What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
Quite so. And the rUK trade links for Scotland are worth approximately 8x what the EU trade is worth so the critical issue is whether Scotland can have a single market with rUK as we have had for the last 300 years or so.
If rUK stay in the single market then the single market between Scotland and rUK remains intact so independence and an application to join the EU is on the table. If the UK is not in the single market an independent Scotland would be committing suicide by applying. The SNP need to wait and see what the outcome is. Ironically, not being in the Single Market makes the chances of the UK breaking up much less but I still think we should go for it.
Indeed. To add, Spain and others would also ensure that Scotland had no standing in Brussles until *after* it had declared independence and joined the UN, then the negotiations on Scottish accession to the EU could begin.
No Rajoy hasn't saved the Union. Or at least not in the way that you think. He's saying Scotland gets what the UK gets. Which improves Nicola's hand in the longer term. Which weakens the PM's hand. Which nudges A50 a bit further down the tracks.
The PM has two years to work on scottish attitudes to Brexit. Ms Sturgeon is only as strong as the polls say she is.
What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
Sturgeon has drawn Rajoy into a terrible error of judgement.
I don't know if its incompetence or naivety but Rajoy's statement is basically telling Scotland to become Independent first. The stupidity of it (especially from a man with no mandate) is quite incredible.
@euanmccolm: make no mistake, alex salmond came within a few hundred thousand votes of being boris in 2014.
Whilst there would obviously still have been massive market turmoil - possibly large than what we are seeing now - I can say with confidence that Salmond would have at least have had a fucking plan which would be being enacted right now.
I'm guessing Nicola's economic plan is to make a big open offer to all the FS stuff in London to move to Edinburgh for full fat EU membership ?
Mr Hannan seemed to suggest that EEA is free movement of _Labour_ only. It required a solid job offer, and included no access to state services/benefits.
If he suggested that, he was being economical with the truth, which he of all people must know.
Richard, this is the comprise I've heard on free movement, the EU will increase from 90 days to 180 days the period in which a person is ineligible for state assistance. The change will be made across the EU. I think that will be enough for us to sign up to all four freedoms.
State assistance cannot apply to a UK out of the EU. If UK citizens are no longer EU citizens, EU citizens have no entitlement to be treated like UK citizens.
Hope that makes sense!
It would still apply, as Richard N has pointed out on many, many occasions, the free movement clause in the EEA agreement is identical to the one written into the EU treaties.
If the UK is not an EU member state, being an EU citizen in the UK is being a foreign national.
If we are in the EEA the rules apply exactly the same as they do in the EU to the basic principle of freedom of movement. It is freedom of movement for EEA citizens not just EU citizens.
Do they have to be treated as if they were UK citizens? Housing benefit, tax credits, NHS etc?
Yes which is why the 180 day plan is being floated I imagine. A lot of countries would be on board for it.
Mr. Taffys, hey. Weren't we the ones meant to be in the queue? At the back, I mean?
Mr. Enjineeya, in the short term, bilateral trade tends to decline even when there's a velvet divorce.
The rise of Scottish, and perhaps English, nationalism will exacerbate this. I imagine bickering over divorce terms (particularly debt) may poison the well a little more.
Hopefully things could be as amicable as possible.
If Rajoy is even still there (unlikely) he'll be demanding Scotland gets in so the CFP doesnt collapse.
The situation is so extraordinarily fluid that Spain's position is utterly rigid until it isn't and frankly the only UK leader that has a grip is Nicola Sturgeon :
Ruth - The Lioness of the North has lost her choppers Kezia - Found her voice months too late
Imagine if the referendum and Holyrood elections where the other way round. How many MSPs do you think Ruth would have?
I know, we have been over this ground several times. Very briefly, it is very unlikely in practice that the UK would reenter/transfer to the EEA as an EFTA member without an explicit offer to do so by the EU negotiating team. As predicted by Open Europe's war gaming earlier this year, France but also Germany and Ireland would aim to peel off financial services from the single market deal with the UK. This is already starting to play out. As such, it isn't the EEA any more.
Legally they would find that very difficult and would be faced with a position whereby the whole EEA deal could collapse. I know they might try but they really are not in a a strong position as far as the treaty itself is concerned to do so.
Agreed. Who needs the EEA most? France and Germany - or Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein? Britain is in a very different position from INL. The EFTA country it can most sensibly be compared to is precisely the one that isn't in the EEA, Switzerland. Swiss financial services are outside of the single market.
What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
Sturgeon has drawn Rajoy into a terrible error of judgement.
I don't know if its incompetence or naivety but Rajoy's statement is basically telling Scotland to become Independent first. The stupidity of it (especially from a man with no mandate) is quite incredible.
Well of course to the Nats there is never any circumstances where Nicola would be in the wrong so a pointless discussion.
We are not going to leave the EU, are we? I thought this might happen :-)
Depends what you mean by "Leave"?
Unless you want a UKIP government and Prime Minister Farage we're going to have to see a huge change... But we can hopefully stay in the EEA and single market (in return we have to accept freedom of movement)
Corbyn is about to aannounce that Blair should be tried for war crimes. Can you imagine how many Labour members are going to join that day ?
Jez will ascend to the heavens before stepping down in their eyes.
Don't profess to know the machinations of the Labour Party but could some of the recent events b connected to Chilcott. In other words if Corbyn is back on the back benches then it limits the damage he can actually do to the Balirites from the depart have box as LOTO , many of which are the ones that agreed to the war and have just resigned and issued a vote of no confidence.
(Or perhaps I should just adjust my tin foil hat)
I don't think its all that. But its clear Corbyn wants to be there when the day comes...
Mr Hannan seemed to suggest that EEA is free movement of _Labour_ only. It required a solid job offer, and included no access to state services/benefits.
If he suggested that, he was being economical with the truth, which he of all people must know.
Richard, this is the comprise I've heard on free movement, the EU will increase from 90 days to 180 days the period in which a person is ineligible for state assistance. The change will be made across the EU. I think that will be enough for us to sign up to all four freedoms.
State assistance cannot apply to a UK out of the EU. If UK citizens are no longer EU citizens, EU citizens have no entitlement to be treated like UK citizens.
Hope that makes sense!
It would still apply, as Richard N has pointed out on many, many occasions, the free movement clause in the EEA agreement is identical to the one written into the EU treaties.
If the UK is not an EU member state, being an EU citizen in the UK is being a foreign national.
No, but as a part of the EEA agreement we would recognise EU citizens and that they have the same rights as our own citizens.
@euanmccolm: make no mistake, alex salmond came within a few hundred thousand votes of being boris in 2014.
Whilst there would obviously still have been massive market turmoil - possibly large than what we are seeing now - I can say with confidence that Salmond would have at least have had a fucking plan which would be being enacted right now.
I'm guessing Nicola's economic plan is to make a big open offer to all the FS stuff in London to move to Edinburgh for full fat EU membership ?
FPT Travelgall's informed postings point out how unlikely that is.
What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
Sturgeon has drawn Rajoy into a terrible error of judgement.
I don't know if its incompetence or naivety but Rajoy's statement is basically telling Scotland to become Independent first. The stupidity of it (especially from a man with no mandate) is quite incredible.
It's not an error of judgement. It's just obvious. The issue is whether Scotland gets fast-tracked in. The Spanish have always said that an independent Scotland could join the EU, but that Scotland would not get preferential treatment - it would have to take its turn just like everyone else.
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
Sad but true. And probably we'll be have to pay more to the EU than we are currently. Genius.
If Rajoy is even still there (unlikely) he'll be demanding Scotland gets in so the CFP doesnt collapse.
The situation is so extraordinarily fluid that Spain's position is utterly rigid until it isn't and frankly the only UK leader that has a grip is Nicola Sturgeon :
Dave - Demob happy Jezza - Mob happy Boris - Happy not to be seen Gove - Not seen and not heard Farron - As Above-lite Ruth - The Lioness of the North has lost her choppers Kezia - Found her voice months too late Falconer - Thought to be on holiday in the Bermuda Triangle.
TBH I think that’s a bit hard on Farron. He’s doing his damndest to be heard but the London Media have decided no, and that seems to be it.
Quite correct. Hard but accurate.
Little over a year ago the media would turn up in droves for the LibDem Deputy PM opening an envelope and now if Farron opened the Holy Grail it would barely get a mention in the Westmorland Church Flower Group Quarterly Newsletter.
What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
Quite so. And the rUK trade links for Scotland are worth approximately 8x what the EU trade is worth so the critical issue is whether Scotland can have a single market with rUK as we have had for the last 300 years or so.
If rUK stay in the single market then the single market between Scotland and rUK remains intact so independence and an application to join the EU is on the table. If the UK is not in the single market an independent Scotland would be committing suicide by applying. The SNP need to wait and see what the outcome is. Ironically, not being in the Single Market makes the chances of the UK breaking up much less but I still think we should go for it.
Indeed. To add, Spain and others would also ensure that Scotland had no standing in Brussles until *after* it had declared independence and joined the UN, then the negotiations on Scottish accession to the EU could begin.
Possibly (although the EU has alternatives).
But even if it is the case that this is the ONLY path to Scotland retaining EU membership, that is exactly what Sturgeon wants - an Independent Scotland. Sturgeon has drawn Rajoy into a trap and he has blundered in despite all the huge warning signs saying "This is an Elephant Trap".
It's hilarious. But it might be reflective of why Spanish politics is where it is right now.
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
Boris would be committing career suicide if he agreed to that. The Tories would lose the City, whoever loses the City of London loses the nation, in the end. As Charles the First discovered.
But the city's never been less popular, no?
Whatever one thinks about the tumultuous events of the last week, this is a political argument that is long overdue.
< I can say with confidence that Salmond would have at least have had a fucking plan which would be being enacted right now.
Even Baldrick had a fucking plan...
And while I agree with you Alex was slightly more prepared than Boris, he would still be winging it.
Euro Sterling Sterlingisation
There is no effective difference between a Sterling zone and sterlingisation. Both offer a future Scottish government the same level of control over currency and interest rates as the UK government currently has - which is virtually none.
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
Boris would be committing career suicide if he agreed to that. The Tories would lose the City, whoever loses the City of London loses the nation, in the end. As Charles the First discovered.
Oh yes. But giving up the chance of full access to the single market for everyone except the financial services industry and to have significant controls over immigration just to save some City bankers; how will that play?
Agreed - interesting and I hope Travelgall continues to post. Unfortunately, I know little about the City. I do know a bit more about the VC scene, and there are parallels.
People have been trying very hard to usurp the Bay/Valley tech sector for decades. They've been unsuccessful for very similar reasons.
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
I don't think any Tory PM would sign up to that, the donors wouldn't be happy.
We will accept free movement and keep our current single market status or we will fully leave and put up full immigration restrictions on EU migrants. Those are the two available options, anything else would be sub-optimal in one way or another.
Mr Hannan seemed to suggest that EEA is free movement of _Labour_ only. It required a solid job offer, and included no access to state services/benefits.
You could easily tweak that to a job offer > £x, and an upper limit/transition period.
You still think you are in the driving seat ? Financial Services "passport" is lost for good. They have been given a chance, and they will take it.
The only sensible route now, is annulment of the Brexit vote. Do not send the Article 50 letter. And, say sorry !
What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
Quite so. And the rUK trade links for Scotland are worth approximately 8x what the EU trade is worth so the critical issue is whether Scotland can have a single market with rUK as we have had for the last 300 years or so.
If rUK stay in the single market then the single market between Scotland and rUK remains intact so independence and an application to join the EU is on the table. If the UK is not in the single market an independent Scotland would be committing suicide by applying. The SNP need to wait and see what the outcome is. Ironically, not being in the Single Market makes the chances of the UK breaking up much less but I still think we should go for it.
Indeed. To add, Spain and others would also ensure that Scotland had no standing in Brussles until *after* it had declared independence and joined the UN, then the negotiations on Scottish accession to the EU could begin.
Possibly (although the EU has alternatives).
But even if it is the case that this is the ONLY path to Scotland retaining EU membership, that is exactly what Sturgeon wants - an Independent Scotland. Sturgeon has drawn Rajoy into a trap and he has blundered in despite all the huge warning signs saying "This is an Elephant Trap".
It's hilarious. But it might be reflective of why Spanish politics is where it is right now.
No. He's said step one is independence, step 2 is applying for EU membership. Ms Sturgeon was trying to get EU membership as step 1, then have the indyref as step 2.
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
I don't think any Tory PM would sign up to that, the donors wouldn't be happy.
We will accept free movement and keep our current single market status or we will fully leave and put up full immigration restrictions on EU migrants. Those are the two available options, anything else would be sub-optimal in one way or another.
Mr Hannan seemed to suggest that EEA is free movement of _Labour_ only. It required a solid job offer, and included no access to state services/benefits.
You could easily tweak that to a job offer > £x, and an upper limit/transition period.
You still think you are in the driving seat ? Financial Services "passport" is lost for good. They have been given a chance, and they will take it.
The only sensible route now, is annulment of the Brexit vote. Do not send the Article 50 letter. And, say sorry !
Boris is the only guy who could get away with that.
Legally they would find that very difficult and would be faced with a position whereby the whole EEA deal could collapse. I know they might try but they really are not in a a strong position as far as the treaty itself is concerned to do so.
Why? The treaty would need rewriting anyway whatever happens. The politicians will decide this and then the bureaucrats and lawyers will draw up the legal stuff.
Why will it? It wasn't changed when Sweden and other nations switched from the EFTA leg to the EU leg of the EEA.
Yes it was.
Can you show a link to how it was changed then please?
Just look at the text
The change consisted of a footnote stating that Austria, Sweden and Finland had moved from being members of EFTA to members of the EU. There were no other changes to the treaty. It did not require renegotiation.
Basically under international law if the EU tried to exclude the UK from a treaty which we were existing signatories to then the treaty as a whole would fail.
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
Boris would be committing career suicide if he agreed to that. The Tories would lose the City, whoever loses the City of London loses the nation, in the end. As Charles the First discovered.
A poster on an earlier thread cast some shade on the importance of passporting.
"4) FX is London's largest market and is irrelevant to being in the EU or "Passported", It is London's Largest cash source and it can be traded anywhere in the world. It is traded in London for reasons of skill sets, language, history, infrastructure. The Infrastructure would take at least 10 years to replicate, theoretically it could be but why?
5) Passporting wasn't perfect anyway. It didn't work which is why you saw announcements of banks moving some operations to Europe/Philippines/Bombay. You don't plan this on a whim."
What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
Quite so. And the rUK trade links for Scotland are worth approximately 8x what the EU trade is worth so the critical issue is whether Scotland can have a single market with rUK as we have had for the last 300 years or so.
If rUK stay in the single market then the single market between Scotland and rUK remains intact so independence and an application to join the EU is on the table. If the UK is not in the single market an independent Scotland would be committing suicide by applying. The SNP need to wait and see what the outcome is. Ironically, not being in the Single Market makes the chances of the UK breaking up much less but I still think we should go for it.
Indeed. To add, Spain and others would also ensure that Scotland had no standing in Brussles until *after* it had declared independence and joined the UN, then the negotiations on Scottish accession to the EU could begin.
Possibly (although the EU has alternatives).
But even if it is the case that this is the ONLY path to Scotland retaining EU membership, that is exactly what Sturgeon wants - an Independent Scotland. Sturgeon has drawn Rajoy into a trap and he has blundered in despite all the huge warning signs saying "This is an Elephant Trap".
It's hilarious. But it might be reflective of why Spanish politics is where it is right now.
No. He's said step one is independence, step 2 is applying for EU membership. Ms Sturgeon was trying to get EU membership as step 1, then have the indyref as step 2.
No, he has not.
His only objection is that Scotland should not negotiate while part of the UK.
He makes no comment on a Scotland which has voted for Independence negotiating to inherit UK membership.
We are now at the stage where we just have to hope that the Leave side is right about the economic consequences of Brexit. As I noted last night, the parallels with the Scottish independence referendum are really uncanny in so many ways.
Throughout that campaign the Yes side rubbished every No warning and talked about Project Fear. Independence, they said, would set Scotland free to plot a path to prosperity that Westminster - which took far more from Scotland than it gave back - would never deliver. When No said that the Scottish economy was too reliant on oil revenues this was dismissed. Oil is just a bonus, the Yes side said; and, in any case, we are heading towards a new boom. The experts are talking Scotland down, they are never right, this is just the establishment seeking to protect itself and its vested interests.
Turns out, though, that the establishment was right. That the experts did know what they were talking about. That the data and the stats the Yes side produced were completely wrong. That all the assurances they gave and the claims they made were false. It turns out that if Scotland had voted for independence it would now be embroiled in financial and economic catastrophe. It turns out that Yes was completely and utterly wrong.
Let us hope that Leave aren't wrong. Because if they are, it is going to get very, very unpleasant for a great many of this country's people very quickly.
< I can say with confidence that Salmond would have at least have had a fucking plan which would be being enacted right now.
Even Baldrick had a fucking plan...
And while I agree with you Alex was slightly more prepared than Boris, he would still be winging it.
Euro Sterling Sterlingisation
There is no effective difference between a Sterling zone and sterlingisation. Both offer a future Scottish government the same level of control over currency and interest rates as the UK government currently has - which is virtually none.
Same level of control but with significant disadvantages - Scotland will be not able to borrow at the same rate as the Uk as a sterlingised country . And Scotland would need to borrow a lot to maintain its "progressive" benefits and handouts.
And how many FI will base themselves in Scotland without a lender of last resort ?
What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
Quite so. And the rUK trade links for Scotland are worth approximately 8x what the EU trade is worth so the critical issue is whether Scotland can have a single market with rUK as we have had for the last 300 years or so.
If rUK stay in the single market then the single market between Scotland and rUK remains intact so independence and an application to join the EU is on the table. If the UK is not in the single market an independent Scotland would be committing suicide by applying. The SNP need to wait and see what the outcome is. Ironically, not being in the Single Market makes the chances of the UK breaking up much less but I still think we should go for it.
Indeed. To add, Spain and others would also ensure that Scotland had no standing in Brussles until *after* it had declared independence and joined the UN, then the negotiations on Scottish accession to the EU could begin.
Possibly (although the EU has alternatives).
But even if it is the case that this is the ONLY path to Scotland retaining EU membership, that is exactly what Sturgeon wants - an Independent Scotland. Sturgeon has drawn Rajoy into a trap and he has blundered in despite all the huge warning signs saying "This is an Elephant Trap".
It's hilarious. But it might be reflective of why Spanish politics is where it is right now.
No. He's said step one is independence, step 2 is applying for EU membership. Ms Sturgeon was trying to get EU membership as step 1, then have the indyref as step 2.
No, he has not.
His only objection is that Scotland should not negotiate while part of the UK.
He makes no comment on a Scotland which has voted for Independence negotiating to inherit UK membership.
? I seem to recall we had that argument in the 2014 referendum. As I recall the conclusion was you'd have to apply again.
When Greece needs to be baled out again in the next few months are we still liable for a contribution. I presume we are because if the leave process is not instigated then we remain members Might cause some errrr... Upsets in the UK.
What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
Quite so. And the rUK trade links for Scotland are worth approximately 8x what the EU trade is worth so the critical issue is whether Scotland can have a single market with rUK as we have had for the last 300 years or so.
If rUK stay in the single market then the single market between Scotland and rUK remains intact so independence and an application to join the EU is on the table. If the UK is not in the single market an independent Scotland would be committing suicide by applying. The SNP need to wait and see what the outcome is. Ironically, not being in the Single Market makes the chances of the UK breaking up much less but I still think we should go for it.
Presumably an independent Scotland that remained a member of the EU would like to have the same relationship with the UK as the Republic of Ireland. Why would this not be viable?
It would be viable if rUK is in the single market, there would be no impediment to trade. But if rUK are not then it will not have free trade with either Scotland in the EU or indeed Ireland. It will be outside the customs union, it will be liable to such tariffs as are applicable, it will be outside the VAT union, it frankly does not bear thinking about.
The Scottish economy is completely integrated with the UK economy. Any change in that will cause disruptions approximately 8x what the UK is facing at the moment. Given the facts of history and geography there is no way to avoid that.
We are now at the stage where we just have to hope that the Leave side is right about the economic consequences of Brexit. As I noted last night, the parallels with the Scottish independence referendum are really uncanny in so many ways.
Throughout that campaign the Yes side rubbished every No warning and talked about Project Fear. Independence, they said, would set Scotland free to plot a path to prosperity that Westminster - which took far more from Scotland than it gave back - would never deliver. When No said that the Scottish economy was too reliant on oil revenues this was dismissed. Oil is just a bonus, the Yes side said; and, in any case, we are heading towards a new boom. The experts are talking Scotland down, they are never right, this is just the establishment seeking to protect itself and its vested interests.
Turns out, though, that the establishment was right. That the experts did know what they were talking about. That the data and the stats the Yes side produced were completely wrong. That all the assurances they gave and the claims they made were false. It turns out that if Scotland had voted for independence it would now be embroiled in financial and economic catastrophe. It turns out that Yes was completely and utterly wrong.
Let us hope that Leave aren't wrong. Because if they are, it is going to get very, very unpleasant for a great many of this country's people very quickly.
If I say the moon landings were faked, Elvis is still alive and the Loch Ness Monster is real, oh and the sun will rise tomorrow, then just because the sun rises tomorrow, the other things do not become true.
That seems to be your premise. A projection about oil prices (which was not universally shared by No supporters) came true, so all the other nonsense that No supporters claimed is true. That is an utter nonsense.
Looks like we're either going to be fully in or out of the Single Market
AFP: EU 27 agree 'no single market a la carte' for UK: Tusk
To be fair even if the EU is prepared to agree to an a la carte access they'd start negotiations by saying they're not. You don't start negotiations by giving away everything for free and then start making demands.
Tusk's statements are consistent with the EU's previous voiced position that you can't take what you want and leave what you don't. It does not however rule out taking half of what we want. as long as we take half of what we don't.
It also doesn't rule out the EU agreeing a special agreement in the same way we've had special agreements via opt outs in the past. That they've not agreed to it today does not mean there's no chance of them agreeing to it in the future.
And there is absolutely no reason this should not be a multi-step negotiation. We Brits tend to like to do a deal, come to an agreement and stick to it.
In the Middle East, any deal agreed is simply the starting point of the next negotiation. We should learn from the Israelis and the Arabs. Get what we can from Europe now and renegotiate later. Or, leave completely now without a deal, and wait until they are ready to do the best mutual deal, rather than requiring an element of punishing us.
Ha, so true about the Middle East. We will have a deal, insh'allah.
I take it you know what IBM stands for?
Insha'allah bukra mumkin (God willing, tomorrow, maybe)
or its harsher form
insha'allah bukra ma9laysh (God willing, tomorrow, who cares?)
What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
Quite so. And the rUK trade links for Scotland are worth approximately 8x what the EU trade is worth so the critical issue is whether Scotland can have a single market with rUK as we have had for the last 300 years or so.
If rUK stay in the single market then the single market between Scotland and rUK remains intact so independence and an application to join the EU is on the table. If the UK is not in the single market an independent Scotland would be committing suicide by applying. The SNP need to wait and see what the outcome is. Ironically, not being in the Single Market makes the chances of the UK breaking up much less but I still think we should go for it.
Indeed. To add, Spain and others would also ensure that Scotland had no standing in Brussles until *after* it had declared independence and joined the UN, then the negotiations on Scottish accession to the EU could begin.
Possibly (although the EU has alternatives).
But even if it is the case that this is the ONLY path to Scotland retaining EU membership, that is exactly what Sturgeon wants - an Independent Scotland. Sturgeon has drawn Rajoy into a trap and he has blundered in despite all the huge warning signs saying "This is an Elephant Trap".
It's hilarious. But it might be reflective of why Spanish politics is where it is right now.
No. He's said step one is independence, step 2 is applying for EU membership. Ms Sturgeon was trying to get EU membership as step 1, then have the indyref as step 2.
No, he has not.
His only objection is that Scotland should not negotiate while part of the UK.
He makes no comment on a Scotland which has voted for Independence negotiating to inherit UK membership.
What? If Scotland is no longer part of the UK, how can it 'inherit' something which it has already lost, probably twice over given that it can't inherit a UK right when it's not part of the UK and which the UK will already have given up.
Hopefully, Corbyn will now purge the traitors from the Labour Party.
What a bunch of muppets the resigners will look if the challenge doesn't materialise. All they will have achieved will be the shutting down of the parliamentary Opposition.
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
I don't think any Tory PM would sign up to that, the donors wouldn't be happy.
We will accept free movement and keep our current single market status or we will fully leave and put up full immigration restrictions on EU migrants. Those are the two available options, anything else would be sub-optimal in one way or another.
Mr Hannan seemed to suggest that EEA is free movement of _Labour_ only. It required a solid job offer, and included no access to state services/benefits.
You could easily tweak that to a job offer > £x, and an upper limit/transition period.
You still think you are in the driving seat ? Financial Services "passport" is lost for good. They have been given a chance, and they will take it.
The only sensible route now, is annulment of the Brexit vote. Do not send the Article 50 letter. And, say sorry !
Not going to happen Surbiton. And I am very pleased.
< I can say with confidence that Salmond would have at least have had a fucking plan which would be being enacted right now.
Even Baldrick had a fucking plan...
And while I agree with you Alex was slightly more prepared than Boris, he would still be winging it.
Euro Sterling Sterlingisation
There is no effective difference between a Sterling zone and sterlingisation. Both offer a future Scottish government the same level of control over currency and interest rates as the UK government currently has - which is virtually none.
Same level of control but with significant disadvantages - Scotland will be not able to borrow at the same rate as the Uk as a sterlingised country . And Scotland would need to borrow a lot to maintain its "progressive" benefits and handouts.
And how many FI will base themselves in Scotland without a lender of last resort ?
The lending is moot because you don't know the answer. Its also moot what level that borrowing would be.
As for FIs, Panama has the biggest financial sector in the Americas outside of the US. Its banks (of which it has a huge number) are also the best capitalised in the world. Not that there is even a need for Scotland not to institute a similar Insurance scheme to the BoE Lender of Last Resort scheme. Its just a commercial contract after all.
I know it's a 24/7 world and so on, but I'll echo the apocryphal story of Mao when he was asked about the consequences of the French Revolution: "It's too early to tell".
We will never know if it would have been better to have voted NoBrexit. That world has flowed down a different trouser leg of time.
We won't clearly know what the true consequences of Brexit are for several years. Collectively, we're all floating somewhere between Pangloss and Jeremiah. In reality, nothing is ever an unalloyed good, and every cloud does have a silver lining.
I shall now return you to your regular diet of triumphalism and doom-mongering .
Imagine if the referendum and Holyrood elections where the other way round. How many MSPs do you think Ruth would have?
Substantially lower. Although there remains a strong strand of Scottish Conservatism that the AMS protects she got all her ducks in a row for the election with the assistance of Kezia who decided she and SLAB were neither fish nor fowl and having decided to be Scottish vegan found the voters liked a bit of raw meat on the menu.
Despite losing her majority Sturgeon is faced with a damaged SCON official opposition, a wounded SLAB, marginally more effective LibDems and Scottish Greens as regular allies.
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
Boris would be committing career suicide if he agreed to that. The Tories would lose the City, whoever loses the City of London loses the nation, in the end. As Charles the First discovered.
Go and read Travelgall's posts and have a think. If what he says is true (especially the common law bit) and given the 20 years of attempts by Paris and Frankfurt to undermine London it probably is true, that passport may be far less important than the EU think...
Especially as finance is getting far more automated and now requires fewer (albeit, even more specialised and expensive) staff
What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
Quite so. And the rUK trade links for Scotland are worth approximately 8x what the EU trade is worth so the critical issue is whether Scotland can have a single market with rUK as we have had for the last 300 years or so.
If rUK stay in the single market then the single market between Scotland and rUK remains intact so independence and an application to join the EU is on the table. If the UK is not in the single market an independent Scotland would be committing suicide by applying. The SNP need to wait and see what the outcome is. Ironically, not being in the Single Market makes the chances of the UK breaking up much less but I still think we should go for it.
Indeed. To add, Spain and others would also ensure that Scotland had no standing in Brussles until *after* it had declared independence and joined the UN, then the negotiations on Scottish accession to the EU could begin.
Possibly (although the EU has alternatives).
But even if it is the case that this is the ONLY path to Scotland retaining EU membership, that is exactly what Sturgeon wants - an Independent Scotland. Sturgeon has drawn Rajoy into a trap and he has blundered in despite all the huge warning signs saying "This is an Elephant Trap".
It's hilarious. But it might be reflective of why Spanish politics is where it is right now.
No. He's said step one is independence, step 2 is applying for EU membership. Ms Sturgeon was trying to get EU membership as step 1, then have the indyref as step 2.
No, he has not.
His only objection is that Scotland should not negotiate while part of the UK.
Even that part is not something under his control. The key element of his statement is that if the UK leaves, Scotland leaves. This puts inverse Greenland-style solutions off the table and means that to maintain EU membership, Scotland has to be independent.
What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
This punts a 2nd Sindyref into the long grass, it's clearly going to be years before we finally leave the EU (if we do). We might not trigger A50 until God-knows-when.
There are two possible states for a no-A50 world. One in which the Government announces it won't do it and we revert to the expectation that it wouldn't happen without a(nother) referendum (ie, the situation as it was last Thursday) and one in which A50 hasn't been triggered but no-one has publicly conceded that it won't be. We are a long way from the first situation but the second is not so hard to imagine. It would mean Article 50 was always lurking in the background of UK politics, being agitated for, half-promised, not quite happening until one day it either did happen or we switched to the first scenario.
What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
Quite so. And the rUK trade links for Scotland are worth approximately 8x what the EU trade is worth so the critical issue is whether Scotland can have a single market with rUK as we have had for the last 300 years or so.
If rUK stay in the single market then the single market between Scotland and rUK remains intact so independence and an application to join the EU is on the table. If the UK is not in the single market an independent Scotland would be committing suicide by applying. The SNP need to wait and see what the outcome is. Ironically, not being in the Single Market makes the chances of the UK breaking up much less but I still think we should go for it.
Indeed. To add, Spain and others would also ensure that Scotland had no standing in Brussles until *after* it had declared independence and joined the UN, then the negotiations on Scottish accession to the EU could begin.
Possibly (although the EU has alternatives).
But even if it is the case that this is the ONLY path to Scotland retaining EU membership, that is exactly what Sturgeon wants - an Independent Scotland. Sturgeon has drawn Rajoy into a trap and he has blundered in despite all the huge warning signs saying "This is an Elephant Trap".
It's hilarious. But it might be reflective of why Spanish politics is where it is right now.
No. He's said step one is independence, step 2 is applying for EU membership. Ms Sturgeon was trying to get EU membership as step 1, then have the indyref as step 2.
No, he has not.
His only objection is that Scotland should not negotiate while part of the UK.
Even that part is not something under his control. The key element of his statement is that if the UK leaves, Scotland leaves. This puts inverse Greenland-style solutions off the table and means that to maintain EU membership, Scotland has to be independent.
Would Scotland truly be independent, if she rejoins the EU?
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
Boris would be committing career suicide if he agreed to that. The Tories would lose the City, whoever loses the City of London loses the nation, in the end. As Charles the First discovered.
Go and read Travelgall's posts and have a think. If what he says is true (especially the common law bit) and given the 20 years of attempts by Paris and Frankfurt to undermine London it probably is true, that passport may be far less important than the EU think...
All the focus seems to be on financial services and the city. One wonders if people didn't see what the map of the referendum result was telling them! I was speaking to someone yesterday involved in medical trials. It's all done under an EU framework. The whole office was terrified of what leaving might mean. She cited the example of Switzerland that has apparently had real problems. In spite of my constant monitoring of pb, I was unable to reassure her. Don't know what anyone else knows but it might just be other sectors other than finance and 'EU passports' that have problems.
But Scotland could ask for favourable terms when they wish to join after sindy [ if ] as they were already in the EU.
They could and you may be right. . On the other hand this would only Stoke up all the other independence movements around the EU to see that a precedent had been set. Not sure that would go down well with central governments which brings us back to Spain's position whoever is in charge in Madrid.
What did they expect? There's no way a second Scottish referendum can take place during the EU negotiations, there would be too many balls in the air at the same time and people would be voting on hypothetical results of in-progress negotiations.
Scotland is not a sovereign state. That's all there is to it. Nicola should stop wasting her own and everyone else's time.
Ms Sturgeon was trying to get EU membership as step 1, then have the indyref as step 2.
Wouldn't it be a major breach of diplomatic protocol for EU representatives or foreign diplomats to negotiate matters with Nicola Sturgeon that are dependent on Scottish independence, unless they are given the OK by the Foreign Office? Keeping informed is one thing; negotiating is another.
His only objection is that Scotland should not negotiate while part of the UK.
Even that part is not something under his control. The key element of his statement is that if the UK leaves, Scotland leaves. This puts inverse Greenland-style solutions off the table and means that to maintain EU membership, Scotland has to be independent.
Yes, I agree.
It is such an enormous blunder by Rajoy. I wonder how it managed to get released given its clear implications.
< I can say with confidence that Salmond would have at least have had a fucking plan which would be being enacted right now.
Even Baldrick had a fucking plan...
And while I agree with you Alex was slightly more prepared than Boris, he would still be winging it.
Euro Sterling Sterlingisation
There is no effective difference between a Sterling zone and sterlingisation. Both offer a future Scottish government the same level of control over currency and interest rates as the UK government currently has - which is virtually none.
Same level of control but with significant disadvantages - Scotland will be not able to borrow at the same rate as the Uk as a sterlingised country . And Scotland would need to borrow a lot to maintain its "progressive" benefits and handouts.
And how many FI will base themselves in Scotland without a lender of last resort ?
The lending is moot because you don't know the answer. Its also moot what level that borrowing would be.
As for FIs, Panama has the biggest financial sector in the Americas outside of the US. Its banks (of which it has a huge number) are also the best capitalised in the world. Not that there is even a need for Scotland not to institute a similar Insurance scheme to the BoE Lender of Last Resort scheme. Its just a commercial contract after all.
Name a dollarised country that can borrow at a cheaper rate than the nation of the home currency ?
And Panama has FI's because of lack of tax. End of - is that what Nicola is offering Scotland up as to the EU - a tax haven ? Bon chance..
Whilst the Leadership campaigns claim the media's attention, there is a really assiduous effort going on to get this referendum vote overturned, particularly from Labour and the SNP (also certain members of the government). It's a pretty safe bet to say Lords' Heseltine, Ashdown and Mandelson are the prime movers.
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
Boris would be committing career suicide if he agreed to that. The Tories would lose the City, whoever loses the City of London loses the nation, in the end. As Charles the First discovered.
A poster on an earlier thread cast some shade on the importance of passporting.
"4) FX is London's largest market and is irrelevant to being in the EU or "Passported", It is London's Largest cash source and it can be traded anywhere in the world. It is traded in London for reasons of skill sets, language, history, infrastructure. The Infrastructure would take at least 10 years to replicate, theoretically it could be but why?
5) Passporting wasn't perfect anyway. It didn't work which is why you saw announcements of banks moving some operations to Europe/Philippines/Bombay. You don't plan this on a whim."
I know it's a 24/7 world and so on, but I'll echo the apocryphal story of Mao when he was asked about the consequences of the French Revolution: "It's too early to tell".
We will never know if it would have been better to have voted NoBrexit. That world has flowed down a different trouser leg of time.
We won't clearly know what the true consequences of Brexit are for several years. Collectively, we're all floating somewhere between Pangloss and Jeremiah. In reality, nothing is ever an unalloyed good, and every cloud does have a silver lining.
I shall now return you to your regular diet of triumphalism and doom-mongering .
I don't entirely agree, provided the EU holds together. In that case, it will be possible to look back in five or ten years time and compare the EU economic performance with our own, both before and after Brexit (as well as the period intervening, which could be quite extended!) and draw some conclusions. For example, if the fortunes of the UK do happen now to turn downward a la the worst of Project Fear's warnings, it will be reasonably evident.
If, of course, the whole EU starts to disintegrate, then I agree it will be difficult to draw clear conclusions, since no-one will really know how things would have turned out had the UK vote gone the other way. Unless WWIII starts, of course, which would clearly be Boris's fault.
All the focus seems to be on financial services and the city. One wonders if people didn't see what the map of the referendum result was telling them! I was speaking to someone yesterday involved in medical trials. It's all done under an EU framework. The whole office was terrified of what leaving might mean. She cited the example of Switzerland that has apparently had real problems. In spite of my constant monitoring of pb, I was unable to reassure her. Don't know what anyone else knows but it might just be other sectors other than finance and 'EU passports' that have problems.
I know it's a 24/7 world and so on, but I'll echo the apocryphal story of Mao when he was asked about the consequences of the French Revolution: "It's too early to tell".
We will never know if it would have been better to have voted NoBrexit. That world has flowed down a different trouser leg of time.
We won't clearly know what the true consequences of Brexit are for several years. Collectively, we're all floating somewhere between Pangloss and Jeremiah. In reality, nothing is ever an unalloyed good, and every cloud does have a silver lining.
I shall now return you to your regular diet of triumphalism and doom-mongering .
I don't entirely agree, provided the EU holds together. In that case, it will be possible to look back in five or ten years time and compare the EU economic performance with our own, both before and after Brexit (as well as the period intervening, which could be quite extended!) and draw some conclusions. For example, if the fortunes of the UK do happen now to turn downward a la the worst of Project Fear's warnings, it will be reasonably evident.
If, of course, the whole EU starts to disintegrate, then I agree it will be difficult to draw clear conclusions, since no-one will really know how things would have turned out had the UK vote gone the other way. Unless WWIII starts, of course, which would clearly be Boris's fault.
Don't forget the plagues of locusts... and the zombie apocalypse!
I seem to have entered a nether world in which I am right about absolutely everything (except England losing to Iceland).
That said, if Rajoy were no longer Spanish PM the situation might change very quickly. The Scottish situation is not analogous to Catalonia declaring independence and then looking for fast track EU entry.
All the expectations are that he will head the government - albeit minority - probably for the next 4 years. The alternative is more elections and I think the voters would be likely to punish the opposition even more this time than they did on Sunday.
Re Scotland, and this may be lawyerly semantics on my part, but can we assume that 61% wanting "the UK to remain in the EU" equates to 61% wanting "Scotland to remain in the EU"?
Sturgeon et al say that 61% of Scots wanted Scotland to remain in the EU, but that's not strictly true is it?
He or she makes good points, but it's not a binary choice between the fears being hogwash and the worst fears being 100% certain. No-one is claiming that, even in the worst case, the City is doomed by Brexit (well, actually a senior banker friend of mine did say that). What people are saying is that the City will be severely damaged, especially if financial passporting is not available.
Whilst the Leadership campaigns claim the media's attention, there is a really assiduous effort going on to get this referendum vote overturned, particularly from Labour and the SNP (also certain members of the government). It's a pretty safe bet to say Lords' Heseltine, Ashdown and Mandelson are the prime movers.
Shocked that people are suggesting the referendum can be ignored and we carry on as before.
If that happens I can see a UKIP government and Farage (or his successor) as Prime Minister in ten years.
The political class seem not to have realized the anger that is engulfing them in vast swathe's of the population. That anger will turn to revolution if nothing is done.
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
Sad but true. And probably we'll be have to pay more to the EU than we are currently. Genius.
Yes - i think the NHS are probably not going to get quite the full £350m promised - maybe have to forget the million part of the offer
I know it's a 24/7 world and so on, but I'll echo the apocryphal story of Mao when he was asked about the consequences of the French Revolution: "It's too early to tell".
We will never know if it would have been better to have voted NoBrexit. That world has flowed down a different trouser leg of time.
We won't clearly know what the true consequences of Brexit are for several years. Collectively, we're all floating somewhere between Pangloss and Jeremiah. In reality, nothing is ever an unalloyed good, and every cloud does have a silver lining.
I shall now return you to your regular diet of triumphalism and doom-mongering .
With regard to the Mao quotation, purely in the interests of pedantry, and because I’m busily indulging in displacement activity, I should point out that according to a Myth Busting entry in Wikipedia a) Zhou Enlai, Mao’s PM said it and b) he was referring to the student uprising in Paris in May 1968.
I know it's a 24/7 world and so on, but I'll echo the apocryphal story of Mao when he was asked about the consequences of the French Revolution: "It's too early to tell".
We will never know if it would have been better to have voted NoBrexit. That world has flowed down a different trouser leg of time.
We won't clearly know what the true consequences of Brexit are for several years. Collectively, we're all floating somewhere between Pangloss and Jeremiah. In reality, nothing is ever an unalloyed good, and every cloud does have a silver lining.
I shall now return you to your regular diet of triumphalism and doom-mongering .
I don't entirely agree, provided the EU holds together. In that case, it will be possible to look back in five or ten years time and compare the EU economic performance with our own, both before and after Brexit (as well as the period intervening, which could be quite extended!) and draw some conclusions. For example, if the fortunes of the UK do happen now to turn downward a la the worst of Project Fear's warnings, it will be reasonably evident.
If, of course, the whole EU starts to disintegrate, then I agree it will be difficult to draw clear conclusions, since no-one will really know how things would have turned out had the UK vote gone the other way. Unless WWIII starts, of course, which would clearly be Boris's fault.
This will come over as blase I'm sure. The world is getting richer. Few, if any countries are getting poorer (Greece is probably a notable exception). I've not seen any forecast where the world suddenly starts to become poorer en masse. It's a little bit venerable, but PWC had a forecast of the World in 2050 which outlines the opportunities and risks. Sure, it's only a model, but...
Even the IFS report, much quoted by "Project Fear" was really talking about growth trend rates, i.e. the rate at which the country would become richer. I could buy an argument that we would become relatively poorer (c.f. the explosion of joy from the Doomsters when the UK momentarily became the world's 6th largest economy earlier this week), but that's mere sophistry.
There are always black swans; perhaps the City will decamp en masse to Frankfurt. That would be terrible of course. I just think it will all end up slightly worse than we hoped yet better than we feared.
So, would an "independent" Scotland within the EU be a net contributor, or a net recipient of taxpayers' EU money?
*innocent face*
Apparently, Scotland would be the poorest country in Europe the World but still be paying the highest per capita contribution to the EU budget.
Unionism is rarely consistent.
The rest of the UK would be better off though.... I heard a fair few people south of the border listen to Sturgeon on Friday Morning and wished Scotland Good Riddance ..
Re Scotland, and this may be lawyerly semantics on my part, but can we assume that 61% wanting "the UK to remain in the EU" equates to 61% wanting "Scotland to remain in the EU"?
Sturgeon et al say that 61% of Scots wanted Scotland to remain in the EU, but that's not strictly true is it?
The referendum question asked us all,
"Should the UNITED KINGDOM remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union?"
I know it's a 24/7 world and so on, but I'll echo the apocryphal story of Mao when he was asked about the consequences of the French Revolution: "It's too early to tell".
We will never know if it would have been better to have voted NoBrexit. That world has flowed down a different trouser leg of time.
We won't clearly know what the true consequences of Brexit are for several years. Collectively, we're all floating somewhere between Pangloss and Jeremiah. In reality, nothing is ever an unalloyed good, and every cloud does have a silver lining.
I shall now return you to your regular diet of triumphalism and doom-mongering .
With regard to the Mao quotation, purely in the interests of pedantry, and because I’m busily indulging in displacement activity, I should point out that according to a Myth Busting entry in Wikipedia a) Zhou Enlai, Mao’s PM said it and b) he was referring to the student uprising in Paris in May 1968.
Hence the 'apocryphal'. It was a translation hiccough.
So, here's what will happen. We will be offered an EEA-style deal that allows us a level of control over migration and full access tot he Single Market, with one exception - passporting for the City will be excluded. What a great deal - only the bakers will be hurt!!
Is there a Tory PM who would sign up to that?
The Leavers have so miscalculated the strength of the UK's hand it is unbelievable.
Good luck Boris :-D
Boris would be committing career suicide if he agreed to that. The Tories would lose the City, whoever loses the City of London loses the nation, in the end. As Charles the First discovered.
A poster on an earlier thread cast some shade on the importance of passporting.
"4) FX is London's largest market and is irrelevant to being in the EU or "Passported", It is London's Largest cash source and it can be traded anywhere in the world. It is traded in London for reasons of skill sets, language, history, infrastructure. The Infrastructure would take at least 10 years to replicate, theoretically it could be but why?
5) Passporting wasn't perfect anyway. It didn't work which is why you saw announcements of banks moving some operations to Europe/Philippines/Bombay. You don't plan this on a whim."
Comments
Now, now......form an orderly queue
I don't know if its incompetence or naivety but Rajoy's statement is basically telling Scotland to become Independent first. The stupidity of it (especially from a man with no mandate) is quite incredible.
Mr. Enjineeya, in the short term, bilateral trade tends to decline even when there's a velvet divorce.
The rise of Scottish, and perhaps English, nationalism will exacerbate this. I imagine bickering over divorce terms (particularly debt) may poison the well a little more.
Hopefully things could be as amicable as possible.
I am told 13,000 people joined Labour last week, with 60% giving the reason they are "supporting Corbyn".... http://facebook.com/pestonitv/posts/1647697078888364 …
And while I agree with you Alex was slightly more prepared than Boris, he would still be winging it.
EuroSterling
Sterlingisation
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1154756/#Comment_1154756
I'm not turning into a Lib Dem, I promise.
Unless you want a UKIP government and Prime Minister Farage we're going to have to see a huge change... But we can hopefully stay in the EEA and single market (in return we have to accept freedom of movement)
And UKIP go into the next election plastering every labour safe seat with "LEAVE MEANS LEAVE" posters.
Tommy Mair wins.
Little over a year ago the media would turn up in droves for the LibDem Deputy PM opening an envelope and now if Farron opened the Holy Grail it would barely get a mention in the Westmorland Church Flower Group Quarterly Newsletter.
But even if it is the case that this is the ONLY path to Scotland retaining EU membership, that is exactly what Sturgeon wants - an Independent Scotland. Sturgeon has drawn Rajoy into a trap and he has blundered in despite all the huge warning signs saying "This is an Elephant Trap".
It's hilarious. But it might be reflective of why Spanish politics is where it is right now.
Whatever one thinks about the tumultuous events of the last week, this is a political argument that is long overdue.
People have been trying very hard to usurp the Bay/Valley tech sector for decades. They've been unsuccessful for very similar reasons.
The only sensible route now, is annulment of the Brexit vote. Do not send the Article 50 letter. And, say sorry !
http://order-order.com/2016/06/29/corbynistas-weaponise-cameron/
Basically under international law if the EU tried to exclude the UK from a treaty which we were existing signatories to then the treaty as a whole would fail.
"4) FX is London's largest market and is irrelevant to being in the EU or "Passported", It is London's Largest cash source and it can be traded anywhere in the world. It is traded in London for reasons of skill sets, language, history, infrastructure. The Infrastructure would take at least 10 years to replicate, theoretically it could be but why?
5) Passporting wasn't perfect anyway. It didn't work which is why you saw announcements of banks moving some operations to Europe/Philippines/Bombay. You don't plan this on a whim."
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1154756/#Comment_1154756
Anyone – @rcs1000, @Richard_Tyndall, @MaxPB, @Richard_Nabavi, @AlastairMeeks, @SeanT @SouthamObserver etc etc ?
If so what's your opinion? Mine is that @Travelgall has made an excellent case that those fears are hogwash.
His only objection is that Scotland should not negotiate while part of the UK.
He makes no comment on a Scotland which has voted for Independence negotiating to inherit UK membership.
We are now at the stage where we just have to hope that the Leave side is right about the economic consequences of Brexit. As I noted last night, the parallels with the Scottish independence referendum are really uncanny in so many ways.
Throughout that campaign the Yes side rubbished every No warning and talked about Project Fear. Independence, they said, would set Scotland free to plot a path to prosperity that Westminster - which took far more from Scotland than it gave back - would never deliver. When No said that the Scottish economy was too reliant on oil revenues this was dismissed. Oil is just a bonus, the Yes side said; and, in any case, we are heading towards a new boom. The experts are talking Scotland down, they are never right, this is just the establishment seeking to protect itself and its vested interests.
Turns out, though, that the establishment was right. That the experts did know what they were talking about. That the data and the stats the Yes side produced were completely wrong. That all the assurances they gave and the claims they made were false. It turns out that if Scotland had voted for independence it would now be embroiled in financial and economic catastrophe. It turns out that Yes was completely and utterly wrong.
Let us hope that Leave aren't wrong. Because if they are, it is going to get very, very unpleasant for a great many of this country's people very quickly.
As the pound powers back through 1.35 and countries fall over themselves to do trade deals with us, I think I'll disagree with you.
Same level of control but with significant disadvantages - Scotland will be not able to borrow at the same rate as the Uk as a sterlingised country . And Scotland would need to borrow a lot to maintain its "progressive" benefits and handouts.
And how many FI will base themselves in Scotland without a lender of last resort ?
I seem to recall we had that argument in the 2014 referendum. As I recall the conclusion was you'd have to apply again.
Might cause some errrr... Upsets in the UK.
The Scottish economy is completely integrated with the UK economy. Any change in that will cause disruptions approximately 8x what the UK is facing at the moment. Given the facts of history and geography there is no way to avoid that.
That seems to be your premise. A projection about oil prices (which was not universally shared by No supporters) came true, so all the other nonsense that No supporters claimed is true. That is an utter nonsense.
Insha'allah bukra mumkin (God willing, tomorrow, maybe)
or its harsher form
insha'allah bukra ma9laysh (God willing, tomorrow, who cares?)
As for FIs, Panama has the biggest financial sector in the Americas outside of the US. Its banks (of which it has a huge number) are also the best capitalised in the world. Not that there is even a need for Scotland not to institute a similar Insurance scheme to the BoE Lender of Last Resort scheme. Its just a commercial contract after all.
We will never know if it would have been better to have voted NoBrexit. That world has flowed down a different trouser leg of time.
We won't clearly know what the true consequences of Brexit are for several years. Collectively, we're all floating somewhere between Pangloss and Jeremiah. In reality, nothing is ever an unalloyed good, and every cloud does have a silver lining.
I shall now return you to your regular diet of triumphalism and doom-mongering
Despite losing her majority Sturgeon is faced with a damaged SCON official opposition, a wounded SLAB, marginally more effective LibDems and Scottish Greens as regular allies.
Especially as finance is getting far more automated and now requires fewer (albeit, even more specialised and expensive) staff
It is such an enormous blunder by Rajoy. I wonder how it managed to get released given its clear implications.
And Panama has FI's because of lack of tax. End of - is that what Nicola is offering Scotland up as to the EU - a tax haven ? Bon chance..
Surely free of EU constraints prime London will soar !
If, of course, the whole EU starts to disintegrate, then I agree it will be difficult to draw clear conclusions, since no-one will really know how things would have turned out had the UK vote gone the other way. Unless WWIII starts, of course, which would clearly be Boris's fault.
taxpayers'EU money?*innocent face*
http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/about_us/general/general_content_000235.jsp&mid=
This won't happen:
http://united-kingdom.taylorwessing.com/synapse/ti_london_ls_capital.html
Europethe World but still be paying the highest per capita contribution to the EU budget.Unionism is rarely consistent.
Sturgeon et al say that 61% of Scots wanted Scotland to remain in the EU, but that's not strictly true is it?
2016 General Election
Clinton 42% Trump 40%
Quinnipiac
Shocked that people are suggesting the referendum can be ignored and we carry on as before.
If that happens I can see a UKIP government and Farage (or his successor) as Prime Minister in ten years.
The political class seem not to have realized the anger that is engulfing them in vast swathe's of the population. That anger will turn to revolution if nothing is done.
They have been warned,
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/04/14/article-2129426-1295255C000005DC-591_634x804.jpg
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/748155591894437888
Even the IFS report, much quoted by "Project Fear" was really talking about growth trend rates, i.e. the rate at which the country would become richer. I could buy an argument that we would become relatively poorer (c.f. the explosion of joy from the Doomsters when the UK momentarily became the world's 6th largest economy earlier this week), but that's mere sophistry.
There are always black swans; perhaps the City will decamp en masse to Frankfurt. That would be terrible of course. I just think it will all end up slightly worse than we hoped yet better than we feared.
https://twitter.com/timharford/status/748131011544948737
"Should the UNITED KINGDOM remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union?"
(my caps)
Benefitsland.