A better comparison might include a non-EU country. For example, can the EU create law (known as a regulation[1]) that would be enforceable in Canada or Japan?

No, but it could be done for Germany and France. EU law is legally supreme in EU member states. Now, you may argue that France is not less sovereign than Canada because of this because France acceded to this via its own sovereignty.

However, if you told me you're still your own boss because you let your boss be your boss I wouldn't be persuaded quite as much as if you were actually your own boss, and that might indicate how persuaded I'd be by the France's-acceding-is-full-sovereignty argument.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)

Canada is a good example - as a member of USMCA [1], Canada made a sovereign decision to extend the length of copyright to be compatible with US. Is Canada it's own boss?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Mexico%E...

Clearly, yes. If the US had made a law that Canada didn’t even need to legislate, then it would be equivalent to an EU regulation.

I’m not sure why you think being part of NAFTA, a free trade agreement, is equivalent to being an EU member and thus accepting law from a supra state, you’d have to explain that.

Two observations:

* Sovereignty is not a binary concept - it is not the case that you either have 1 or 0 sovereignty.

* The geopolitical game is not a zero sum game.

Both observations are trivial and I am surprised that they need to be stated here at all.

Canada choose to amend it's law [1] for the sole reason of complying with USMCA. Thus Canada sees the agreement a mutually beneficial (no zero sum). Canada "clearly yes" still a sovereign state so you seem to agree that sovereignty is not binary.

To remain in the game, UK will have to enter into trade agreements with other players and as a consequence enact compromises either in law or in policy. Immigration is a good example because 1. one of the stated benefits of leaving the EU is tighter control and reduction of immigration and 2. as a consequence of the need to negotiate with trade partners, it may very well need to relax those controls.

Finally note that UK was not forced to join the EU. It did so by choice as a sovereign state. While in EU, it was a major member of the club and could and did steer policy and legislation to suit it's own needs.

[1] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-the-amendments-to-the...

Comparing France to Canada with respect to the EU and their sovereignty relies on those assumptions. Hence:

> Canada "clearly yes" still a sovereign state so you seem to agree that sovereignty is not binary.

is not you pointing out something to me, nor likely anyone else but yourself.

> To remain in the game…

To that entire paragraph, again, I have to point out that it's irrelevant to the points being made against the statement “We do know the UK has kept its sovereignty”. It strikes me rather like someone who's trying to persuade an opponent by shifting their "gotcha" arguments as they are challenged and fall instead of sticking to the point, especially considering the decision to leave and leaving are done.

When you find a trade agreement that means another state will make law in the UK and have its law supreme, then you'll begin to have a relevant point about what's being given up for immigration or whatever. Keep in mind that bit about game theory, they have scoring systems ;-)

> Finally note that UK was not forced to join the EU. It did so by choice as a sovereign state.

And undermined its sovereignty to an enormous degree that actually threatened the constitution. From 22:31 of Vernon Bognador's talk[0] at Yale:

> When Harold Macmillan sought to join, he encountered fundamental difficulties, difficulties which probably have never been resolved, and the essence of the problem was one of fitting Britain into a continental system whose assumptions about constitutions, politics and economics was so different from those held in Britain.

> The most fundamental problem, perhaps, was that of fitting a constitutional system based on the sovereignty of parliament and the absence of a codified constitution into one based on a written constitution, the separation of powers, and subordination of the legal systems of the member states to superior system of European law.

Vernon Bognador is British Research Professor at the Institute for Contemporary British History at King's College London and Professor of Politics at the New College of the Humanities. He is also Emeritus Professor of Politics and Government at the University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford, and has written several books on the British constitution and Brexit. He voted to remain in the EU[1].

And to this:

> While in EU, it was a major member of the club and could and did steer policy and legislation to suit it's own needs.

I want to underline, as I wrote above I'm not particularly interested in hackneyed arguments for remaining in the EU given that they are moot and not relevant, so I'd ask that you save them for your friends and try to keep to the point with future replies.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMV9wSSLcCY

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/10/second-refer...

Thank you for sharing Vernon Bognador's lecture, it is very good. Irrelevant to my point, but very good.

Yes, as opposed to Germany and France. Surely being a part of a supranational union that has its laws and courts means you renounce at least a part of your sovereignty.

To some extent you always do, it's a give and take. Just wait and see what the future trade agreements will bring. Spoiler alert - India is really keen on making it easy for their IT people to work in UK.

Allowing high skilled immigration as part of a trade deal would not only be a massive benefit to both parties, but also wouldn't be anything at all like allowing another state to make law in your nation.

The sovereignty part is about being able to decide your immigration policy, not about having one.

You believe that being an EU member prevented having the "massive benefit to both parties" in the past? Is it not more likely that a government that has publicly committed to reducing immigration was not interested in such benefits if indeed they existed?

Firstly, that’s a different point. You compared an immigration policy with sovereignty or the ability to make law in a different state.

Since you want to move the goalposts, yes, the public was and is interested in reducing overall immigration, especially of low skill. Even if it wasn’t, you appear to be suggesting that any immigration would be opposed, especially from India. Not sure where you get that idea from.