|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, Mrs May has taken opacity to new transcendent heights. FFS, this will be the second election where talk about Brexit is muffled, I suppose partly because nobody has a clue about it. And also, because opacity has a strange mystical allure for the right-wing press.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
opacity has a strange mystical allure for the right-wing press.
Strangely, only when it's their favoured candidates who are being opaque.
Mysticism is the only thing Brexit has going for it; The allure of a return to a mythical golden age when the sun never set over the Empire, every man had a job and every woman had a sink, and Johnny Foreigner had to buy our stuff because we'd send a gunboat if he didn't. As soon as you focus on details, it all starts getting rather scarey.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I'm missing something here. The EU has made it clear that full access to the Single Market only comes with freedom of movement
OTOH Freedom of movement doesn't have to be implemented in the way that the UK implements it. The EU directives define freedom of movement of labour, rather than freedom of movement of people. Not heard the entire speech/interview but assume this may have been what Starmer meant when he talked about EU citizens still being able to come here if they had a job offer.
Indeed, most of what I have heard talk about are already provisions under existing EU treaties. Without changing our status with the EU one iota the UK government could enforce existing provisions to achieve what Starmer appeared to be saying, that could be done almost immediately independently of any Brexit negotiations.
EU treaties stipulate that EU nationals can move to another EU nation for a period of three months to seek work, if they fail to find employment in that period they can only remain if they can independently support themselves (ie: they can't claim welfare payments from their host nation). Starmer seemed to be wanting to a) remove that 3 month provision (how, since someone could enter the UK under a visa waiver scheme for that period anyway), and b) prevent people remaining here even if they could support themselves independently (in practice, that provision is usually used by people with a pension - mostly Brits in Spain). The "deal" that David Cameron brokered didn't really change this, it just clarified a few points.
EU treaties stipulate that EU nationals in another EU nation should have medical insurance, or their own national medical scheme would pay for any treatment needed. This is generally not enforced because the paperwork for billing another nation is quite burdensome - and the "loss" to the NHS is largely balanced by the "gain" of not paying for treatment of Brits in other EU nations.
There were provisions when Poland etc joined the EU which allowed existing EU nations to restrict immigration from new states for a significant period of time. The UK government at the time chose not to use those provisions, since the influx of cheap labour was a big boost to the economy, unlike most other EU nations - which is why so many more Poles, Czechs etc came to the UK than to France or Germany. It is very likely that any further EU expansion (eg: to include Turkey - though that's a long way off) will include similar provisions.
Put simply, concerns over immigration re: people coming to the UK to claim benefit or receive NHS care would be addressed by simply enforcing existing provisions within the EU treaties (they, of course, represent a very small minority of immigrants anyway - most are here to work and contribute to British society). And, as has been amply demonstrated (and, it appears, taken up by at least some in Labour leadership) the UK needs a substantial number of immigrants to keep our businesses running no sensible immigration policy will actually significantly cut the number of immigrants.
Basically the whole issue of immigration is a series of lies and half truths propogated by a small minority on the far right, but which have been swallowed by a much larger number of people. And, was a very shaky issue on which to sacrifice the country in June last year.
--------------------
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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
The main problem with all of it is that whether Conservative or Labour, all of them understand that basically the result of the referendum is a bad thing and now it's simply an exercise in damage limitation. If they can spin it so that it looks like they make hard demands of the EU and then the EU says 'eh...no' then they can spin the tale of woe that the EU didn't play ball. I can still see far into the future that Britain will have to enter the single market in some shape or form in order to survive at all (especially if the UK starts breaking up) but the 'have our cake and eat it' approach at this early stage in reality isn't going to wash easily with many in the EU. Of course, the danger is that the hardliners in the Conservative party who want leave at any cost at all might win through too. May is kind of putting herself on the chopping block, but she's probably chosen the right time to do it when she can still survive and keep the Conservatives intact. I guess the UK can comfort itself a bit though in the knowledge that the whole of the West is in a very, very strange place right now. Just as the Islamic Spring was looked upon in great hope and wonder, so all of the shenanigans in the west is plotting the same trajectory. God knows what foul beast lurches forward to be born from it.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would think that May is back-tracking quite hard from 'leaving at any cost', as no doubt she has been informed by the City and other business interests that it could be catastrophic. If we become a 'third country', how do we export to Europe? How do you go on the various electronic databases which enable smooth passage over borders for your goods? How do planes take off and use European air-space? How does 'just in time' production work, when there may be delays for checking of documents at borders? Etc.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
opacity has a strange mystical allure for the right-wing press.
Strangely, only when it's their favoured candidates who are being opaque.
Mysticism is the only thing Brexit has going for it; The allure of a return to a mythical golden age when the sun never set over the Empire, every man had a job and every woman had a sink, and Johnny Foreigner had to buy our stuff because we'd send a gunboat if he didn't. As soon as you focus on details, it all starts getting rather scarey.
Well, surely, Corbyn's vagueness is deleterious, and in fact, unpatriotic. May's vagueness is a resplendent exemplar of Britannia in action; she will confound Eurocrats with her dazzling vacuity.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
.... If we become a 'third country', how do we export to Europe? How do you go on the various electronic databases which enable smooth passage over borders for your goods? How do planes take off and use European air-space? How does 'just in time' production work, when there may be delays for checking of documents at borders? Etc.
None of this is known. However what we do know is the Britain will be Great again(said sarcastically).
When this particular mirage turns out to be dust the Tory might have a problem. This is several years away though, by then one might hope the Labour Party is in better shape to exploit the situation. Question is will it know how to exploit it?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The vote was to provide the mandate to the Scottish government to enter negotiations with a clear plan endorsed by the people, with the expectation that the government would enter those negotiations to get the best deal possible ("best" being defined as closest to the plan).
No. The question was:
quote:
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
That's what the entire vote was about. The rest is irrelevance. The Scottish government would only have been empowered to negotiate the exit terms, and they would have been in at least as much a position of weakness as the UK government is now.
--------------------
"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 lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I would take a stronger view than anteater, given the Yes camp's claims regarding the pound and Scotland's ability to obtain continued EU membership. Frankly, it was astonishingly speculative and optimistic beyond the point of irresponsiblity.
As irresponsible as introducing a referendum with no clear plan? Or campaigning for an outcome in that referendum that one didn't truly want?
Yes. Considerably more so in fact. Leaving an international co-operative organisation such as the EU is quite difficult enough. Establishing a new state with a new constitution, a new currency, a new central bank, a new defence force, social security arrangements and taxation system, to give only the few examples that immediately spring to mind is in quite another order of things. Of course it can be done, and has been done by many countries over the past few decades, but let's not fool ourselves that Brexit would be harder.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The vote was to provide the mandate to the Scottish government to enter negotiations with a clear plan endorsed by the people, with the expectation that the government would enter those negotiations to get the best deal possible ("best" being defined as closest to the plan).
No. The question was:
quote:
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
That's what the entire vote was about. The rest is irrelevance. The Scottish government would only have been empowered to negotiate the exit terms, and they would have been in at least as much a position of weakness as the UK government is now.
If it was that simple then the same would apply to an election where the question is "which of the following candidates do you prefer?", but doing so without reference to their manifestos, previous experience, whether they appear to be competent etc. People don't enter the voting booth of an election without having formed an opinion based on a large range of factors, the same with a referendum. We went to the polls in 2014 voting on a question that was framed in the context of decades of political discourse, several rounds of Parliamentary debate, an extensive white paper and a long campaign. The whole campaign was dominated by whether or not the governments plan was realistic and feasible. And at the end of the day 55% voted to say one (or more of) not wanting independence, not wanting the form of independence the government proposed, or wanted that form of independence but didn't think it could be achieved. 45% either wanted independence at any cost, or what the government proposed and considered it achievable (I was in that second group - I strongly favour independence but not at any cost).
To assume that the people who live in Scotland went to the polls without considering what the question meant is tantamount to calling us idiots.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The question was:
quote:
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
That's what the entire vote was about. The rest is irrelevance. The Scottish government would only have been empowered to negotiate the exit terms, and they would have been in at least as much a position of weakness as the UK government is now.
The question at the ballot box at the General Election is 'Which candidate do you want to represent your consituency?' (Or some such.) That doesn't mean that the government has a free hand to raise taxes or national insurance contributions when the candidate's party manifesto has said that they wouldn't.
Legally speaking a candidate can run without a manifesto. And the electorate can take that into account when they decide whom to vote for.
[ 27. April 2017, 09:35: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That doesn't mean that the government has a free hand to raise taxes or national insurance contributions when the candidate's party manifesto has said that they wouldn't.
Actually, it does. Once elected there is nothing (other than the prospect of the next election, of course) that forces the government to stick to its manifesto. Reneging on manifesto promises happens in every parliament, the clearest example in recent times being Blair's government introducing top-up tuition fees when their manifesto had specifically said they wouldn't.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That doesn't mean that the government has a free hand to raise taxes or national insurance contributions when the candidate's party manifesto has said that they wouldn't.
Actually, it does. Once elected there is nothing (other than the prospect of the next election, of course) that forces the government to stick to its manifesto.
That and backbench rebellions. As we saw when Hammond tried to raise national insurance contributions. There may not be any formal rule binding a government to its manifesto, but a government has a lot more political capital to implement policies that were in its manifesto than policies that weren't.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To assume that the people who live in Scotland went to the polls without considering what the question meant is tantamount to calling us idiots.
The Scottish voters certainly aren't idiots. That's why so few of them want another independence referendum. Or why it's by no means certain that they would vote for independence if they had one. As I often say, polls aren't always right, but this gives the lie to First Minister's assertion that she has a mandate to call a second referendum. The SNP speaks for the SNP, not for Scotland.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
As I said on the IndyRef thread recently, I agree that most of us in Scotland do not want another referendum just now. Like the vast majority of people I know, in September 2014 I accepted that we had had a well worked through exercise in democracy, and although I was disappointed by the result I was willing to wait until sometime after 2030 to try again. It was a once in a generation chance to answer the question.
That timetable started to look dodgy as soon as David Cameron undermined the promise made that Scotland would be assured of EU membership as part of the UK by putting his idea of an EU referendum in his manifesto - clearly (once again) putting the Tory party above the people of Scotland. The EU referendum result sealed it. We don't really want another referendum, but the way the Tory government has pissed all over Scotland has made it inevitable.
And, the Scottish government has the mandate they need - a debate and vote in Parliament. We don't need a referendum to decide whether to have a referendum, that's what representative democracy is for. If Westminster denies that Parliament is sovereign that is just one more string to the pro-indy argument.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
And in further evidence of how Leavers utterly failed to think through the consequences of their agenda...
quote:
The UK is urgently drawing up new laws that will enable it to continue imposing sanctions on foreign countries after Brexit, the BBC has learned.
Ministers began consulting on the plans last week after officials realised most of the powers to apply sanctions will disappear when the UK leaves the EU.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And in further evidence of how Leavers utterly failed to think through the consequences of their agenda...
quote:
The UK is urgently drawing up new laws that will enable it to continue imposing sanctions on foreign countries after Brexit, the BBC has learned.
Ministers began consulting on the plans last week after officials realised most of the powers to apply sanctions will disappear when the UK leaves the EU.
Come on though, I voted Remain and I nevertheless struggle to see how that story actually fits the tone of its own first paras "officials realised" etc. There's no idea of chronology in the article - did they really realise last week, or, given that it's dealt with in the White Paper, is this just something else that's actually quite reasonable?
Two ways of reading it - "because no one had given it any thought this just emerged as problem out of a clear blue sky"; which I'd argue the article doesn't support
or
" as part of leaving the EU this is one of the many things we're going to have to do" and here's how we're going to do it.
The article further makes clear that the Great Repeal Bill will allow us to do exactly the sanctions we can currently do - the further legislation is for a case where we should wish to take action different to that allowed by the EU once we're independent.
Seriously, even as someone who didn't want to leave the EU last summer, for the life of me I can't see how this article is evidence of a lack of forethought/planning, or a scandal. I'm not remotely one for BBC bias so I'll assume that they didn't intend it to be part of the " no one has thought this through narrative" either.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To assume that the people who live in Scotland went to the polls without considering what the question meant is tantamount to calling us idiots.
The Scottish voters certainly aren't idiots. That's why so few of them want another independence referendum. Or why it's by no means certain that they would vote for independence if they had one. As I often say, polls aren't always right, but this gives the lie to First Minister's assertion that she has a mandate to call a second referendum. The SNP speaks for the SNP, not for Scotland.
So are you saying that mandates derive from opinion polls? That seems odd to me. I thought that in this case, the Scottish government had previously said that there would be no new referendum, unless there was a substantial change in circumstances. I think Brexit counts as substantial.
So the government quite correctly took this to the Scottish Parliament, who approved the proposal for a new referendum, not now of course.
How else would the Scottish government proceed? Obviously, everything has now changed, but presumably, the Scottish government would have a mandate for IndyRef2, if it is formed by the SNP. And if not, not.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To assume that the people who live in Scotland went to the polls without considering what the question meant is tantamount to calling us idiots.
The Scottish voters certainly aren't idiots. That's why so few of them want another independence referendum. Or why it's by no means certain that they would vote for independence if they had one. As I often say, polls aren't always right, but this gives the lie to First Minister's assertion that she has a mandate to call a second referendum. The SNP speaks for the SNP, not for Scotland.
So are you saying that mandates derive from opinion polls? That seems odd to me. I thought that in this case, the Scottish government had previously said that there would be no new referendum, unless there was a substantial change in circumstances. I think Brexit counts as substantial.
So the government quite correctly took this to the Scottish Parliament, who approved the proposal for a new referendum, not now of course.
How else would the Scottish government proceed? Obviously, everything has now changed, but presumably, the Scottish government would have a mandate for IndyRef2, if it is formed by the SNP. And if not, not.
Yes, I agree with you. Politically though, it's like handing the SNP a loaded gun, they could shoot it if they want to, because they've got the gun and they've got the bullet - the question is more one for them as to whether to pull the trigger or not. Get it wrong, and they'll have screwed up in the same way as the Parti Quebecois. On the other hand, there are people in the SNP whose trigger fingers are itching regardless of the sense.
FWIW I think Nicola Sturgeon's in a difficult position - she's sort of painted into a corner where there's an inexorable logic in one direction, but not necessarily the reality to back it. And all the while, one Alex Salmond is on manoeuvres behind her....
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I think that if SNP form the government again, the pressure to call for IndyRef2 will be immense. I suppose it also depends on Brexit to an extent - if things seem to be going well, maybe independence will seem less attractive, and v.v. However, Sturgeon is committed now.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I'm not remotely one for BBC bias so I'll assume that they didn't intend it to be part of the " no one has thought this through narrative" either.
At the very least I think it means they had not realised the snap General Election would require them to do something about it, and possibly that they had not realised the nuts-and-bolts implications of the White Paper.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Though, the Scottish government, with the support of the Parliament, want to call IndyRef2 in autumn 2018 or spring 2019. That will be before the next election - though if Westminster blocks that referendum I would expect even greater support for the pro-indy parties in the next election, and an overwhelming call for IndyRef2 early in that Parliament.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, the Scottish government, with the support of the Parliament, want to call IndyRef2 in autumn 2018 or spring 2019. That will be before the next election - though if Westminster blocks that referendum I would expect even greater support for the pro-indy parties in the next election, and an overwhelming call for IndyRef2 early in that Parliament.
Yes, I was getting muddled up about various elections. I was mainly objecting to PaulTH's bizarre statement that there is no mandate, because of opinion polls. Eh?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
betjemaniac: quote:
Two ways of reading it - "because no one had given it any thought this just emerged as problem out of a clear blue sky"; which I'd argue the article doesn't support...
...except that it appears the Civil Service first raised this issue in February. Presumably it has taken two months to come to the top of someone's in-tray because of all the other Very Important Things that the government must do Right Now (that would be totally unnecessary if it wasn't for Brexit).
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, the Scottish government, with the support of the Parliament, want to call IndyRef2 in autumn 2018 or spring 2019.
Well, the Scottish government keeps *saying* it wants to. I can't help but think a number of people at the top of the SNP are looking at the numbers and the reception on the doorstep and increasingly hearing the spectral voice of John Le Mesurier in their ear, "are you quite sure that's wise...?"
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That will be before the next election - though if Westminster blocks that referendum I would expect even greater support for the pro-indy parties in the next election, and an overwhelming call for IndyRef2 early in that Parliament.
Well, I'm not someone who sees any real difference between Brexiteers and Scexiteers (both want to wreck something imperfect because the snake oil they've got's purer) so you'll expect me to disagree with that analysis, and I do.
The numbers are not encouraging enough to be sure of winning a referendum, or even to be sure of not alienating the Scottish electorate by even calling it.
Yougov for The Times yesterday:
do you want another independence referendum
y 45, n 55
should there be an independence ref after Brexit negotiations but before UK leaves the EU
n 49, y 37, dk 14
should there be an independence ref post UK leaving the EU
n 48, y 35, dk 18
Meanwhile, SNP parliamentary candidates for coastal constituencies are busily signing the Fishing Pledge, which if they were to honour it would rule out Scottish EU membership...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
betjemaniac: quote:
Two ways of reading it - "because no one had given it any thought this just emerged as problem out of a clear blue sky"; which I'd argue the article doesn't support...
...except that it appears the Civil Service first raised this issue in February. Presumably it has taken two months to come to the top of someone's in-tray because of all the other Very Important Things that the government must do Right Now (that would be totally unnecessary if it wasn't for Brexit).
But the point is also that it *is* covered by the Great Repeal Bill (as is everything else that touches the EU - it's the point of the Bill to write the lot onto the Statute Book so it can be worked through over time without causing immediate chaos) - so in the short term it doesn't matter whether we bring in the new legislation or not.
All the new legislation would do is let us come up with a sanctions regime that is different from the EU's sanctions regime. In the short term, given that sanctions work best multilaterally anyway, should it *be* anywhere near the top of anyone's in-tray?
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
the point is also that it *is* covered by the Great Repeal Bill
That was my first thought too, but unless the BBC article is a storm in a teacup that doesn't appear to be the case...?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Well, I'm not someone who sees any real difference between Brexiteers and Scexiteers
The big difference is the nature of the current relationships.
The UK government is a government, the EU is not a government - it is a treaty organisation for cooperation between sovereign states. Scottish independence seeks to end the state of being governed by a foreign nation, Brexit seeks to end mutual cooperation between the UK and other European nations.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
betjemaniac: quote:
All the new legislation would do is let us come up with a sanctions regime that is different from the EU's sanctions regime. In the short term, given that sanctions work best multilaterally anyway, should it *be* anywhere near the top of anyone's in-tray?
Who knows. I would have said not, but as Brexit is all about TAKING BACK CONTROL!!! being able to impose our own sanctions regime is presumably a vital aspect of exercising our sovereignty.
Alan: quote:
...Brexit seeks to end mutual cooperation between the UK and other European nations.
...whilst at the same time pretending to cooperate on matters of profit, sorry I mean interest, to the UK.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Meanwhile, SNP parliamentary candidates for coastal constituencies are busily signing the Fishing Pledge, which if they were to honour it would rule out Scottish EU membership...
Yes, and a large portion of the Leave vote in Scotland came from those communities, and it was a vote against EU fisheries policy. Not only was the Leave vote in Scotland smaller than the rest of the UK, the reasons for it were different.
Fisheries policy has long been a major issue, especially in the Scottish fishing communities, one of the areas that has long been in need of reform. Though, that's something that I would suggest is best done from inside the EU rather than getting outside - since the policy will still need to be international (since fish don't see the line on the map that markes territorial waters).
--------------------
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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
This seems a well balanced article by Sean O'Grady in today's Independent. In he it says that the illusions British politicians hold on Brexit, referred to this week by Chancellor Merkel, are held on both sides of the political divide. There is no such thing as "soft Brexit." Donald Tusk said as much earlier this year. Perhaps we all need to get over these illusions and get on with it as best we can.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How else would the Scottish government proceed?
Well it should be able to provide some tangible evidence that the people of Scotland want a referendum. There isn't any. In the YouGov poll in yesterday's Times, even after Brexit, only 35& wanted another referendum with 48% saying No. OK we all know the limitation of polls, but in Northern Ireland since the GFA, the Secretary of State can authorise a border poll when there's evidence of a sizeable shift in public opinion. There is no evidence of a substantial shift of public opinion in Scotland since 2014, but plenty of indication that the people don't want IndyRef2.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The vote was to provide the mandate to the Scottish government to enter negotiations with a clear plan endorsed by the people, with the expectation that the government would enter those negotiations to get the best deal possible ("best" being defined as closest to the plan).
No. The question was:
quote:
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
That's what the entire vote was about. The rest is irrelevance. The Scottish government would only have been empowered to negotiate the exit terms, and they would have been in at least as much a position of weakness as the UK government is now.
If it was that simple then the same would apply to an election where the question is "which of the following candidates do you prefer?", but doing so without reference to their manifestos, previous experience, whether they appear to be competent etc. People don't enter the voting booth of an election without having formed an opinion based on a large range of factors, the same with a referendum. We went to the polls in 2014 voting on a question that was framed in the context of decades of political discourse, several rounds of Parliamentary debate, an extensive white paper and a long campaign. The whole campaign was dominated by whether or not the governments plan was realistic and feasible. And at the end of the day 55% voted to say one (or more of) not wanting independence, not wanting the form of independence the government proposed, or wanted that form of independence but didn't think it could be achieved. 45% either wanted independence at any cost, or what the government proposed and considered it achievable (I was in that second group - I strongly favour independence but not at any cost).
To assume that the people who live in Scotland went to the polls without considering what the question meant is tantamount to calling us idiots.
OK, legally speaking the Scottish goverment could have ignored a Yes vote. Politically, that's not how things work.
The vote was on whether Scotand should be an independent country. Everyone knows what that means. They certainly seemed to know that that meant when I lived in Scotland, and it wasn't devo max, home rule or something similar. It was sovereignty. The decades of debate was all addressed to that question and, as you say, whwether it was realistic and feasable (and the answer was no).
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The question at the ballot box at the General Election is 'Which candidate do you want to represent your consituency?' (Or some such.) That doesn't mean that the government has a free hand to raise taxes or national insurance contributions when the candidate's party manifesto has said that they wouldn't.
Legally speaking a candidate can run without a manifesto. And the electorate can take that into account when they decide whom to vote for.
The question as phrased by you implies that you trust the candidate you vote for to exercise his or her judgement on your behalf. The manifesto provides a guide as to how they might exercise it, but fundamentally it is an open-ended discretion. All governments make some U-turns on manifesto commitments. It's generally not a form of dishonesty, but rather a reflection that circumstances change and policies have to be changed to reflect them.
That's quite different from a closed and specific answer such as "Yes, Scotland should be an independent country". There is no discretion. The politicians' only mandate is to bring about the result. As it happens, taxation is exactly the sort of thing that governments make all sorts of changes to without manifesto commitments. Not just the scope and function of specific rules, but rates of taxation too. I don't remember either party in the Coalition government bringing in an anti-avoidance rule, but it's on the books now.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The vote was on whether Scotand should be an independent country. Everyone knows what that means. They certainly seemed to know that that meant when I lived in Scotland, and it wasn't devo max, home rule or something similar. It was sovereignty.
Yes, that was the question - and the debate over decades had taken the SNP and (after devolution) the Scottish Parliament and Government to prefer sovereignty over further devolution (through to at least the end of the 70s the SNP were divided, with the majority favouring devolution - it was to a very large extent the actions of the Thatcher government that pushed the SNP to unite around full independence). But, that is just part of the question, especially in an internationally connected world where sovereignty is never absolute. Which international agreements do you want to continue - EU membership? NATO? How are you going to relate to the former colonial power south of the border? What would you want to do with UK assets in Scottish territory? What about the things you don't want (like a nuclear submarine base)? What currency will you use?
Those were issues that had been addressed in years of Parliamentary and public consultation resulting in the white paper, and that was what framed the question on the ballot. Independence is not a simple question, and the simple question on the ballot paper was only meaningful because of the white paper and the discussions that lead to it.
And, as I've repeatedly said the absence of a similar process of Parliamentary and public discussion with a clearly defined set of answers to the various questions relating to the UK membership of the EU resulted in a simple question on the ballot paper last year, but a question that wasn't meaningful because it could only be a vote against something rather than a vote for something.
quote:
The question as phrased by you implies that you trust the candidate you vote for to exercise his or her judgement on your behalf. The manifesto provides a guide as to how they might exercise it, but fundamentally it is an open-ended discretion. ...
That's quite different from a closed and specific answer such as "Yes, Scotland should be an independent country". There is no discretion. The politicians' only mandate is to bring about the result.
But, we still vote according to what is in the manifesto, though you are right that most of us do so expecting that circumstances might result in some variation in action from the manifesto. And, yes we trust our politicians to act with discretion, intelligence and judgement. But, also to do so keeping as close as possible to the manifesto they were elected on. There is discretion, but it isn't open ended.
I don't see why you want to put a white paper on Scottish independence into a different category. Why should the plan set out by the Scottish government be any different from the plan set out by a political party? Why should we expect a government to obtain exactly what they said they wanted in international negotiations, when we wouldn't expect a political party to do exactly what they said they wanted?
--------------------
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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Scottish independence seeks to end the state of being governed by a foreign nation,
For anyone in Scotland to say that it's governed by a foreign nation is atrocious misuse of language. The union of crowns happened in 1604 and the United Kingdom of Great Britain happened 310 years ago in 1707 by a mutual vote. Since then Britain has won and lost an empire and gone through conflicts severe enough to threaten our existence, where we've stood side by side as a single nation. England and Scotland are old countries with their own distinctive cultures, but have far more in common than any of us have with the near continent. The poisonous drip of SNP thought is obviously getting through. To date, England and Scotland are not separate countries though you would sometimes think so with Sturgeon talk. No one of them rules or governs the other. They are two former nations which chose, at a moment in their history, to work together for their greater good, and forged the most successful merger in world history. Though I doubt it, my sincere wish is to see Sturgeonism beaten and put back into a long sleep.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yet, the United Kingdom is a union of four nations (well, three and now a bit of the fourth). That's a fact well recognised in our culture - we mark four national saints days, we have our national sports teams.
The Act of Union that merged our nations together into a single country was a long way from being mutually accepted. Yes, some members of the Scottish Parliament were bought off and signed the relevant act, in a poorly attended Parliament. With English troops already enforcing order in Scotland (including events such as Glen Coe), and soldiers needed to guard the members of Parliament who voted for Union it was hardly a union that was free and with the support of the people of Scotland. At least we are seeking independence through peaceful politics, unlike the enforced union at the point of English guns.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
They are two former nations which chose, at a moment in their history, to work together for their greater good, and forged the most successful merger in world history.
I would have thought that the merger of the thirteen states of revolutionary North America might have a claim to be more successful.
The equal nature of the merger is no doubt symbolised by the fact that the joint parliament and seat of government is in the one nation and almost as far as it can be from the other.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The equal nature of the merger is no doubt symbolised by the fact that the joint parliament and seat of government is in the one nation and almost as far as it can be from the other
Having the capital in the South East, even from an English perspective, skews the balance of the country too much in one direction. But it has always been so. It's no different from the Shetlands feeling as remote from Edinburgh as they do from London. England won the joint parliament because of its larger size and population. But I make no apology for being a passionate believer in the Union. I think the United Kingdom is and always has been bigger than the sum of its parts.
Then there's geography and genetics. I originate from Carlisle and I have English, Scots, Welsh, Irish and Channel Islands ancestry. I feel a product of these islands, not narrowly English. I think we would all agree that, at present, Scotland is very divided on the subject of independence, just as Britain is on Brexit. Mny Scots, even when they have little love for England, see that we have been economically and culturally tied for so long that breaking up is hard to do.
I sincerely hope that the Union survives Brexit. I have little confidence that it will because nationalism has been on the rise for the last 50 years. But it may peak just short of a majority, who knows?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in? I believe that it was the Duke of Argyll's regiment, made up of Campbells, the MacConalds' traditional enemies, who perpetrated the Massacre of Glencoe. Further, it was Dalrymple of Stair, a Scotsman though of course a Lowlander, who took the decision to make an example of the MacDonalds of Glencoe. The Massacre was thus inflicted by Scots on Scots. And aren't we getting a little far from the subject of Brexit?
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think nobody has a clue what Brexit might mean, so it's easier to argue about something like IndyRef2. Well, we've had the dictum about fantasy Brexit from Merkel, fair enough, but then just leaving the EU seems like a fantasy really, since exporting to Europe would become a nightmare of documentation and border checks.
I guess there may be a meeting point; after all, Turkey has a customs union with the EU, although services are not included. Also, I don't know how much Turkey goods are waved across borders, through being on the electronic databases.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Alan: quote:
Yet, the United Kingdom is a union of four nations...
Not exactly. To be blunt, Wales and Ireland were conquered by England. Scotland came into the Union (relatively) peacefully, after James VI & I inherited the English throne from Elizabeth I. For another hundred years or so after that, Scotland was governed as a separate kingdom that just happened to be ruled by the same monarch as England. Even after the Act of Union, Scotland was allowed to retain far more of its own institutions than Ireland or Wales.
[ 30. April 2017, 20:34: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Not exactly four nations, or not exactly a union?
--------------------
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
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Yes ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But seriously... what I meant was, Scotland has always had more political clout than Wales and Ireland due to the different way it became part of the UK/GB.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, Scotland has not done as bad from English oppression as other nations in the Union. Most of Ireland has already shaken off the yoke of English colonialism, hopefully Wales will also have the chance to follow Scotland out of the Union.
--------------------
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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
hopefully Wales will also have the chance to follow Scotland out of the Union.
Lord preserve us! Scotland did not vote to leave the Union when it was asked two and a half years ago. It's people don't currently want to be asked again. If they did, there's no evidence they would vote for it now. There's zero chance that Wales would vote to leave the Union. It's a tiny principality of two million people that's been joined to England for 700 years. What pleasure do you get from the destruction of our country? There's every reason to continue to fight for the Union which I intend to do.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
By all means fight for the Union, just not for the Union we currently have. Unless it's a Union of equal nations then it's doomed, sooner or later the second class nations will go their own way. So, fight against those things in the system that are driving Scotland away from the UK. Which includes Brexit, unwanted in Scotland and disastrous to the rest of the UK. When you complain that the people of Scotland don't want IndyRef2, remember that we didn't want the EU referendum either (indeed, you'll be hard pressed to demonstrate that the people of England wanted that either). When you hear people talking garbage about immigration being a problem, remember that a) immigration restrictions are causing problems in Scotland where we need more immigrants, and b) that immigration is good for England too (it's just you've all believed the lies of the Mail and other far right groups), and fight against such idiocy. When you get a chance to vote, remember that the Tories policies are destructive to the UK, and Scotland clearly rejected them yet suffer the consequences of idiots voting for them in England, and campaign against policies that are divisive.
If Scotland was treated as an equal partner in the Union the pressure for independence would rapidly evaporate. While we're treated as a lesser partner, with our interests and views neglected in favour of English interests (even worse, the interests of that minority of English people who are members of the Tory party), then we will continue to seek independence.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kitten
Shipmate
# 1179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
hopefully Wales will also have the chance to follow Scotland out of the Union.
Lord preserve us! Scotland did not vote to leave the Union when it was asked two and a half years ago. It's people don't currently want to be asked again. If they did, there's no evidence they would vote for it now. There's zero chance that Wales would vote to leave the Union. It's a tiny principality of two million people that's been joined to England for 700 years. What pleasure do you get from the destruction of our country? There's every reason to continue to fight for the Union which I intend to do.
We are not a principality, we are a country
--------------------
Maius intra qua extra
Never accept a ride from a stranger, unless they are in a big blue box
Posts: 2330 | From: Carmarthenshire | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kitten:
We are not a principality, we are a country
OK if you want to call Wales a country, but it isn't a nation and hasn't been since medieval times. Also on a scale of 1 to 10, please tell me how likely you think it would be to vote for independence? It may even elect the Tories for the fist time!
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When you get a chance to vote, remember that the Tories policies are destructive to the UK,
This belongs more on the thread about the general election, but in the context of this discussion, I am no passionate Tory believe me. But I would see Jeremy Corbyn being elected to a position of power, as the biggest catastrophe of my life. I wish we had the choice there was in 1997, when I enthusiastically voted Labour. The problem of Tory unpopularity in Scotland has been a big issue since the 1980's, but they may get a bigger vote than they've had for a long time even there.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
OK if you want to call Wales a country, but it isn't a nation and hasn't been since medieval times.
Unless you live in Wales, you don't really get to make that determination. Frankly, the Welsh have had hundreds of years of the English telling them what they are or aren't (which is usually some variation on a hole in the ground only good for getting profits for someone else) and it isn't really a very good look.
quote:
Also on a scale of 1 to 10, please tell me how likely you think it would be to vote for independence? It may even elect the Tories for the fist time!
I don't think there is a lot of support for independence for Wales at the moment - however if the Tories get in and there is a really hard Brexit then Wales is going to be hit much harder than almost anywhere else. And I think in that scenario the voices calling for independence are going to be a lot louder, and quite possibly will gain increased support.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
