UK in/out referendum on the EU (Brexit vs Bremain)

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{The Party that wins the election creates a government- which consists of the backbenchers, and the front benches- on the front benches you get the PM and the Cabinet and other important ministers.
The party that lose the election get to sit on the opposite benches, they too have backbenchers and a 'Shadow' Cabinet, and 'shadow' ministers for each of the roles of government. They speak for the opposition on those department matters, and in theory when the Opposition becomes the government they have people already briefed in those positions ready to take them over.
Its just called shadow because the roles shadow the government ones, but dont have any actual duties or power or substance.}}}

and the Shadow Proclamation seems to be 'I'll get my coat'

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{Sturgeon is in talks with the leaders of Gibraltar over a deal, which could also include NI, to stay in the EU by dint of just taking over the UK membership when England and Wales leave.
This would mean having a border with England- but hey Leave have screwed that one already as there will have to be a border in NI anyway, so what the hell, if we need a border to stay in we will have to have a border. }}}

I never thought that I could actually like Sturgeon and want her to kick English ass, but now I do, and I do. I want her to kick those fools into next week. I hope Scotland, N.Ireland and Gibraltar, hell London too, get independence.

I dont mind who kicks my arse as long as my standard of living improves, at least for a few years before I pop my clogs !

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2016-06-27/its-time-for-wales-to-quit-uk-says-plaid-leader/

Er...most polls have put support for Welsh Independence below 10%, the majority of the population just voted to leave, Wales brings in less money to the UK than the UK gives it, and economically it would find it very hard to survive own its own, moreover if Scotland was pushing for independence presumably Sturgeon would try to negotiate an inheritance of the U.K's membership, Wales would have to enter on its own terms, what exactly would Wales (or Scotland) have to offer the E.U when it takes years to meet all the criteria?

I voted Remain and I 100% stand by that, but ignoring the democratic wishes of a majority, treating the public as stupid, and spending more time trying to ignore, stall or reverse the issue rather than actually dealing with the issue is only going to annoy people, this is not the time for arguing, the public proved with the referendum how disconnected they feel from the Goverment, it's time the Goverment proves they have what it takes to reconnect with us, and make the most of the situation, at the moment it seems they are panicking even more than the public...

The longer we leave it to invoke Article 50, the worse relations will Europe will be

Bluebottle wrote:

Can we have a third and fourth Brexit too? We are a Hobbit forum afterall, and they love their 'brexits'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-vote-leave-wipes-nhs-350m-claim-and-rest-of-its-website-after-eu-referendum-a7105546.html

what exactly would Wales (or Scotland) have to offer the E.U when it takes years to meet all the criteria?- Malick

Dunno about Wales but Scotland already meets the vast bulk of the criteria and already has EU law integrated into our parliamentary system and our legal system. As to what we have to offer one of the main areas is green energy development- just by the UK leaving and Scotland removed from the equation the EU fails to meet its own greenhouse gas and clean energy targets because so much of it is based here. The oil price is a problem, but that's just a matter of time before it goes back up in value again, and instead we have lucrative markets in food, tourism, whisky and in the sciences. We also produce a huge amount of electricity through wind farms and hydro. Not to mention high quality water of which we have an abundance. And higher levels of inward investment than the rest of the UK. Wouldn't be easy, but we would manage. Certainly there are countries of comparable size with a lot less natural resources who seem to manage ok.}}}}


Love the 'second Brexit'

Boris Johnson's thought process at the moment:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Sturgeon is in talks with the leaders of Gibraltar over a deal, which could also include NI, to stay in the EU by dint of just taking over the UK membership when England and Wales leave.
This would mean having a border with England- but hey Leave have screwed that one already as there will have to be a border in NI anyway, so what the hell, if we need a border to stay in we will have to have a border. }}}

If Scotland was somehow able to "inherit" the UK's membership then presumably they would inherit their Schengen opt-out and the Common Travel Area (currently between the UK and Ireland) could continue to exist. Though I imagine England and Wales would be the main successor state for most purposes if the UK broke up so I think the inheritance idea is pretty unlikely.

I know Plaid are nationalists but I agree with Malick that the case for Welsh independence isn't there right now.

{{{You cant be the successor state if you are leaving- there is nothing to succeed too. If England leave the rest of us just remain in on the same terms more or less. There would be some negotiations but there is common reason on all sides to make it as easy and smooth and possible. And Scotland has no major issues with accepting the free movement of people that is such a problem in England but would be part of any deal- I think at the least we can cut a deal for remaining in the common market with free movement but outside of England and Wales}}}

https://imgur.com/gallery/dhwPLtv

I'm thinking the UK needs a name change, how about The Formerly United Kingdom i.e The F.U.K'D.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{You cant be the successor state if you are leaving- there is nothing to succeed too. If England leave the rest of us just remain in on the same terms more or less. There would be some negotiations but there is common reason on all sides to make it as easy and smooth and possible. And Scotland has no major issues with accepting the free movement of people that is such a problem in England but would be part of any deal- I think at the least we can cut a deal for remaining in the common market with free movement but outside of England and Wales}}}

The UK's membership in the EU is as a single unitary state, not a collective membership of the four constituent countries. There's no political will in England for the end of the UK, and Scotland, NI, and London don't have enough votes to control UK-wide foreign policy. So if the Union ends, it will be by Scotland seceding from the UK. International precedent would suggest the rump UK (ie, England, Wales, and probably Northern Ireland) serves as the legal successor to all international obligations and treaties of the current UK. The EU might bend the rules a little instead of making Scotland apply for a new membership but I don't find that likely.

{{{What Sturgeon is attempting is to keep Scotland and the others who voted remain in the EU, without the UK breaking up. Independence referendum is at the moment just a threat, if the talks to stay in fails or is blocked by Westminster}}}

I am over it. life's too short for this shit. its done. and there's no going back. I hope Scotland can salvage something but England is screwed. sayanara UK. cherry on the cake England loses to Iceland. Iceland! karma is served.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{{What Sturgeon is attempting is to keep Scotland and the others who voted remain in the EU, without the UK breaking up. Independence referendum is at the moment just a threat, if the talks to stay in fails or is blocked by Westminster}}}

I ... I guess? That would require major constitutional changes to the UK to allow the constituent countries to conduct their own foreign policy, though. At which point you might as well just call it independence.

{{{Its not as far out there as it might sound- the EU has made exceptions in exceptional circumstances before-

'There is a precedent for such a proposal. Denmark joined what was then the EEC in 1973, the same year as the UK and Ireland.
Greenland gained autonomy from Denmark in 1979 and seceded from the EU in 1985, following a referendum three years earlier. '- BBC

And the small matter of incorporating eastern Germany in after the wall came down.
So it is possible, where there is a political will there is always a way}}}

Yes, and Greenland and Denmark had/have a very different constitutional relationship than the countries of the UK do, which goes back to the point I made in my previous post.

I think its self-evident why German reunification was an exceptional case in any number of ways but I don't really see the the relevance here since it didn't involve sub-national governments acquiring the right to conduct their own foreign policy.

You are of course correct that when there's the political will exceptions can always be created, but having a country half-in and half-out of the EU creates a far more dangerous precedent for e.g. Spain vis-a-vis Catalonia than straight-up independence for Scotland would, so I find it unlikely that the EU would agree to it. I also don't think that Westminster would agree to it and I don't believe that the Scottish Parliament has the authority to unilaterally make these kind of changes under current constitutional arrangements.

But I suppose that if the demand for independence is high enough than maybe whoever is PM in a year or two will be willing to make large concessions in order to retain at least a nominal Union.

{{The arrangement is different internally- thats an internal UK matter at the moment- but on a EU level a country split in terms of its membership- a part left and a part stayed, without the remaining part continuing membership without having to reapply as a new member.

The exact situation at the moment is unique true- that was the point of the Germany example, that the EU has, and can change, abandon, or create new rules when new circumstances arise- but unique just means without precedents. And that means there is an opportunity to create some for those with the balls to try.

What constitutional questions will be thrown up will depend on what success Sturgeon and the other countries on the remain side have in talks with each other and the EU and what exactly their plan is- that we wont know till they tell us.
Sturgeon and the SNP will of course use the referendum threat as their leverage at Westminster- as was contained in Angus Robertson statement in Parliament today on behalf of the SNP-



“We have no intention whatsoever of seeing Scotland taken out of Europe. That would be totally, totally unacceptable.
We are a European country and we will stay a European country.
If that means we have to have an independence referendum to protect Scotland’s place then so be it." - Angus Robertson SNP Leader at Westminster

Camerons reply is interesting as his suggestion is in fact exactly what Sturgeon is attempting to do.}}}

malickfan wrote:Boris Johnson's thought process at the moment:

This is the problem with too many people.

"Oh without thinking it through, or anticipating and planning, let's go with the first idea someone raises. Consequences? Cause and effect? Don't try to trick me out of voting for Brexit with your political pragmatism! Pragmatism is a bad word. I heard it's a word evil people use. What! It means being practical about things that need to be treated practically! It doesn't actually mean, do something and to hell with the impact on fellow humans! Well, no one likes practicalities nowadays. And who likes immigrants, btw? Well, not me or my white fiends... They're smelly and worship foreign gods... Immigrants, that is, not my friends; they smell British and worship our own god. (The 'actual' God!) Not that I'm xenophobic or racist.... No way."

I didn't vote in the Brexit referendum, but I'm sure as hell going to vote in the Scotexit referendum this time! I no longer believe you Brits can be trusted!

Well timed TV listing

Here's an interesting counterweight:

Why I voted for Brexit
Michael Stephen Fuchs,Yahoo Finance

Editor's Note: This guest post was written by Michael Stephen Fuchs, a US expat with dual US-UK citizenship who voted in favor of the Brexit. He is the brother of Yahoo Finance editor Erin Fuchs.

Britain is a welcoming country — I know, as I’m an immigrant myself, having settled in the UK twelve years ago. Admittedly, I may not be the stereotypical immigrant — I came from another rich country (the U.S.), admitted to Britain under something called the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme, a points-based system. But I know what I’ve experienced — grace, and good humor, and a host of other characteristically British virtues. I also hung around long enough to get a passport, even singing “God Save the Queen” at my citizenship ceremony.

There are two points here. The first is that I went to some trouble and expense to acquire a UK passport, which for the moment is an EU passport — meaning I get to live and work in any of 28 EU member nations. This is an amazing privilege, one I love and value highly. The second point is that the Brexit vote wasn’t solely about immigration. I know from my experience that immigrants strengthen the UK — I’ve met a thousand cheerful and hard-working and good-hearted Czechs and Lithuanians and Poles (especially Poles) in my time here, all of whom without question make Britain greater.

And yet I voted to leave the EU anyway. Why?

I almost didn’t. As my personal interests, and my political position, are diametrically opposed, I nearly abstained. But in the end I concluded that this was an historic moment, and that it was my duty to participate — and I decided to vote my conscience.

I voted to leave because the EU is anti-democratic. The best estimates indicate that between 15% and 55% of the laws we are subject to in Britain are now passed by faceless, unelected, largely unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. How did we get here? By voting to join a free trade block in 1975 — and hanging around, making no effective protest, as the EU morphed into a political project, and bloated federalist super-state.

I voted to leave because the EU is a boondoggle. They shuffle money from rich countries to poor countries (and also back to rich countries!) making decisions about what kinds of projects ought to be funded. (No, they don’t often consult with the citizens of either the country getting the project, or the countries paying for it.) A Portuguese golf resort, a Bavarian hunting lodge, a virtual clone of Malmo, Sweden in the video game Second Life. A hemp farm. Puppet theatre.

I voted to leave because EU membership burns the wealth of British taxpayers — to the tune of £23 million a day. And that’s outside of the billions it costs British businesses to comply with often bizarre and Byzantine EU directives, such as those enforcing the curvature of bananas, banning diabetics from driving, and making it illegal to sell eggs by the dozen. There may be a reason Europe is the only continent in the world with a shrinking economy. (I also voted to leave so we can make our own trade agreements, on our own behalf, with the rest of the world.)

I voted to leave because all of Britain’s attempts to change any or all of the above, from within, have failed — and were always going to fail.

I voted to leave because while I think free trade, and free movement of capital, and frictionless borders — and not to mention Europe itself, and Britain being part of Europe — are all fantastic... none of those entails an anti-democratic, statist, wildly expensive European super-state.

And while I’m neither totally thrilled nor all that comfortable sharing a camp with Nigel Farage, or (if they exist) Britons outside of London who just don’t like having so many immigrants around… I voted to leave because, as the man said, an idea is not responsible for those who believe in it.

For democracy, for fiscal sanity, for British sovereignty… I voted to leave.

And now I am busy planning my next European holiday, anticipating a bright and prosperous future for Britain, and looking forward to a wonderful relationship with the continent — one along the lines of the one enjoyed by the very smart cookies in Switzerland.
Michael Stephen Fuchs is a Londoner, dual citizen of the US and UK, and bestselling author of the ARISEN series.

malickfan wrote:

truth is stranger than fiction.