The Leave side of the Brexit debate has frequently invoked the idea of national sovereignty as a justification for leaving the EU. The quality of public debate on this topic has been rather poor,but it does raise an interesting question: in an interconnected, increasingly economically integrated world, is national sovereignty a meaningful concept? Arguments in this direction have been one way some have tried to counter the pro-Brexit line on sovereignty. But others have taken a different approach.Tony Yates, for example, argues that EU membership increases sovereignty. I would tend to agree. 'Sovereignty' can indeed be seen as a meaningful concept, but not one outside of the context of mutual dependency and effect.
The comparison with 'freedom' or 'liberty' here I think is illustrative. Philosophers tend to distinguish between negative and positive liberty. Negative liberty merely describes the absence of coercion or interference from others. This might mean coercion from other individuals (e.g slavery, forms of indentured labour, blackmail etc) or from the state (arbitrary imprisonment, restrictions on behaviour etc). Absolute negative liberty is almost certainly unobtainable. Freedom from coercion from other individuals requires the state, which, in order to preserve one set of negative liberties, must impose restrictions on others. Private property, for example, might imply laws against trespassing. Whether this is a good thing or bad, the point is that in this instance we cannot be totally free from state interference in our movement and be free from the interference of others in what is considered our own. Furthermore, the enforcement of such a law entails state coercion in the form of the threat of punishment.
Positive liberty, on the other hand, refers to the actual ability to do things. This is an important part of any account of freedom, as freedom is not worth much if we cannot do any of the things we actually want to. This, in turn, cannot just refer to an ability to satisfy long term aspirations (happiness in life, fulfilling work etc) but must also include the fulfilment of the more basic conditions of these (adequate food, shelter, health etc). Crucially, none of these are obtainable as atomised individuals. They are all liberties embedded in a functioning, prosperous society, and likely one with a considerable welfare state if these liberties are to be extended to more than a small portion of society. None of this allows for the absolute freedom of the individual. So long as this mutual dependence exists, there is always the possibility that one opportunity will come at the expense of another, or that coordinated efforts cannot purely be achieved by consent. Put more simply, being free cannot mean everybody always getting to do everything they want.
This distinction might well be extended to national sovereignty too. Negative sovereignty would mean that the affairs of a country are not dictated by another. It would mean that a country is not directly occupied, ruled, or controlled de facto by another state. But it would not mean an absence of rules, regulations or laws that prevented dominance or coercion. Indeed, European integration historically served precisely this purpose: to create a European order on the basis of cooperation rather than military dominance. Moreover, it acknowledges the fact that in countless spheres of life, there is simply no way of one state avoiding outside interference. If Northern European states do not have some set of common rules for fishing, there is nothing any individual state can do to prevent the North Sea being depleted. The choice is therefore not between interference and autonomy, but interference and cooperation. Cooperation offers greater sovereignty of a member state in that it allows for the collective setting of rules to prevent coercion and interference. The only useful question is what legal and institutional means are best for achieving the latter.
This mutual dependence of European states gives a corresponding notion of positive sovereignty too. As long as geography dictates that European states will have the greatest opportunities for trade with one another, the prosperity of member states depend on the best conditions for trade. These in turn might require common rules and regulations. And while might justly ask the value of this prosperity, or look critically at the political economy of economic integration, it is still possible to see this prosperity as sovereignty enhancing. By increasing the capacity for states to generate revenue, they have a greater variety of choices available to them. A more prosperous state has, all other things being equal, greater sovereignty in action. Other aspects of European integration, like freedom of movement and scientific cooperation also do not just widen the choices available to citizens: they empower member states to undertake projects that otherwise would be more difficult to do. And by acting as a block, the so called 'pooling of sovereignty' gives EU member states greater influence and clout in the wider world.
The point here is not primarily to make an argument in favour of European integration or defend the specific institutional arrangements of the European Union. While I do see these favourably, that is a question beyond the scope of this argument. Nor do I wish to say that all instances of European integration increase national sovereignty. The single currency, for example, really does involve significant constrains on the actions of member states, with questionable corresponding gains. Indeed we might even question the value of sovereignty, as opposed to the opportunities, freedom and well being of people, rather than the reified abstraction of the state. But if we are to talk of sovereignty, it is nonetheless worth noting that, like liberty, is not incompatible with mutual dependence, or collective decision making processes. It does not describe a state of autarkic independence from the actions of other states, should not imply the absence of common rules or institutions, and cannot mean the ability for any state to do whatever it wants.
No comments:
Post a Comment