 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: In, out, in, out; EU Referendum thread.
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But the SNP were never going to accept that democratic verdict.
The way you phrase this could lead to an inaccurate conclusion and is a bit insulting. If you were to say the SNP is not content with the result, you'd be on the road to a better understanding.
quote:
They were always going to bide their time until the opportunity arose to make more mischief for the union.
Again, your phrasing does not indicate a desire for accurate representation.
quote:
The Brexit vote is manna from heaven for them.
Several countries in the EU who face their own potential schisms let their reluctance to admit Scotland to the EU as a separate entity. Not sure what has changed about that.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I can't help thinking that there might be an EU case against Scottish membership. The problem with most British thinking about the EU is that it assumes the only question worth answering is: "what's in it for Britain?" But the EU thinks "What's in it for the EU" and more specifically "What's in it for France, Germany, Spain et. al. und so weiter..." So from an EU point of view there are demerits to encouraging Scottish Nationalism. First of all it will probably mean losing a net giver - the UK - and getting a net receiver - Scotland. Secondly, it would encourage other separatist movements - the Spanish, for example, are hostile because they don't want the Catalans to get ideas. Thirdly, from an EU point of view they don't want to get saddled with small states that may not be viable in themselves but might well be with EU funding - imagine, for example an independent Brittany or Corsica or Sicily or the Northern Italians uncoupling themselves from the South and letting the EU pick up the tab for regional development in southern Italy. And, generally, the EU is a polity whose leaders tend to feel rather strongly that nationalism is a bad idea.
I rather feel for the Scots, particularly those Scots who voted for the Union and now, justifiably, feel betrayed by the English (and Welsh) for the mess we are in. But I am not sure that the EU will feel that it is in their interest to encourage Scottish Nationalism unless they do so for short term tactical reasons in their negotiations with the UK - like funding a guerrilla army against a regime and then cutting off supplies when you come to an accommodation with them.
One of the reasons I was against Brexit was, to put it simply, there are 27 of them and all of them will put their interests before ours if we leave. Leavers are all in favour of hard headed assertion of the national interest and it is a major weakness of their case to say that the UK can do this and not expect the other 27 states to respond in kind. The Scots should put their interests first and not be swayed by calls to loyalty towards England and Wales given the shabbiness of their behaviour but I would caution them to remember that the EU and its member states will do the same.
(That said, Nicola Sturgeon is probably quite hip to all this and will doubtless end up playing the EU off against the rUK. If she does, more power to her elbow!)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Of course a political party which was founded on attempting to gain independence from Scotland is never going to be satisfied until that is achieved. That's no different from the fact that I'm not going to be satisfied until the UK regains admission to the EU - even if I have to wait for 30 years before we've had a succession of governments who work towards that.
Which is a whole lot different from rejecting the democratic choice made by the electorate in a referendum.
If there had been no EU in/out referendum then Scottish independence would be nowhere on the horizon, 2014 had kicked it into the long grass for probably 30 years. But, a week is a long time in politics, 18 months even more so. The Scottish Government went to the country in 2014 with a White Paper for independence (making the vote much more legitimate than the question-less in/out one we just had) that included the desire of the Scottish government for independence from Westminster, maintaining membership of the EU - since Scotland depends on EU membership, not just for trade but vitally for access to European labour and migrants. At the time Better Together questioned whether that was possible, and told us that the only way Scotland could guarantee being in the EU was if we voted to stay in the UK. It's little wonder that the people of Scotland feel especially sore at the moment - not only yet another example of the democratic will of the people of Scotland being trampled on by Westminster or the people who elect the majority of MPs, but another broken promise made by Better Together.
Having said that, I don't think we're heading for another Independence referendum. That would be the last resort for the Scottish government and they will try every option possible first. That includes the various "Denmark" schemes, though they're possibly far-fetched. It certainly includes holding the prospect of a referendum to force the hand of whoever leads the Brexit negotiations to make sure the deal cooked up is as good for Scotland as possible - unrestricted migration to Scotland, for example. The same as the NI administration will be seeking what they can salvage from this mess - ensuring there are no border controls will probably be their top desire. And, the same for London too - though I'm not as sure what London would want out of the deal.
Basically, those regions that clearly expressed a desire to stay in the EU will be seeking a deal that is as close to membership of the EU as possible while still being out. With the chaos of a Scottish independence referendum, demands for greater devolution for NI and London, as leverage.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Has anybody listened to a non-white person who voted Leave(I'm not sure if Facebook counts as listening but I suppose it might)?
I'm obviously not there but as I said I've learned through experience that populism can be quite successful among parties the easy narrative would assume would not be susceptible.
I'm such a person, although I make no claim to be representative of 'non-white' voters.
I wouldn't say my vote was driven by 'populism', though it had more to do with popular concerns and lived experience than with the requirements of big business, or with the middle class and London focus of the Remain campaign.
Neither was it down to racism or 'Little Englander' disease. I've spent much of my life studying European languages and cultures, and teaching the same. I don't expect or hope that immigration will to come to an end, and certainly didn't vote for citizens of the EU to be thrown out of the country.
Not a Tory or a Kipper. Horrified at what's happening to Jeremy Corbyn, who obviously isn't all that keen on the EU himself.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
What were you hoping for ? Specifically ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not sure I follow. If you employ someone then you pay the same regardless of where they are from (all other things such as qualifications and experience being equal).
What I meant was if I employ a foreigner, then at the margin there's one more unemployed UK resident that I have to support through taxation.
From the point of view of the UK benefit bill, it doesn't matter whether the people are in your area or the other end of the country - you still pay for them, so in that sense you're in the same boat.
If they're in a different country, you don't pay for them.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
What makes you think that, that migrant needs to buy goods and services - his consumer demand may create work for another UK person.
[ 29. June 2016, 21:49: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
force the hand of whoever leads the Brexit negotiations to make sure the deal cooked up is as good for Scotland as possible - unrestricted migration to Scotland, for example.
Of course, the UK is free to allow unrestricted immigration at any point, to anyone it takes a fancy to. It doesn't require agreements to do this - it can just do it.
If it's not subject to the EU freedom of movement rules, it could also allow immigration conditional on the migrants residing in Scotland for five years or something.
It doesn't have to agree this with anyone else (although it could offer it up as a bargaining chip in principle).
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course a political party which was founded on attempting to gain independence from Scotland is never going to be satisfied until that is achieved.
This is certainly true, but it's all ideology rather than practical reality. The same could be said of Brexit. The desire to get back control of borders, fisheries, and regulations is an ideology which could cost us billions. I've never had much time for Gordon Brown, but he's certainly an alpha brain. In this article he writes of Scotland:
"Exports to rest of UK are worth £48.5 billion compared with £11.6 billion to EU while 250,000 jobs are linked to the single market compared with one million linked to the UK market, he said."
If Scotland had to choose economically between tariff free access to the UK market and access to the EU, it's a no brainer which is more important. Perhaps to the SNP independence is more important than prosperity, just as it may be to some Brexiteers. But I call it ideology over common sense.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What makes you think that, that migrant needs to buy goods and services - his consumer demand may create work for another UK person.
Somebody is buying goods and services with the hypothetical wage I'm paying him in either case - either a local resident or an immigrant. I'm paying the same wage, so each is probably buying about the same amount of stuff (sure, the migrant might be sending money home to his family, but I don't think that's a very important effect.)
The extra person is the extra unemployed person I have in the migrant case. He's not buying nearly so much, because benefits don't pay much, but he's certainly engaging in some economic activity - he's not a complete zero.
But I can get the same economic effect that I have from having one extra unemployed person on benefits by paying a little more in unemployment benefits to the existing unemployed people.
This isn't an argument for economic stimulus via immigration, it's an argument for stimulus by increased government spending.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
In an irresponsible, mendacious and racist campaign it would be rash to say that this was the most morally disgusting thing they did but it was certainly there or thereabouts.
Wow, that would be a very long list.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Doublethink
The Remain campaign gave no indication that there was going to be any new focus on helping (white, black or brown) working class people feel more European, or feel engaged in the EU as a cultural or practical project. The campaign was hopeless inadequate to me.
There's less and less take-up of foreign languages studies, fewer practical opportunities for non-elites to work on the Continent (not least because there are very few jobs for them on the Continent), and neither the EU nor our nation state has taken the arrival of over 1 mill East Europeans as a 'teachable moment'. For a country that supposedly 'belongs' in the EU it's a joke!
Moreover, I live in a highly multicultural region, where there's clearly an issue with the indigenous white population. The middle class category have moved further and further out, while I've sensed for some time that the white working classes feel ever more anxious and insecure regarding their own cultural and economic status and value.
'Remain' would've been the right-on response in this context, but I've begun to feel that hiding the long-term fractures and dislocations is becoming increasingly unhelpful. Now the wound is out in the open, unpleasant though it is, perhaps something can be done about it.
I'm not worried about the long-term. Deals will be made with the EU and other countries, a way forward will be found - which will surely be imperfect. But there won't be the same level of pretence about the country, from either within or without. Thank goodness.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Where you concerned about the potential break up of the U.K. ? Or the EU ? Or did you think that a price worth paying ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I'm not particularly concerned, no.
Scotland is not going to disappear, and neither will its connections with England. And the Continent of Europe will still be across the Channel, waiting for visitors who want to go on holiday, seal a deal or study something interesting, etc. And it looks as though Europeans will still be keen to come here, which means it won't be all that bad!
Our politicians have a lot of work to do, but that's what we pay them for.
[ 29. June 2016, 22:59: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Presumably then you simply don't believe that either of these unions has had a substantial role,in keeping the peace. It's also a very anglocentric view. This was supposed to be about the country as a whole, not just England - what about the fate of Gibraltar or the risk of destabilising the Good Friday agreement in Northen Ireland ?
[ 29. June 2016, 23:45: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Somebody is buying goods and services with the hypothetical wage I'm paying him in either case - either a local resident or an immigrant. I'm paying the same wage, so each is probably buying about the same amount of stuff (sure, the migrant might be sending money home to his family, but I don't think that's a very important effect.)
The extra person is the extra unemployed person I have in the migrant case. He's not buying nearly so much, because benefits don't pay much, but he's certainly engaging in some economic activity - he's not a complete zero.
But I can get the same economic effect that I have from having one extra unemployed person on benefits by paying a little more in unemployment benefits to the existing unemployed people.
This isn't an argument for economic stimulus via immigration, it's an argument for stimulus by increased government spending.
Doesn't necessarily have to be immigration, the same flawed economic analysis would apply to any sort of population growth. The flaw comes in positing constant numerical employment in a growing economy. An economy with one worker and one employed person (whether that employed person is a native or an immigrant) will be larger than an economy with one worker because, as you pointed out, the unemployed person still has economic demands to be met. The assumption that you can increase population and economic demand and not increase employment seems a dubious one. Sure, it can be true in special cases (e.g. a negative demand shock) but it's more often false.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The flaw comes in positing constant numerical employment in a growing economy.
True - this is unlikely to be true.
I suppose the question is then how much new employment you get per new person.
Think about it this way: Suppose I import a foreign worker, who displaces a local resident. The presence of the extra person causes extra economic activity, increases demand, and so generates some fraction of a job.
What if I was to just import a foreigner and pay him unemployment benefit instead. That's mathematically equivalent. In both cases, the immediate result is one extra unemployed person in my area, and whatever extra economic activity is the result of that.
So you argue that we can become richer by importing a load of people and giving them money. I'm no economist, but I would find that surprising.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Doublethink
The Remain campaign gave no indication that there was going to be any new focus on helping (white, black or brown) working class people feel more European, or feel engaged in the EU as a cultural or practical project. The campaign was hopeless inadequate to me.
Ok, that is an issue. However, the pols behind Leave are the same bastards who've been eroding support for the working class and now they have even less pressure to change.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The flaw comes in positing constant numerical employment in a growing economy.
True - this is unlikely to be true.
I suppose the question is then how much new employment you get per new person.
Think about it this way: Suppose I import a foreign worker, who displaces a local resident. The presence of the extra person causes extra economic activity, increases demand, and so generates some fraction of a job.
What if I was to just import a foreigner and pay him unemployment benefit instead. That's mathematically equivalent. In both cases, the immediate result is one extra unemployed person in my area, and whatever extra economic activity is the result of that.
So you argue that we can become richer by importing a load of people and giving them money. I'm no economist, but I would find that surprising.
I think that historically, certainly in the UK, and I would guess even more so in the US, immigration has led to an increase in economic activity much greater than that which could be expected from your scenario, presumably because those with the drive and commitment to leave their own country in search of economic advancement are precisely those people most likely to create new businesses. Thus. An immigrant might, very plausibly, start a new venture which employs, say, half a dozen of the indigenous unemployed. Something of this sort seems to have been what happened in the retail sector in the UK following the influx of Ugandan refugees in the 70s.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ok, that is an issue. However, the pols behind Leave are the same bastards who've been eroding support for the working class and now they have even less pressure to change.
and not just eroding the support for the working class, but actively cutting it whilst blaming sections of the working class for the economic problems the country is in.
As someone 'of colour' who voted Remain, this was my argument to a number of friends of mine who were wavering (along with; do not think 'we' may not be scapegoated next).
[ 30. June 2016, 08:29: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
One more thing Nicola Sturgeon should consider is that an economic report earlier this year concluded that Scotland would have had a £10 billion hole in its finances if it had become independent in 2014. For someone like Nicola who goes on so much about her opposition to austerity, she would have needed bucket load of it to pay for that. The same report concluded that Scotland would be poorer for years to come. I can't see the EU being overjoyed about having Scotland as a new member if the first thing they see is a begging bowl!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye Jolly Jape. People are a blessing. America and Canada and Australia and Israel and most recently Germany all know that. At times. Until those that got off the boat first feel squeezed.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
... If the institutions of the EU took no account of this then they are the numpties, and if there is something improper about a member state democratically deciding to leave, then there is something very wrong with the EU. ...
It is not the EU's job to do that. That is saying that you don't want it to be a superstate but that it has failed to be one.
I think good administration dictates that at least some account be made for contingencies. I agree, however, that the British government deserves more blame though, but there is nothing inconsistant about blaming both.
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
I read a comment somewhere else that Scotland "holds veto power" over the UK's decision to invoke Article 50. Is that actually true as a matter of law?
Certainly not. In brief, the Westminster Parliament has inherent power to make any law it chooses (although of course judges get the final say in interpreting the law), and the law it makes is supreme. The Scottish Parliament's powers to make law for Scotland, and the Scottish Government's powers to govern Scotland are entirely derived by legislation passed by Westminster - the Scotland Act. The Scotland Act did not grant the Scottish Government or Parliament (or anyone else) any power to hold a veto over anything Westminster might choose to do.
The UK government has to govern according to the laws. That means it can't ignore Scottish Parliament legislation any more than Westminster legislation. However, there is no Scottish Parliament legislation providing for a veto. If the Scottish Parliament tried to pass such legislation, it would be ruled ineffective by the courts.
quote:
Does the Scottish parliament in fact have to formally consent before the UK can invoke Article 50?
No - although the point has been made that if the UK left the EU, Westminster would have to amend the Scotland Act to remove the requirement that the Scottish Parliament take note of EU law. There is a constitutional convention (ie, gentleman's agreement) that Westminster will ask permission from the Scottish Parliament before it does anything like that.
Westminster would be unable to make that change until the UK actually left the EU - possibly years away.
quote:
Or is it more of an indirect thing -- that the prospect of provoking another referendum on Scottish independence would effectively inhibit Whitehall from invoking Article 50 if it seemed likely to result in Scottish secession from the UK?
Yes, although Scotland has no right to hold a referendum or declare independence. Both things are in Westminster's gift as a matter of strict law. And while the law tends to be fixed, politics changes.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It's all about standing. The EU has made it clear that it will negotiate with the UK as a single entity since that is the basis of our current membership. I can't see any referendum before the EU negotations are completed. And whether there is one afterwards will depend entirely on how well those negotiations have looked after Scottish interests.
I've a lot of sympathy for the Scots. But I'm pretty that's how this will play out.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I can't help thinking that there might be an EU case against Scottish membership. The problem with most British thinking about the EU is that it assumes the only question worth answering is: "what's in it for Britain?" But the EU thinks "What's in it for the EU" and more specifically "What's in it for France, Germany, Spain et. al. und so weiter..." So from an EU point of view there are demerits to encouraging Scottish Nationalism. First of all it will probably mean losing a net giver - the UK - and getting a net receiver - Scotland. Secondly, it would encourage other separatist movements - the Spanish, for example, are hostile because they don't want the Catalans to get ideas. Thirdly, from an EU point of view they don't want to get saddled with small states that may not be viable in themselves but might well be with EU funding - imagine, for example an independent Brittany or Corsica or Sicily or the Northern Italians uncoupling themselves from the South and letting the EU pick up the tab for regional development in southern Italy. And, generally, the EU is a polity whose leaders tend to feel rather strongly that nationalism is a bad idea.
I have been reflecting on this because some of my Scottish friends are determined to keep Scotland in the EU and if possible out of the UK.
As it stands today, it seems that Scotland cannot avoid being dragged out of the EU because it is not a national country member and thus cannot negotiate terms with the various bodies.
So the only choice (at the momment?!) appears to be to leave the UK and apply for membership afterwards.
It seems to me that being as rational about this as possible, there are some good reasons why the EU would not accept - or possibly would not accept for a very long time - EU accession by Scotland. Some of which you've outlined above.
Without rehashing it all, joining the EU may well put Scotland at a disadvantage with respect to trade with England (almost impossible to imagine it being at 70 mph as today) and so potentially would lose trade for the sake of potential trade from the rest of the EU. From the EU's perspective, Scotland and NI don't look like great options for new EU states due to the locality and their economy. If nothing else, it seems that an Indie Scotland would need to be devalued against a future English currency and may possibly face Irish (or worse) style painful austerity to balance the books. Hard to even imagine what NI would look like, but it must surely have to think that it would be on the same level as the Republic.
Incidentally, I do find all this talk about getting Irish passports and/or moving to Ireland pretty weird. The Irish state budget has been decimated, I honestly cannot see any great advantage in terms of austerity, services or connections in moving to the Republic. It is a lovely place, but don't go thinking it is better over there than in the UK, because I cannot see much evidence that it is.
For those reasons, I'm thinking an Indie EU Scottish state next to Brexit England is probably a far-off dream, and very possibly practically impossible.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Does the Scottish parliament in fact have to formally consent before the UK can invoke Article 50?
No - although the point has been made that if the UK left the EU, Westminster would have to amend the Scotland Act to remove the requirement that the Scottish Parliament take note of EU law.
As you say, this will only be an issue once the UK is out of the EU.
Though the amendment of the Scotland Act is a Westminster decision, there's no requirement for the Scottish Parliament to accept the particular change in question. The Scottish Parliament can, if they wish, pass their own act that Scottish law (which is a different system from the rest of the UK anyway) will continue to enact EU law (or, conform to EU law). There would be nothing Westminster could do about that, providing those laws all fall within the devolved powers of the Scottish Government. And, Westminster is unlikely to make an issue of what Scotland choses to do, as each time Westminster imposes something on Scotland against the wishes of the Scottish government then the pressure for independence grows, and the Westminster government will want to try and hold the UK together.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re AFZ's car manufacturing example:
I found this article helpful about that, and some other Brexit and EU basics. It's written and formatted pretty simply. And the cartoons are basically LEGO people.
"Brexit: why Britain left the EU, explained with a simple cartoon" (Vox).
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Scottish Parliament can, if they wish, pass their own act that Scottish law (which is a different system from the rest of the UK anyway) will continue to enact EU law (or, conform to EU law). There would be nothing Westminster could do about that, providing those laws all fall within the devolved powers of the Scottish Government.
This isn't right. Westminster can overrule (or even suspend) the Scottish Parliament and of course Scottish law precedes the existence of Holyrood.
The Scottish gov exists due to the accommodation by Westminster which devolved some powers. It can overrule any decisions it doesn't like - because Scotland is not an independent country and Westminster is still sovereign.
Of course, it is a different question as to whether Westminster would want to cause the total constitutional shitstorm involved with crossing the SP.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Westminster can overrule (or even suspend) the Scottish Parliament and of course Scottish law precedes the existence of Holyrood.
Yes, technically Westminster can do that. It would be a legal shitstorm. Of course, any referendum on independence after that would be a foregone conclusion. If there was a referendum called (which would be back in the hands of Westminster to decide, with 60 or so MPs howling for it at every opportunity, unless the Scottish Government manage to sneak the legislation through before they're dissolved).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
The same person in the other conversation who first said that Scotland has a veto has since tried to explain it this way:
"They [Holyrood] can veto, but the veto can be overturned [presumably by Westminster] with enough votes, which they wouldnt get. But [the Westminster] parliament could vote to revoke the veto rule before the veto takes place."
Is she right, or is it a clumsy oversimplification with some substance, or is it just plain wrong?
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
fewer practical opportunities for non-elites to work on the Continent (not least because there are very few jobs for them on the Continent)
Not sure what you mean by “non-elite”. If (and I grant it’s a fairly big if these days) one has studied the local language to a reasonable level, native speakers of English can have excellent employment prospects in mainland Europe. The magic words “English mother tongue” are gold-dust on many CVs.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... And it looks as though Europeans will still be keen to come here, which means it won't be all that bad!
Why should they when 52% of the electorate have said they don't want to have anything to do with them?
At the moment, I feel deeply ashamed that people might look and me and think, 'he's English'. And I voted Remain. But they don't know that unless I tell them - which I've taken to doing. Who knows how ashamed I'd feel if I'd actually voted Leave. quote:
Our politicians have a lot of work to do, but that's what we pay them for.
No. That is what we elect them for.
We pay them, so they have time to represent us rather than have to support themselves with other jobs.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
The same person in the other conversation who first said that Scotland has a veto has since tried to explain it this way:
"They [Holyrood] can veto, but the veto can be overturned [presumably by Westminster] with enough votes, which they wouldnt get. But [the Westminster] parliament could vote to revoke the veto rule before the veto takes place."
Is she right, or is it a clumsy oversimplification with some substance, or is it just plain wrong?
I'm pretty sure it's just plain wrong. AIUI, any "veto" the Scottish government might have been granted by Westminster would only apply to parts of the legislative restructuring of the UK after the UK has exited from the EU.
Even if there was a Scottish veto on Brexit, if the Scots were to attempt to use it then Westminster would immediately revise Devolution to remove that power.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
At the moment, I feel deeply ashamed that people might look and me and think, 'he's English'. And I voted Remain. But they don't know that unless I tell them - which I've taken to doing.
As a Yank who lived in Germany in the early 1970's when Nixon was bombing Cambodia and Laos, I can say, welcome to the club.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I saw my French neighbour on our allotments yesterday, and I waved at him enthusiastically, and nearly shouted, I love foreigners. But well, I'm English, shy, and all that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.
If and when a vote is taken to revoke the 1972 Act under which we signed the Lisbon Treaty, would sufficient MPs refuse to vote to do that? After all, the majority of MPs weere in the Remain camp. Moreover, any number of the selling points of the Brexiteers have been exposed as, at best, terminological inexactitudes.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
fewer practical opportunities for non-elites to work on the Continent (not least because there are very few jobs for them on the Continent)
Not sure what you mean by “non-elite”. If (and I grant it’s a fairly big if these days) one has studied the local language to a reasonable level, native speakers of English can have excellent employment prospects in mainland Europe. The magic words “English mother tongue” are gold-dust on many CVs.
MLF is becoming an elite area of study. As I said in my previous post, fewer and fewer British people are studying foreign languages, and there's little encouragement for them to do so. So they're not benefiting from these wonderful opportunities.
I suspect that many of the jobs available are now going to non-native speakers whose English is excellent.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... And it looks as though Europeans will still be keen to come here, which means it won't be all that bad!
quote:
Why should they when 52% of the electorate have said they don't want to have anything to do with them?
At the moment, I feel deeply ashamed that people might look and me and think, 'he's English'. And I voted Remain. But they don't know that unless I tell them - which I've taken to doing.
You're assuming that anyone who voted to leave hates foreigners. But as I said in my earlier post, that's not necessarily true.
However, if the Leave vote in your area was dominated by known racists then it makes sense for you to distance yourself from that.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.
If and when a vote is taken to revoke the 1972 Act under which we signed the Lisbon Treaty, would sufficient MPs refuse to vote to do that? After all, the majority of MPs weere in the Remain camp. Moreover, any number of the selling points of the Brexiteers have been exposed as, at best, terminological inexactitudes.
That would actually be a way of getting around the fact of the Leave vote, without having to enagage in the logical contradiction of a Second Referendum. MPs who vote against revocation could say "The referendum was advisory, we listened to the advice, but we decided to do something else."
However, two points...
How would public opinion take this? Would the vast majority of the 52% just calmly say "Oh yeah, man, we were just giving our opinion, it's up to parliament to do what it wants now"?
And...
How would the EU regard this? They're already making it pretty clear that they want the UK to get cracking pretty soon on withdrawal, but if they realize that there's a parliamentary escape-hatch, will they maybe accept that as a face-saving device to keep Britain from going?
[ 30. June 2016, 16:56: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
While technically true that the referendum is just advisory, no one has been treating it as such. There doesn't seem to be any option to suddenly do so that doesn't piss off just about everybody. The electorate who turned out in (relative) droves to vote thinking their vote counted for something will be pissed off. The campaigners on both sides who fought so hard to convince people to vote will be pissed off. The other nations in the EU will be pissed off because they're already working on a post-UK-exit structure.
Farage will be right royally pissed off, but I don't care.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Does the Scottish parliament in fact have to formally consent before the UK can invoke Article 50?
No - although the point has been made that if the UK left the EU, Westminster would have to amend the Scotland Act to remove the requirement that the Scottish Parliament take note of EU law.
As you say, this will only be an issue once the UK is out of the EU.
Though the amendment of the Scotland Act is a Westminster decision, there's no requirement for the Scottish Parliament to accept the particular change in question.
Legally, yes there is (politically, it would be a shitstorm) because the Scottish Parliament's powers entirely derive from Westminster under the Scotland Act, which is Westminster legislation. Westminster did not surrender any of its powers to legislate for Scotland under the Scotland Act. As I noted above, there is a convention that it won't.
quote:
The Scottish Parliament can, if they wish, pass their own act that Scottish law (which is a different system from the rest of the UK anyway) will continue to enact EU law (or, conform to EU law). There would be nothing Westminster could do about that, providing those laws all fall within the devolved powers of the Scottish Government.
The 1707 treaty and acts of Union provided that the crowns and parliaments of England and Scotland would be united into one. Accordingly, Westminster has had sovereignty over Scotland ever since and ultimate legislative power. It has been enacting Scots law ever since that date. If you go through, for example, the Companies Act, you will see one chapter that deals with Eng, Wal and NI and a separate one for Scotland because of course Scots law requires slightly different treatment.
Accordingly, if the Scottish Parliament continued to enact EU law in excess of its powers, those enactments would inevitably be struck down by the courts - including the Scottish ones.
quote:
And, Westminster is unlikely to make an issue of what Scotland choses to do, as each time Westminster imposes something on Scotland against the wishes of the Scottish government then the pressure for independence grows, and the Westminster government will want to try and hold the UK together.
I'd say Westminster is bound to choose a course someone doesn't like. The harsh truth is that Scotland is <5m out of a >60m population.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.
I suspect this is wrong but I'll read it properly later.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.
I suspect this is wrong but I'll read it properly later.
I'm rather interested to hear how you know more about this than UK constitutional law scholars. Or at least how you can dismiss their opinion so out of hand.
[ 30. June 2016, 19:50: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
The EU trade commissioner's remarks make me think it isn't going to be easier for whoever conducts any exit talks.
Ms Malmstrom asserts that the exit talks have to be completed before any trading agreement can be discussed.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.
I suspect this is wrong but I'll read it properly later.
It might be easier to understand if you consider it in terms of the exercise of prerogative power, and what may over-rule that.
I participate on another discussion board elsewhere on matters different to here. Several of the contributors are QC's and there are other senior lawyers there. The general concensus on reading that article, plus all the alternatives in the comments, was that "it's not all that clear". i.e. it's a bit murky.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The EU trade commissioner's remarks make me think it isn't going to be easier for whoever conducts any exit talks.
Ms Malmstrom asserts that the exit talks have to be completed before any trading agreement can be discussed.
Yes. There may be a big difference between what sort of Brexit we want and what we actually get.
The post-exit prospect of trading for some significant period of time under WTO rules (while we settle a trade deal with the E.U.) is very real.
One of the Brexiteers argued something like this. "When it comes to trade negotiations, the 27 countries working together couldn't even agree on which curry to order". Good for a laugh of course, but that could really rebound. The slowness of reaching agreement amongst the 27 may be exactly the difficulty the UK faces in trying to get a new trade deal. It'll take a while to get the ducks in a row, meanwhile we'll be under WTO rules.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
So the Labour party Brexit policy is for free trade but not for standing up for the poorest and most exploited workers.
Funny that. Farmers want free movement of labour so they can continue paying poverty wages to strawberry pickers.
Utterly shameful. A plague on all their houses.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Not sure whether this reply belongs here on either of the leadership threads. But there were several references here to a video of Prof. Michael Dougan talking about all the crap the different sides spewed out.
He's posted a follow up video here in which he expands on a few themes. Worth taking 20 minutes for.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So the Labour party Brexit policy is for free trade but not for standing up for the poorest and most exploited workers.
Had they consulted their leader on that? Because, given the considerable amount of time Corbyn spent on the campaign trail expounding the virtues of the EU in safeguarding and promoting workers rights it's very strange that that hasn't made it into the policy.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So the Labour party Brexit policy is for free trade but not for standing up for the poorest and most exploited workers.
Funny that. Farmers want free movement of labour so they can continue paying poverty wages to strawberry pickers.
Utterly shameful. A plague on all their houses.
Worth remembering when strawberries are cheap.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Through the BBC website I have found this which argues that while The People Have Spoken, the government cannot invoke Article 50 without getting a vote through Parliament, essentially because it was a vote in Parliament that took us into the EU in the first place.
[...]
It's an interesting argument. If you would like to know more, I recommend reading the argument by Nick Barber, Tom Hickman and Jeff King which started this debate - as well as the opposing arguments here and here by Mark Elliott.
Barber, Hickman and King seem to be saying that:-
1. Triggering the Article 50 process involves using prerogative powers.
2. Prerogative powers cannot be used to frustrate the will of Parliament, expressed in an Act.
3. The will of Parliament, expressed in the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA 1972), was that the UK should be an EU member and that EU law applies here. Triggering Article 50 without repealing the ECA 1972 would make that Act a dead letter.
4. Therefore, the Prime Minister cannot trigger the Article 50 process without authorisation from Parliament (e.g. by repealing the ECA 1972)
At the moment, I prefer Elliot's view that:-
(a) Triggering Art 50 does not make the ECA 1972 a dead letter. We do not know what the outcome of the Article 50 negotiation process will be. The UK might agree to still apply some EU laws, in exchange for free trade with the EU.
(b) Starting the Art 50 process does not frustrate the will of Parliament in the ECA 1972. The purpose of that Act was to enable EU law to apply in the UK, as required by EU treaties. This leaves open the possibility that EU treaties might not require EU law to apply here, because the UK would no longer be a party to EU treaties.
(c) Repealing the ECA 1972 at the start of the negotiation process would cause legal chaos. Some EU laws would stop applying in the UK and the UK would be in breach of our obligations under international treaties. The UK is bound by EU treaties until the end of the negotiation process, not the beginning.
[ 01. July 2016, 11:44: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
