set them however it likes; what it isn’t allowed to do is de facto state aid to individual companies.
I just don’t get it and never will. The problem with pooling so much sovereignty is that the more of it you pool the more assiduous you have to be on governing to ensure that you are taking people with you. Caution should be the watchword – something severely lacking when it comes to EU border control, the Euro and unemployment and other things.
You need to demonstrate to net contributors that you’re not taking them for a ride. The left are wedded psychologically to `no borders` and a Europhiliac economic model which has made many of our communities feeling left behind. Hardly progressive.
It’s very nice if you’re part of the jetset in London – not much help if you’re struggling on insecure employment in Loughborough or Leeds. It’s the lack of self-awareness of the left and naive acceptance of radical change without understanding its full effects that have scuppered Remain.
While we’re on the subject how come a politician who allows 3m people who have ostensibly jumped the immigration queue (notwithstanding the contribution they make) to stay and merely wants planned migration on a small landspace is said to be `xenophobic` when a Liberal who is leader of a vast landspace has very restrictive migration rules is considered enlightened #Canada?
James,
Possibly because you’re looking at a relatively small piece of a bigger picture from an unhelpful angle.
Firstly, the dominant political party in the European Parliament is the European People’s Party, which includes the likes of Angela Merkel, who is hardly of the left by any sensible yardstick, and the ‘four pillars’ were signed up to unanimously by the member states, most of which don’t have left-wing governments either.
But yes, freedom of movement creates issues – in both directions. British retirees in Spain and Cyprus, for example, are a burden upon the healthcare systems of the host nations. And, unlike migrants to this country, they mostly aren’t economically active. Some don’t integrate into their host communities either. There are swings and roundabouts.
The existence of a national minimum wage reduces the scope for EU nationals to undercut wages, and in any event, they tend to go to places where there are vacancies unfilled.
The challenge for politicians is to address the issues that make people insecure, not by knee jerk isolationism, but by ensuring that the benefits of a global economy are distributed more equitably.
The existence of a national minimum wage reduces the scope for EU nationals to undercut wages
But by the same token does a national minimum wage not increase the incentive for them to come to countries like the UK or France, because they know they are guaranteed to be paid a lot more than they would in their home country?
`The challenge for politicians is to address the issues that make people insecure, not by knee jerk isolationism, but by ensuring that the benefits of a global economy are distributed more equitably.`
Sorry the europhile economic model is over. We are joining the rest of the World in a non free movement pick and choose migrationary model commensurate with our power like Liberal Trudeau does.
The Europhile model was tested to destruction – all that happened is that the UK was screwed over by the 1%: the Euro wasn’t reformed thus we subsidised their high unemployment disincentivising them to tackle that issue for PIGS countries. Schengen happened and then Merkel whose actions are simply Pro German with little regard for anyone else. The Single Market is simply a regulatory framework – it is EU fear that suggests we shouldn’t have tariff free trade as they don’t want their whole psychological framework unravelling.
This is a war of the mind. It’s a war about realities against false hope.
How can you plan anything when you have open borders? It’s illiberal to have open borders when other countries don’t.
Everyone wants to come here due to high unemployment, the English Language, our open culture and our freedom. There must come a time when people demand their leaders extract the proper price for that. The price should be reform and proper regard. None was forthcoming. Why do we feel so guilty about this?
@DAV – The competencies of EU can only be expanded (or contracted) by the member states (not by the EU itself). The member states decided that they would deal with “Freedom, Security & Justice” within the EU because they wanted to tackle problems they all faced together. And the EP can’t “compel” member states as the member states – in the CoM – have to approve any laws that it passes.
James,
What on Earth is the ‘Europhile economic model’ when it’s at home? Care to enlighten me, as it’s a phrase I’ve not heard before, as opposed to Anglo-Saxon neoliberalism, which is claimed to be the cause of most of our troubles by some.
And most of the countries in the European Union have open borders with each other, except the United Kingdom, funnily enough – we opted out of Schengen and have border controls for all those entering into the country, including British citizens returning home, unless that nice lady insisting on seeing my passport at Heathrow on Wednesday morning was misleading me.
And as for the notion that everyone wants to come here, they evidently don’t, because they haven’t, which undermines your argument somewhat. It’s a pity, because you started with an argument that, whilst I didn’t agree with it, it did have some credibility. Now you’re reduced to ad hominem hyperbole or, at best, wild accusation.
If EU citizens coming here are such a threat to the British, why do we have higher employment rates than other European countries? It’s because there are jobs for them, and they’re willing to go where the jobs are. If the unemployed of Leeds and Loughborough aren’t willing to become care workers in Mid Suffolk, or baristas in Southwark – the sorts of jobs that are hard to fill with British workers because they’re in places where unemployment is low – someone is going to have to do them because the demand is there, and that someone is going to be EU migrants.
And, frankly, I’d rather someone look after Granny than no one…
Tim,
Possibly, although relative purchasing power does impact on that, with higher housing costs offsetting the higher salaries. But, a free labour market exists to match surplus labour with demand, so when times are hard in the United Kingdom, workers could seek employment in Germany or wherever.
There is a catch, of course, or a complication, in that as English is a language taught across Europe, it is easier for those EU citizens who speak it to come to a country where it is used. Think of it as a triumph of our language over the competition. The British, on the other hand, generally see less benefit in learning foreign languages, making it harder to seek employment in, say, Hungary or Portugal. We do need to address the hurdles that deter our citizens from seeking work elsewhere to make the Single Market work better for us.
Despite that, we’re very good at some things, and our service sector is a powerful asset in terms of trade. It’s a pity that leaving the European Union will make that much more difficult, given that the trade in services is usually the most difficult to agree element of any trade deal and the most vulnerable to protectionism.
@ daniel walker – “They’re elected. By people. So they represent the people in their constituencies.”
I think you have rather missed what this whole representation business is about. Do I feel they represent MY interests? Not, do they feel they have a mandate to speak in my name.
Jedi,
That’s unusually sloppy thinking on your part. Given that they’re elected using a proportional system, it’s much more likely that you have an MEP who more accurately reflects your position than is the case at Westminster.
Now, I admit, our respective positions might be seen as minority interests, but the theory is a sound one…
We are on the way out led by the Conservatives, maybe…
The reality is that no one knows what the price of that will be but will be in full control of the bill.
By voting leave, we lose control. The pound has plummeted, inflation (notably on Marmite) will rise, we lose international influence by not being around the table etc. It is most odd that some believe we can regain (sorry lose) control by leaving only one of the 3000 international organisations to which we belong. We participate in them because it is in our national sovereign interest. The quitters have yet to understand that.
we lose international influence by not being around the table etc
Actually the reverse: we will get back around tables that we previously weren’t around (most notably the WTO, where we lost our seat to the EU) and we ensure there is no danger of losing our other seats (eg at the UN Security Council, where there was talk of France and the UK losing their seats to a single, EU seat).
So actually by leaving the EU we will gain in international influence.
Tim,
“So actually by leaving the EU we will gain in international influence”
Maybe, maybe not. The European Union has huge influence due to the size of the market it represents. You have influence by means of size, like the United States does, or through effectiveness. The United Kingdom’s ability to influence is not a given, especially as we increasingly give the impression that foreigners aren’t welcome. It rather depends on the attitude that you go in with, and Messrs Davis, Fox and Johnson aren’t convincing yet – if reports from outside the UK are to be believed.
And you really can’t claim as a gain the avoidance of something that has not even been formally proposed, i.e. the creation of an EU permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The practicality of such a move given the evident teething problems of the EAS is hard to see, and the status of a regional grouping on the Security Council is perhaps harder still to reconcile.
Daniel
You are in denial regarding the EU Parliament, and the EU in general. Off course the Church of England has an assembly and Aberdeenshire has a local council. But these institutions have coherent purposes. The EU Parliament which has critical law-making powers normally carried out by countries has no legitimate purpose. Like the whole set of EU institutions , it is a topdown creation for a country which does not exist. Consider the current dominant “party” in the Parliament, the European People’s Party.
Nobody knows what it is. What legitimacy does that have in Sunderland? German people vest political legitimacy in Berlin. Who is this Jean Claude Juncker? How does he go down in Falkirk?
No wonder Remain avoided the constitution like the plague. It could only compete on economic scare stories.
In fact we should highlight that the EU is an entirely sui generis political organisation. There is nothing like it in the World. The organisation is based on deception and elitism.
Ordinary people love their countries and are are keen to trade with friends. The attempted political integration of Europe, a continental and cultural concept, is a needless disaster. The EU must now either centralise or radically decentralise. Elites want the former but the European peoples want the latter. How dare they speak?
” There is no democracy against the EU Treaties” ” What is the point of this UK referendum, I just don’t understand it”
It is hard to see how Liberal Democrats are really democrats.
The EU is a sui generis organisation, true. However, all international organisations are unique, and the EU is not the only transnational Union c.f. the African Union and the Union of South American Nations.
We are unlikely to agree. My stance is that the EU is legitimate because its powers are voluntarily ceded to it by member states who retain the right to leave, and that the EU Parliament is legitimate because it is elected by the people of the EU.
Yours appears to be that it is impossible for the EU to be in any way legitimate because it has powers that are usually exercised by countries, and it is not a country, and that no non-national body should exercise those powers.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
(As for the EPP, I know what it is, and so, I suspect, do you. It is, even if one doesn’t know, hardly a secret. Anyone who wants to can find out as much as they like on the EPP and its member parties after ten seconds of Googling, at the local library if required. )
its powers are voluntarily ceded to it by member states who retain the right to leave
Which is what the UK is doing because we don’t want to be parts of such a federal supernational body, so that’s fine.
Daniel
I lived in South America for ten years. The idea of a South American parliament with major legislative powers, citizenship, currency, a supreme court and much else would be laughable. If you ask my wife her nationality she will say ” Venezuelan”. South American nationality is impossible because no South American people exist, only South American peoples. The EU has no political legitimacy because it purports to represent a non-existent people.
As for the EPP, I know full well who they are because I looked them up on google ( as you suggest) I also know who the Dixiecrats were as I am interested in US politics.
The difference is that the unknown EPP are running the unelected EU Commission which just shredded Irish tax sovereignty. This is our “EU” governing party yet 99% of our people haven’t a scuby as to who they are! Don`t you see the total lack of legitimacy?
@William As I said, we’ll have to politely disagree. You say “The EU has no political legitimacy because it purports to represent a non-existent people” and I say “Surely it represents the citizens of (the member states of) the EU?” and you disagree because they aren’t “a people”, round and round we go ad infinitum (we’re doing well on the Latin though).
Quite a lot of people can’t name their MP. Does that make Westminster illegitimate?
Daniel
We will have to disagree I think.
Many people, it is true, do not know who their MP is. But nobody does not know which party currently rules the UK ( love them or loath them).The point is that the EPP are unknown and how they work is unknown. For the citizens for this country the EPP do not exist. The EPP is not a “real” party but it has massive unaccountable power.
Would you not think it odd if 99% of our people did not know who the Lib Dems were?
Would it not be even odder if you were the UK government?
William,
I hate to disappoint you, but the EPP IS a ‘real political party’. It is a collective of politicians representing parties of a similar political philosophy, holds annual conferences, campaigns upon its agreed policies – all of the things that ‘nation state’ based political parties do. It just operates in a political arena that you disapprove of.
The EPP is an interesting example though, in that it has no British member party. It did, until David Cameron pulled the Conservatives out. However, virtually every one of the other recognised European political parties has a British member, making their voice heard and lobbying for British interests. They will disagree on what those interests are, naturally, just as they do at home.
But, of course, there is precious little coverage of this – you might want to raise that with the editor of your preferred news medium. If Westminster got the same level of coverage as Brussels does, you’d probably know little about domestic politics either…
Yes, the European People’s Party, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats and the Greens European Free Alliance are all fairly well known around the EU. One obvious reason is that during the last EU elections their representatives for nomination for Commission President (Jean-Claude Juncker, Guy Verhofstadt, Martin Schultz, Ska Keller and also Alex Tsipras for the Left) held a series of televised debates in several EU countries, which were disseminated nearly everywhere but ignored in the UK.
For the last debate (held in the Parliament building) see https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2014/video/top-eu-job-rivals-hold-last-tv-debate-before-election/
When I voted for Graham Watson, I was well aware that this was also a vote for Guy Verhofstadt. When the results came in it was fairly obvious that Juncker was the lead candidate, which MEPs subsequently confirmed in a vote. The Parliament acted as an electoral college, not so very different to how a leader is elected across the Atlantic.
You say “The EU has no political legitimacy because it purports to represent a non-existent people” and I say “Surely it represents the citizens of (the member states of) the EU?” and you disagree because they aren’t “a people”, round and round we go ad infinitum (we’re doing well on the Latin though).
A population is not the same thing as a people.
I appreciate that this correspondence is coming to its end but it has been interesting.
I think I am being misunderstood by Mark, Daniel and others. I do not for one moment doubt that the EPP is a “real” party with leaders, goals, policies and so on. My point is that because it purports to represent the non-existent “European” people it has no “real” legitimacy. As I pointed out during the referendum campaign in exchanges with SNP MEP Alyn Smith, the EPP isn’t doing well in Falkirk because no-one in Scotland knows who the dominant EU party is. This is not because the media are not interested. The BBC would do anything to promote Europe. The problem is that the people are not interested and want us governed by our own country. For us that is Scotland or the UK, both legitimate and understood options. The EU is neither legitimate or understood.
Agreed with Tim. A ‘people’ is the principle of free association writ large.
The crucial feature of indirect democracy is the perception of representation, the collective trust in shared aims and expectations that allows the people to put their destiny in the hands of another, safe in the knowledge that even if ‘their’ man doesn’t get the job then the other guy will still be looking after their best interests.
The manner in which this trust is built is the knowledge that you and ‘he’ have a history of cooperation, and that your respective families likewise have a shared social and cultural history of cooperation, all of which allows you to trust that when adversity strikes ‘he’ will act in a predictable and acceptable way.
There are many varieties of trust networks including religion and ideology, but we neither live in an authoritarian theocracy or a communist dictatorship, and thus the most relevant network of trust in western europe is the sovereign nation state, as it can make the most binding claim to a common identity that gives birth to a trustful Demos.
@William “I appreciate that this correspondence is coming to its end but it has been interesting.”
Agreed, William, and thanks to everyone for keeping it civil.