I'm increasingly convinced Scots won't even call a new indyref, let alone go indy. The economics have not changed. Scotland is bankrupt, without England, with oil at $70, let alone $50 (where it is now).
Economics did not win the Brexit vote.
The SNP will lie to the electorate as the Brexiteers did in order to win a vote
The details can be sorted out later...
In the immediate aftermath of the leave vote Panel base had a poll which put Yes on 52 and No on 48. That's a 7 point swing from the result, literally days after the vote when the anger about the split between England and Scotland's votes was at its fiercest. With panel base as well who were the most favourable to Yes throughout the IndyRef campaign.
In the remain bubble it might seem that enough people are swayed by EU membership, but the numbers don't line up. If a second referendum was held tomorrow I'd expext a result of about 53% for No, if it were held after a deal which keeps us in the single market then I would expect a result of 58-60% for No. The fundamentals for Scotland are poorer this time than last time.
Remain lost the economic arguments because they were based on the nebulous idea of potential lost GDP. That's not something people can easily understand or put into context. The No campaign's economic arguments will be the price of Brent and the GERS deficit figure. Those are tangible numbers that people know and understand, neither favour Yes as they did two years ago.
I'm increasingly convinced Scots won't even call a new indyref, let alone go indy. The economics have not changed. Scotland is bankrupt, without England, with oil at $70, let alone $50 (where it is now).
Economics did not win the Brexit vote.
The SNP will lie to the electorate as the Brexiteers did in order to win a vote
The details can be sorted out later...
But the opponents of the SNP will also lie to the electorate .... just like the Remainiacs did. So it will balance out.
The No campaign's economic arguments will be the price of Brent and the GERS deficit figure. Those are tangible numbers that people know and understand, neither favour Yes as they did two years ago.
The SNP are explicitly denying those numbers already.
For the morning star, take that in for a moment. A newspaper with a circulation of less than 10,000 and she is writing big time columns for it. Peter Madelson is probably weeping in a corner somewhere, wondering why he gave his youth (and a bad 'tache) to a cause that would later throw itself into obscurity.
Imagine a parallel history in which Mandelson joined the SDP instead of helping Kinnock save Labour.
Yeah, very quiet for all of a day. WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
The No campaign's economic arguments will be the price of Brent and the GERS deficit figure. Those are tangible numbers that people know and understand, neither favour Yes as they did two years ago.
The SNP are explicitly denying those numbers already.
@scotsdiaspora: Of course this was bound to happen. "Wales told not to expect same level of funding as from EU after voting Brexit" https://t.co/2ea4VWMW8f
The No campaign's economic arguments will be the price of Brent and the GERS deficit figure. Those are tangible numbers that people know and understand, neither favour Yes as they did two years ago.
The SNP are explicitly denying those numbers already.
Explicitly denying the oil price?
Bonus not a basis. it's like your aren't even paying attention.
The No campaign's economic arguments will be the price of Brent and the GERS deficit figure. Those are tangible numbers that people know and understand, neither favour Yes as they did two years ago.
The SNP are explicitly denying those numbers already.
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
The No campaign's economic arguments will be the price of Brent and the GERS deficit figure. Those are tangible numbers that people know and understand, neither favour Yes as they did two years ago.
The SNP are explicitly denying those numbers already.
It's still there in black and white. Not in some dodgy Treasury document that was immediately disowned by the Bank of England. Remain didn't win the economic argument as much as they like to believe. They thought dodgy dossiers from the Treasury would be enough, and to this day they believe it was, but they probably lost it.
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
Did she say that, or did she say they will be asked to contribute? I have been reading conflicting reports all day.
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
I wonder how bold she plans to be about constitutional reform within the UK. It could be that the UK that Brexits looks very different to the UK of today.
The No campaign's economic arguments will be the price of Brent and the GERS deficit figure. Those are tangible numbers that people know and understand, neither favour Yes as they did two years ago.
The SNP are explicitly denying those numbers already.
Explicitly denying the oil price?
Bonus not a basis. it's like your aren't even paying attention.
So the level of employment in Aberdeen has no impact on the Scottish economy?
The No campaign's economic arguments will be the price of Brent and the GERS deficit figure. Those are tangible numbers that people know and understand, neither favour Yes as they did two years ago.
The SNP are explicitly denying those numbers already.
Explicitly denying the oil price?
Bonus not a basis. it's like your aren't even paying attention.
So the level of employment in Aberdeen has no impact on the Scottish economy?
Employment is just a bonus for the SNP. Apparently.
Beads, they are going to suggest beads. Or carved bone fragments.
It's a shame you're just an inconsequential, anonymous poster on an obscure website. We really need some Tory mps, preferably cabinet level, spouting this sort of stuff.
The No campaign's economic arguments will be the price of Brent and the GERS deficit figure. Those are tangible numbers that people know and understand, neither favour Yes as they did two years ago.
The SNP are explicitly denying those numbers already.
Explicitly denying the oil price?
Bonus not a basis. it's like your aren't even paying attention.
So the level of employment in Aberdeen has no impact on the Scottish economy?
Employment is just a bonus for the SNP. Apparently.
Of course. The old "price worth paying" philosophy
Beads, they are going to suggest beads. Or carved bone fragments.
It's a shame you're just an inconsequential, anonymous poster on an obscure website. We really need some Tory mps, preferably cabinet level, spouting this sort of stuff.
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
I wonder how bold she plans to be about constitutional reform within the UK. It could be that the UK that Brexits looks very different to the UK of today.
Yes. May has two choices (or rather, she can ride one wave, and take an opportunity). EIther gamble that the economics of Sindy II are outrageously bad, or come up with a better constitutional settlement. Home rule for Scotland? Or is it "Independence or bust" for the Nats?
This is a silly discussion. There won't be a second Indy referendum. It's just making the nats here feel warm and cuddly again till they wake up and remember they lost. This time being oddly cheered on by lachrymose Remains who can't take the fact that they lost the EUref and want DOOM for everyone until Auntie Theresa tells them it's all been a bad dream.
On these stats May should probably call a GE. Crush Labour.
She'd get a big fat majority. And Labour would remain riven and doomed as the membership cried foul. At the next election after that, in 2021, or 2022, she'd likely be facing UKIP rather than Labour as main opposition.
Don't you think a GE would turn into another remain and leave argument with labour and lib dems promising a vote for them is a vote to remain in the EU.
It could hit a tory majority,especially down south where the lib dems are challenging.
Indeed. GE massively dangerous for Con because:
- Lab + LD will say if you want to Remain you must vote Lab/LD, we'll keep UK in EU
- UKIP will say Con/Lab/LD all led by Remain - if you want to Leave you must vote UKIP
So incredibly unpredictable situation - Con left in awkward position between two stools.
UKIP could win large number of seats, including many gains from Con. Con could easily lose majority.
Beads, they are going to suggest beads. Or carved bone fragments.
It's a shame you're just an inconsequential, anonymous poster on an obscure website. We really need some Tory mps, preferably cabinet level, spouting this sort of stuff.
I'm sure if I send some green ink letters to them, they will soon listen.
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
Yeah, very quiet for all of a day. WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
Sturgeon knows an indyref 2 would be lost in these circumstances. She is no fool. She won't call a vote. Tho she will huff and puff about it, mightily, to please the troops.
If the Republic of Ireland follows us out of the EU in 3-5 years, there might be another opportunity for Scotland in the creation of a federal British Isles.
Yeah, very quiet for all of a day. WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
Sturgeon knows an indyref 2 would be lost in these circumstances. She is no fool. She won't call a vote. Tho she will huff and puff about it, mightily, to please the troops.
If the Republic of Ireland follows us out of the EU in 3-5 years, there might be another opportunity for Scotland in the creation of a federal British Isles.
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
I wonder how bold she plans to be about constitutional reform within the UK. It could be that the UK that Brexits looks very different to the UK of today.
I think she will probably offer Scotland EFTA/EEA plus and more powers for Holyrood
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
I wonder how bold she plans to be about constitutional reform within the UK. It could be that the UK that Brexits looks very different to the UK of today.
Yes. May has two choices (or rather, she can ride one wave, and take an opportunity). EIther gamble that the economics of Sindy II are outrageously bad, or come up with a better constitutional settlement. Home rule for Scotland? Or is it "Independence or bust" for the Nats?
Of course May can't pretend that she wasn't warned of this potential consequence of Brexit. It'll be up to her if she wants to consider the person issuing the warning as a clueless numpty.
Yeah, very quiet for all of a day. WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
Sturgeon knows an indyref 2 would be lost in these circumstances. She is no fool. She won't call a vote. Tho she will huff and puff about it, mightily, to please the troops.
If the Republic of Ireland follows us out of the EU in 3-5 years, there might be another opportunity for Scotland in the creation of a federal British Isles.
The shinners will love that
We could always offer them an independent republic on Craggy Island.
On these stats May should probably call a GE. Crush Labour.
She'd get a big fat majority. And Labour would remain riven and doomed as the membership cried foul. At the next election after that, in 2021, or 2022, she'd likely be facing UKIP rather than Labour as main opposition.
Don't you think a GE would turn into another remain and leave argument with labour and lib dems promising a vote for them is a vote to remain in the EU.
It could hit a tory majority,especially down south where the lib dems are challenging.
Tories in the shires won't risk a Corbyn led government with SNP support which he won't rule out. Lib dems will not make a recovery at GE whilst Corbyn is leader.
Yeah, very quiet for all of a day. WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
Sturgeon knows an indyref 2 would be lost in these circumstances. She is no fool. She won't call a vote. Tho she will huff and puff about it, mightily, to please the troops.
If the Republic of Ireland follows us out of the EU in 3-5 years, there might be another opportunity for Scotland in the creation of a federal British Isles.
Now that is a delusion. Nobody can deny that the EU has done Ireland a power of good. They might suffer in the future if it introduces tax regime harmonisation, but...
In terms of the Union, my reading is that on a RACI chart, Scotland gets C+I. Not a veto. May will Brexit. Tory voters want to leave the EU. May is R+A. No room to hide. I do accept that she might throw the odd Brexiteer minister to the wolves during the process .
On these stats May should probably call a GE. Crush Labour.
She'd get a big fat majority. And Labour would remain riven and doomed as the membership cried foul. At the next election after that, in 2021, or 2022, she'd likely be facing UKIP rather than Labour as main opposition.
Don't you think a GE would turn into another remain and leave argument with labour and lib dems promising a vote for them is a vote to remain in the EU.
It could hit a tory majority,especially down south where the lib dems are challenging.
Indeed. GE massively dangerous for Con because:
- Lab + LD will say if you want to Remain you must vote Lab/LD, we'll keep UK in EU
- UKIP will say Con/Lab/LD all led by Remain - if you want to Leave you must vote UKIP
So incredibly unpredictable situation - Con left in awkward position between two stools.
UKIP could win large number of seats, including many gains from Con. Con could easily lose majority.
GE even more dangerous for a Corbyn led Labour, with the Tories likely to come top regardless and winning centrist voters, UKIP hoovering up hardcore Leavers and the wwc and the LDs winning hardcore Remainers, Labour could lose yet more seats
Yeah, very quiet for all of a day. WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
Sturgeon knows an indyref 2 would be lost in these circumstances. She is no fool. She won't call a vote. Tho she will huff and puff about it, mightily, to please the troops.
If the Republic of Ireland follows us out of the EU in 3-5 years, there might be another opportunity for Scotland in the creation of a federal British Isles.
I think we need to be realistic here. This is the response to the survey question: Are you in favour of an economic and monetary union with one single currency the Euro? (Positives minus negatives.)
With that level of support for the Euro, Ireland ain't leaving.
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
Did she say that, or did she say they will be asked to contribute? I have been reading conflicting reports all day.
Either way she will run any BREXIT plan past Sturgeon first, potentially amending it if required
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
I wonder how bold she plans to be about constitutional reform within the UK. It could be that the UK that Brexits looks very different to the UK of today.
Yes. May has two choices (or rather, she can ride one wave, and take an opportunity). EIther gamble that the economics of Sindy II are outrageously bad, or come up with a better constitutional settlement. Home rule for Scotland? Or is it "Independence or bust" for the Nats?
The SNP clearly don't mind being part of a federal system; they just want to be first-tier members. In fact the main objection seems to be to 'Westminster'.
My approach would be a federal UK, where Westminster becomes the English parliament with a new federal government to do foreign and defence policy located somewhere like Milton Keynes.
Yeah, very quiet for all of a day. WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
Sturgeon knows an indyref 2 would be lost in these circumstances. She is no fool. She won't call a vote. Tho she will huff and puff about it, mightily, to please the troops.
If the Republic of Ireland follows us out of the EU in 3-5 years, there might be another opportunity for Scotland in the creation of a federal British Isles.
Now that is a delusion. Nobody can deny that the EU has done Ireland a power of good. They might suffer in the future if it introduces tax regime harmonisation, but...
In terms of the Union, my reading is that on a RACI chart, Scotland gets C+I. Not a veto. May will Brexit. Tory voters want to leave the EU.
Without the UK tax harmonisation looks certain. I don't see how Ireland can cope with that.
Just because they've benefitted from EU membership in the past, doesn't mean it will continue to be their best option. The UK remains their closest neighbour, and largest trading partner.
Yeah, very quiet for all of a day. WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
Sturgeon knows an indyref 2 would be lost in these circumstances. She is no fool. She won't call a vote. Tho she will huff and puff about it, mightily, to please the troops.
If the Republic of Ireland follows us out of the EU in 3-5 years, there might be another opportunity for Scotland in the creation of a federal British Isles.
I think we need to be realistic here. This is the response to the survey question: Are you in favour of an economic and monetary union with one single currency the Euro? (Positives minus negatives.)
With that level of support for the Euro, Ireland ain't leaving.
David Cameron's negotiation just enshrined the idea of the EU being a multi-currency union. And if it's good enough for the EU, it's good enough for the Federation of the British Isles.
This is a silly discussion. There won't be a second Indy referendum. It's just making the nats here feel warm and cuddly again till they wake up and remember they lost. This time being oddly cheered on by lachrymose Remains who can't take the fact that they lost the EUref and want DOOM for everyone until Auntie Theresa tells them it's all been a bad dream.
It is certainly unlikely (especially with sub $50 oil).
But.
It is by no means impossible. Imagine that - perhaps caused by Brexit, perhaps caused by something entirely different - the UK economy goes into serious recession in 2017. (Perhaps it's caused by a war in the Middle East that sends oil back to $100.)
In England and Wales, the view is very much "we voted for it, we're going for it". In Scotland, the LibDems and the Labour Party (and even some Conservatives) blame the recession on Brexit. Another referendum is called, and this time it's 60% to Leave.
Unlikely? Yes. Beyond the realms of possibility? No.
Yeah, very quiet for all of a day. WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
Sturgeon knows an indyref 2 would be lost in these circumstances. She is no fool. She won't call a vote. Tho she will huff and puff about it, mightily, to please the troops.
If the Republic of Ireland follows us out of the EU in 3-5 years, there might be another opportunity for Scotland in the creation of a federal British Isles.
Now that is a delusion. Nobody can deny that the EU has done Ireland a power of good. They might suffer in the future if it introduces tax regime harmonisation, but...
In terms of the Union, my reading is that on a RACI chart, Scotland gets C+I. Not a veto. May will Brexit. Tory voters want to leave the EU.
Without the UK tax harmonisation looks certain. I don't see how Ireland can cope with that.
Just because they've benefitted from EU membership in the past, doesn't mean it will continue to favour their interests. The UK remains their closest neighbour, and largest trading partner.
Tax harmonisation requires treaty change. When Ireland was completely broke, and needed the support of the Germans and the ECB, they didn't fold. I don't believe they'll fold now government debt-to-GDP has come down by 30% or so, and the economy is the fastest growing in the world.*
* Based on 2015 GDP numbers. Which I personally believe are bullshit. But that's another story.
Yeah, very quiet for all of a day. WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
Sturgeon knows an indyref 2 would be lost in these circumstances. She is no fool. She won't call a vote. Tho she will huff and puff about it, mightily, to please the troops.
If the Republic of Ireland follows us out of the EU in 3-5 years, there might be another opportunity for Scotland in the creation of a federal British Isles.
I think we need to be realistic here. This is the response to the survey question: Are you in favour of an economic and monetary union with one single currency the Euro? (Positives minus negatives.)
With that level of support for the Euro, Ireland ain't leaving.
David Cameron's negotiation just enshrined the idea of the EU being a multi-currency union. And if it's good enough for the EU, it's good enough for the Federation of the British Isles.
I could see Ireland and the Netherlands outside the EU but inside the Euro. But not in the near future.
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
I wonder how bold she plans to be about constitutional reform within the UK. It could be that the UK that Brexits looks very different to the UK of today.
Yes. May has two choices (or rather, she can ride one wave, and take an opportunity). EIther gamble that the economics of Sindy II are outrageously bad, or come up with a better constitutional settlement. Home rule for Scotland? Or is it "Independence or bust" for the Nats?
Of course May can't pretend that she wasn't warned of this potential consequence of Brexit. It'll be up to her if she wants to consider the person issuing the warning as a clueless numpty.
I would be happy to see an Independent Scotland, as I've said on here many times. Self-determination is recursive; it is mental to have voted Leave and then not support Sindy II. I do think the economics are MUCH harder for an independent Scotland if the EU doesn't play ball.
However, as I've also pointed out before, even a 25% fall in GDP/capita would make it Japan, which isn't actually a 3rd world hellhole. If you wanted it badly enough, you could totally do it.
On these stats May should probably call a GE. Crush Labour.
She'd get a big fat majority. And Labour would remain riven and doomed as the membership cried foul. At the next election after that, in 2021, or 2022, she'd likely be facing UKIP rather than Labour as main opposition.
Don't you think a GE would turn into another remain and leave argument with labour and lib dems promising a vote for them is a vote to remain in the EU.
It could hit a tory majority,especially down south where the lib dems are challenging.
Indeed. GE massively dangerous for Con because:
- Lab + LD will say if you want to Remain you must vote Lab/LD, we'll keep UK in EU
- UKIP will say Con/Lab/LD all led by Remain - if you want to Leave you must vote UKIP
So incredibly unpredictable situation - Con left in awkward position between two stools.
UKIP could win large number of seats, including many gains from Con. Con could easily lose majority.
GE even more dangerous for a Corbyn led Labour, with the Tories likely to come top regardless and winning centrist voters, UKIP hoovering up hardcore Leavers and the wwc and the LDs winning hardcore Remainers, Labour could lose yet more seats
Agreed. But that's no use for Theresa May if she loses her majority and then can't govern.
She could well be forced into a choice between either resigning or going into coalition with UKIP.
The point is there is a massive downside risk and only a tiny upside - as per posts earlier this evening she has a majority right now of almost 40 with DUP/UUP support.
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
I wonder how bold she plans to be about constitutional reform within the UK. It could be that the UK that Brexits looks very different to the UK of today.
Yes. May has two choices (or rather, she can ride one wave, and take an opportunity). EIther gamble that the economics of Sindy II are outrageously bad, or come up with a better constitutional settlement. Home rule for Scotland? Or is it "Independence or bust" for the Nats?
The SNP clearly don't mind being part of a federal system; they just want to be first-tier members. In fact the main objection seems to be to 'Westminster'.
My approach would be a federal UK, where Westminster becomes the English parliament with a new federal government to do foreign and defence policy located somewhere like Milton Keynes.
Yes, I like all that other than Milton Keynes. It should be somewhere nice .
Yeah, very quiet for all of a day. WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
Sturgeon knows an indyref 2 would be lost in these circumstances. She is no fool. She won't call a vote. Tho she will huff and puff about it, mightily, to please the troops.
If the Republic of Ireland follows us out of the EU in 3-5 years, there might be another opportunity for Scotland in the creation of a federal British Isles.
Now that is a delusion. Nobody can deny that the EU has done Ireland a power of good. They might suffer in the future if it introduces tax regime harmonisation, but...
In terms of the Union, my reading is that on a RACI chart, Scotland gets C+I. Not a veto. May will Brexit. Tory voters want to leave the EU.
Without the UK tax harmonisation looks certain. I don't see how Ireland can cope with that.
Just because they've benefitted from EU membership in the past, doesn't mean it will continue to favour their interests. The UK remains their closest neighbour, and largest trading partner.
Tax harmonisation requires treaty change. When Ireland was completely broke, and needed the support of the Germans and the ECB, they didn't fold. I don't believe they'll fold now government debt-to-GDP has come down by 30% or so, and the economy is the fastest growing in the world.*
* Based on 2015 GDP numbers. Which I personally believe are bullshit. But that's another story.
I remember a video of an EU member states meeting where tax harmonisation was on the agenda.
Bertie Ahern was tugging Mr Blair's sleeve every thirty seconds. 'You're certain?" "You'll resist it?" "You're sure?"
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
I wonder how bold she plans to be about constitutional reform within the UK. It could be that the UK that Brexits looks very different to the UK of today.
Yes. May has two choices (or rather, she can ride one wave, and take an opportunity). EIther gamble that the economics of Sindy II are outrageously bad, or come up with a better constitutional settlement. Home rule for Scotland? Or is it "Independence or bust" for the Nats?
The SNP clearly don't mind being part of a federal system; they just want to be first-tier members. In fact the main objection seems to be to 'Westminster'.
My approach would be a federal UK, where Westminster becomes the English parliament with a new federal government to do foreign and defence policy located somewhere like Milton Keynes.
Yes, I like all that other than Milton Keynes. It should be somewhere nice .
I was going for the 'Australian style' system so was trying to approximate Canberra.
Yup, the Commission has power where the member states don't have strong opinions and will let somebody lead them, but in situations like this it has its hands full just trying to find something the member states can agree to.
However, The European Parliament also has a veto...
No it doesn't. Under Article 50 the decision on the future relationship between the EU and the UK rests entirely with the member states through the EU Council. And even there the decision is by QMV with no country having a veto.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
IANAL but what does the consent of the European Parliament mean there if it's not a veto?
I remember a video of an EU member states meeting where tax harmonisation was on the agenda.
Bertie Ahern was tugging Mr Blair's sleeve every thirty seconds. 'You're certain?" "You'll resist it?" "You're sure?"
I just don't see Ireland being able to stop it.
But at that point they were desperate. Ireland was broke. Their banks had gone under. Government debt-to-GDP was 140%. They were looking at complete and utter collapse if the ECB and the Germans didn't agree to backstop them.
That's not true anymore. Ireland can't be blackmailed when they've got debt-to-GDP down below 80%, and can now borrow at negative rates all the way out to 5 years. The unwinding of NAMA and the privatisation of the banks is likely to see Irish debt-to-GDP below 50% by the end of 2018
The EU had their chance to force Ireland's hand. And they fluffed it.
On these stats May should probably call a GE. Crush Labour.
She'd get a big fat majority. And Labour would remain riven and doomed as the membership cried foul. At the next election after that, in 2021, or 2022, she'd likely be facing UKIP rather than Labour as main opposition.
Don't you think a GE would turn into another remain and leave argument with labour and lib dems promising a vote for them is a vote to remain in the EU.
It could hit a tory majority,especially down south where the lib dems are challenging.
Indeed. GE massively dangerous for Con because:
- Lab + LD will say if you want to Remain you must vote Lab/LD, we'll keep UK in EU
- UKIP will say Con/Lab/LD all led by Remain - if you want to Leave you must vote UKIP
So incredibly unpredictable situation - Con left in awkward position between two stools.
UKIP could win large number of seats, including many gains from Con. Con could easily lose majority.
GE even more dangerous for a Corbyn led Labour, with the Tories likely to come top regardless and winning centrist voters, UKIP hoovering up hardcore Leavers and the wwc and the LDs winning hardcore Remainers, Labour could lose yet more seats
Agreed. But that's no use for Theresa May if she loses her majority and then can't govern.
She could well be forced into a choice between either resigning or going into coalition with UKIP.
The point is there is a massive downside risk and only a tiny upside - as per posts earlier this evening she has a majority right now of almost 40 with DUP/UUP support.
May has said she won't call an early election. One thing we do know about May is that she says what she means. It 'aint gonna happen.
Yup, the Commission has power where the member states don't have strong opinions and will let somebody lead them, but in situations like this it has its hands full just trying to find something the member states can agree to.
However, The European Parliament also has a veto...
No it doesn't. Under Article 50 the decision on the future relationship between the EU and the UK rests entirely with the member states through the EU Council. And even there the decision is by QMV with no country having a veto.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
IANAL but what does the consent of the European Parliament mean there if it's not a veto?
The text implies the agreement will be negotiated "after obtaining the consent". Does this mean the Parliament votes before any negotiation is made?
Yeah, very quiet for all of a day. WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
Sturgeon knows an indyref 2 would be lost in these circumstances. She is no fool. She won't call a vote. Tho she will huff and puff about it, mightily, to please the troops.
If the Republic of Ireland follows us out of the EU in 3-5 years, there might be another opportunity for Scotland in the creation of a federal British Isles.
I think we need to be realistic here. This is the response to the survey question: Are you in favour of an economic and monetary union with one single currency the Euro? (Positives minus negatives.)
With that level of support for the Euro, Ireland ain't leaving.
Yes, France and Italy are much more anti Euro than Ireland, see the rise of FN and 5*. Ireland by contrast has no significant Eurosceptic party
This is a silly discussion. There won't be a second Indy referendum.
Well, there certainly won't be one _after_ Article 50 has been invoked and an agreement has been negotiated with the EU (as that opinion poll suggested), because by that time the only power left to us will be to take the deal or leave the EU without any deal at all.
The only circumstance in which another referendum could happen is if the invocation of Article 50 is delayed for a year or so and there's a definite change in public opinion by then.
But if the Sunday Times report is right Theresa May is going to placate the Brexiteers and plans to leave in two and a half years' time. That would agree with David Davis's preferred timetable for Article 50. Though maybe the Sunday Times has been taken in by the Brexiteers' propaganda.
Yup, the Commission has power where the member states don't have strong opinions and will let somebody lead them, but in situations like this it has its hands full just trying to find something the member states can agree to.
However, The European Parliament also has a veto...
No it doesn't. Under Article 50 the decision on the future relationship between the EU and the UK rests entirely with the member states through the EU Council. And even there the decision is by QMV with no country having a veto.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
IANAL but what does the consent of the European Parliament mean there if it's not a veto?
The text implies the agreement will be negotiated "after obtaining the consent". Does this mean the Parliament votes before any negotiation is made?
I wondered about that but it doesn't make any sense - why would you write in a right for the parliament to say "no negotiation"? I think it has to apply to the result.
Yup, the Commission has power where the member states don't have strong opinions and will let somebody lead them, but in situations like this it has its hands full just trying to find something the member states can agree to.
However, The European Parliament also has a veto...
No it doesn't. Under Article 50 the decision on the future relationship between the EU and the UK rests entirely with the member states through the EU Council. And even there the decision is by QMV with no country having a veto.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
IANAL but what does the consent of the European Parliament mean there if it's not a veto?
The text implies the agreement will be negotiated "after obtaining the consent". Does this mean the Parliament votes before any negotiation is made?
I wondered about that but it doesn't make any sense - why would you write in a right for the parliament to say "no negotiation"? I think it has to apply to the result.
I remember a video of an EU member states meeting where tax harmonisation was on the agenda.
Bertie Ahern was tugging Mr Blair's sleeve every thirty seconds. 'You're certain?" "You'll resist it?" "You're sure?"
I just don't see Ireland being able to stop it.
But at that point they were desperate. Ireland was broke. Their banks had gone under. Government debt-to-GDP was 140%. They were looking at complete and utter collapse if the ECB and the Germans didn't agree to backstop them.
That's not true anymore. Ireland can't be blackmailed when they've got debt-to-GDP down below 80%, and can now borrow at negative rates all the way out to 5 years. The unwinding of NAMA and the privatisation of the banks is likely to see Irish debt-to-GDP below 50% by the end of 2018
The EU had their chance to force Ireland's hand. And they fluffed it.
New scenario.
Marine Le Pen is president of France. France votes to leave the Euro/EU.
Does Gemany try to keep the EU together, or does it split into a Latin EU, a Germanic EU, and an middle/east-european EU?
Yeah, very quiet for all of a day. WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
Sturgeon knows an indyref 2 would be lost in these circumstances. She is no fool. She won't call a vote. Tho she will huff and puff about it, mightily, to please the troops.
If the Republic of Ireland follows us out of the EU in 3-5 years, there might be another opportunity for Scotland in the creation of a federal British Isles.
I think we need to be realistic here. This is the response to the survey question: Are you in favour of an economic and monetary union with one single currency the Euro? (Positives minus negatives.)
With that level of support for the Euro, Ireland ain't leaving.
Yes, France and Italy are much more anti Euro than Ireland, see the rise of FN and 5*. Ireland by contrast has no significant Eurosceptic party
Italy is the one I would watch.
It has several Eurosceptic parties, while France only has one - and that one is tainted by antisemitism and other issues. Liga Norda, Us with Salvini, Forza Italia and the Five Star Movement are all Eurosceptic to a greater of lesser extent.
This is a silly discussion. There won't be a second Indy referendum.
Well, there certainly won't be one _after_ Article 50 has been invoked and an agreement has been negotiated with the EU (as that opinion poll suggested), because by that time the only power left to us will be to take the deal or leave the EU without any deal at all.
The only circumstance in which another referendum could happen is if the invocation of Article 50 is delayed for a year or so and there's a definite change in public opinion by then.
But if the Sunday Times report is right Theresa May is going to placate the Brexiteers and plans to leave in two and a half years' time. That would agree with David Davis's preferred timetable for Article 50. Though maybe the Sunday Times has been taken in by the Brexiteers' propaganda.
Personally, I would negotiate (behind closed doors) with Alain Juppe, Angela Merkel, Rajoy and Renzi now, and trigger Article 50 when the new French President comes to power in April/May next year.
This is a silly discussion. There won't be a second Indy referendum.
Well, there certainly won't be one _after_ Article 50 has been invoked and an agreement has been negotiated with the EU (as that opinion poll suggested), because by that time the only power left to us will be to take the deal or leave the EU without any deal at all.
The only circumstance in which another referendum could happen is if the invocation of Article 50 is delayed for a year or so and there's a definite change in public opinion by then.
But if the Sunday Times report is right Theresa May is going to placate the Brexiteers and plans to leave in two and a half years' time. That would agree with David Davis's preferred timetable for Article 50. Though maybe the Sunday Times has been taken in by the Brexiteers' propaganda.
Personally, I would negotiate (behind closed doors) with Alain Juppe, Angela Merkel, Rajoy and Renzi now, and trigger Article 50 when the new French President comes to power in April/May next year.
You'd have Juncker and Tusk banging down the door.
On these stats May should probably call a GE. Crush Labour.
She'd get a big fat majority. And Labour would remain riven and doomed as the membership cried foul. At the next election after that, in 2021, or 2022, she'd likely be facing UKIP rather than Labour as main opposition.
Don't you think a GE would turn into another remain and leave argument with labour and lib dems promising a vote for them is a vote to remain in the EU.
It could hit a tory majority,especially down south where the lib dems are challenging.
Indeed. GE massively dangerous for Con because:
- Lab + LD will say if you want to Remain you must vote Lab/LD, we'll keep UK in EU
- UKIP will say Con/Lab/LD all led by Remain - if you want to Leave you must vote UKIP
So incredibly unpredictable situation - Con left in awkward position between two stools.
UKIP could win large number of seats, including many gains from Con. Con could easily lose majority.
GE even more dangerous for a Corbyn led Labour, with the Tories likely to come top regardless and winning centrist voters, UKIP hoovering up hardcore Leavers and the wwc and the LDs winning hardcore Remainers, Labour could lose yet more seats
Agreed. But that's no use for Theresa May if she loses her majority and then can't govern.
She could well be forced into a choice between either resigning or going into coalition with UKIP.
The point is there is a massive downside risk and only a tiny upside - as per posts earlier this evening she has a majority right now of almost 40 with DUP/UUP support.
Yes May is unlikely to call an election but she will also likely have the support of many New Labour backbenchers and the LDs on many issues for as long as Corbyn leads Labour
This is a silly discussion. There won't be a second Indy referendum.
Well, there certainly won't be one _after_ Article 50 has been invoked and an agreement has been negotiated with the EU (as that opinion poll suggested), because by that time the only power left to us will be to take the deal or leave the EU without any deal at all.
The only circumstance in which another referendum could happen is if the invocation of Article 50 is delayed for a year or so and there's a definite change in public opinion by then.
But if the Sunday Times report is right Theresa May is going to placate the Brexiteers and plans to leave in two and a half years' time. That would agree with David Davis's preferred timetable for Article 50. Though maybe the Sunday Times has been taken in by the Brexiteers' propaganda.
Personally, I would negotiate (behind closed doors) with Alain Juppe, Angela Merkel, Rajoy and Renzi now, and trigger Article 50 when the new French President comes to power in April/May next year.
You'd have Juncker and Tusk banging down the door.
Merkel has already told Juncker (sorry, 'Jean-Claude') to sod off. The grown ups will be doing the negotiating. Juncker is a dead man walking.
This is a silly discussion. There won't be a second Indy referendum.
Well, there certainly won't be one _after_ Article 50 has been invoked and an agreement has been negotiated with the EU (as that opinion poll suggested), because by that time the only power left to us will be to take the deal or leave the EU without any deal at all.
The only circumstance in which another referendum could happen is if the invocation of Article 50 is delayed for a year or so and there's a definite change in public opinion by then.
But if the Sunday Times report is right Theresa May is going to placate the Brexiteers and plans to leave in two and a half years' time. That would agree with David Davis's preferred timetable for Article 50. Though maybe the Sunday Times has been taken in by the Brexiteers' propaganda.
Personally, I would negotiate (behind closed doors) with Alain Juppe, Angela Merkel, Rajoy and Renzi now, and trigger Article 50 when the new French President comes to power in April/May next year.
You'd have Juncker and Tusk banging down the door.
I would completely cut them out the process. They don't get a vote, ultimately.
(Although with the parliament apparently having a veto, spending some time with the leaders of the various groupings is probably a good idea.)
Yup, the Commission has power where the member states don't have strong opinions and will let somebody lead them, but in situations like this it has its hands full just trying to find something the member states can agree to.
However, The European Parliament also has a veto...
No it doesn't. Under Article 50 the decision on the future relationship between the EU and the UK rests entirely with the member states through the EU Council. And even there the decision is by QMV with no country having a veto.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
IANAL but what does the consent of the European Parliament mean there if it's not a veto?
The text implies the agreement will be negotiated "after obtaining the consent". Does this mean the Parliament votes before any negotiation is made?
I wondered about that but it doesn't make any sense - why would you write in a right for the parliament to say "no negotiation"? I think it has to apply to the result.
Typical leagalese!
TBF I think the meaning is obvious and clear. The only reason I'm wondering if it could mean something else is because it seems to contradict Richard Tyndall, who isn't usually wrong about this sort of thing.
This is a silly discussion. There won't be a second Indy referendum.
Well, there certainly won't be one _after_ Article 50 has been invoked and an agreement has been negotiated with the EU (as that opinion poll suggested), because by that time the only power left to us will be to take the deal or leave the EU without any deal at all.
The only circumstance in which another referendum could happen is if the invocation of Article 50 is delayed for a year or so and there's a definite change in public opinion by then.
But if the Sunday Times report is right Theresa May is going to placate the Brexiteers and plans to leave in two and a half years' time. That would agree with David Davis's preferred timetable for Article 50. Though maybe the Sunday Times has been taken in by the Brexiteers' propaganda.
Personally, I would negotiate (behind closed doors) with Alain Juppe, Angela Merkel, Rajoy and Renzi now, and trigger Article 50 when the new French President comes to power in April/May next year.
You'd have Juncker and Tusk banging down the door.
Merkel has already told Juncker (sorry, 'Jean-Claude') to sod off. The grown ups will be doing the negotiating. Juncker is a dead man walking.
As soon as Rajoy is officially the next Spanish leader, the moves to unseat Juncker will gather pace.
I wonder if he has the sense to jump before he's pushed.
I remember a video of an EU member states meeting where tax harmonisation was on the agenda.
Bertie Ahern was tugging Mr Blair's sleeve every thirty seconds. 'You're certain?" "You'll resist it?" "You're sure?"
I just don't see Ireland being able to stop it.
But at that point they were desperate. Ireland was broke. Their banks had gone under. Government debt-to-GDP was 140%. They were looking at complete and utter collapse if the ECB and the Germans didn't agree to backstop them.
That's not true anymore. Ireland can't be blackmailed when they've got debt-to-GDP down below 80%, and can now borrow at negative rates all the way out to 5 years. The unwinding of NAMA and the privatisation of the banks is likely to see Irish debt-to-GDP below 50% by the end of 2018
The EU had their chance to force Ireland's hand. And they fluffed it.
New scenario.
Marine Le Pen is president of France. France votes to leave the Euro/EU.
Does Gemany try to keep the EU together, or does it split into a Latin EU, a Germanic EU, and an middle/east-european EU?
I don't see it. Juppe will be the Les Republicains candidate, Bayrou says he won't stand in round one if Juppe is the candidate, which pretty much guarantees Juppe beats Le Pen even in the first round. And then he leads her 70:30 on all the polls in round two.
This is a silly discussion. There won't be a second Indy referendum.
Well, there certainly won't be one _after_ Article 50 has been invoked and an agreement has been negotiated with the EU (as that opinion poll suggested), because by that time the only power left to us will be to take the deal or leave the EU without any deal at all.
The only circumstance in which another referendum could happen is if the invocation of Article 50 is delayed for a year or so and there's a definite change in public opinion by then.
But if the Sunday Times report is right Theresa May is going to placate the Brexiteers and plans to leave in two and a half years' time. That would agree with David Davis's preferred timetable for Article 50. Though maybe the Sunday Times has been taken in by the Brexiteers' propaganda.
Personally, I would negotiate (behind closed doors) with Alain Juppe, Angela Merkel, Rajoy and Renzi now, and trigger Article 50 when the new French President comes to power in April/May next year.
You'd have Juncker and Tusk banging down the door.
Merkel has already told Juncker (sorry, 'Jean-Claude') to sod off. The grown ups will be doing the negotiating. Juncker is a dead man walking.
As soon as Rajoy is officially the next Spanish leader, the moves to unseat Juncker will gather pace.
I wonder if he has the sense to jump before he's pushed.
What's the evidence for this? I think the only source I've seen quoted so far is a single anonymous German MP.
This is a silly discussion. There won't be a second Indy referendum.
Well, there certainly won't be one _after_ Article 50 has been invoked and an agreement has been negotiated with the EU (as that opinion poll suggested), because by that time the only power left to us will be to take the deal or leave the EU without any deal at all.
The only circumstance in which another referendum could happen is if the invocation of Article 50 is delayed for a year or so and there's a definite change in public opinion by then.
But if the Sunday Times report is right Theresa May is going to placate the Brexiteers and plans to leave in two and a half years' time. That would agree with David Davis's preferred timetable for Article 50. Though maybe the Sunday Times has been taken in by the Brexiteers' propaganda.
Personally, I would negotiate (behind closed doors) with Alain Juppe, Angela Merkel, Rajoy and Renzi now, and trigger Article 50 when the new French President comes to power in April/May next year.
You'd have Juncker and Tusk banging down the door.
Merkel has already told Juncker (sorry, 'Jean-Claude') to sod off. The grown ups will be doing the negotiating. Juncker is a dead man walking.
As soon as Rajoy is officially the next Spanish leader, the moves to unseat Juncker will gather pace.
I wonder if he has the sense to jump before he's pushed.
What's the evidence for this? I think the only source I've seen quoted so far is a single anonymous German MP.
Yup, the Commission has power where the member states don't have strong opinions and will let somebody lead them, but in situations like this it has its hands full just trying to find something the member states can agree to.
However, The European Parliament also has a veto...
No it doesn't. Under Article 50 the decision on the future relationship between the EU and the UK rests entirely with the member states through the EU Council. And even there the decision is by QMV with no country having a veto.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
IANAL but what does the consent of the European Parliament mean there if it's not a veto?
The text implies the agreement will be negotiated "after obtaining the consent". Does this mean the Parliament votes before any negotiation is made?
I wondered about that but it doesn't make any sense - why would you write in a right for the parliament to say "no negotiation"? I think it has to apply to the result.
Typical leagalese!
TBF I think the meaning is obvious and clear. The only reason I'm wondering if it could mean something else is because it seems to contradict Richard Tyndall, who isn't usually wrong about this sort of thing.
Richard knows his stuff, but I think his reply to you was wrong. I do think it strange that a QMV council vote apparently requires EU parliamentary consent to proceed, which implies that the parliament is superior to the council.
On these stats May should probably call a GE. Crush Labour.
.
Indeed. GE massively dangerous for Con because:
- Lab + LD will say if you want to Remain you must vote Lab/LD, we'll keep UK in EU
- UKIP will say Con/Lab/LD all led by Remain - if you want to Leave you must vote UKIP
So incredibly unpredictable situation - Con left in awkward position between two stools.
UKIP could win large number of seats, including many gains from Con. Con could easily lose majority.
The point is there is a massive downside risk and only a tiny upside - as per posts earlier this evening she has a majority right now of almost 40 with DUP/UUP support.
They say that to be a successful leader you need luck. Theresa May seems to me the sort to make a lot of her own luck but she's also had a break with Leadsom's withdrawal, as Mike Smithson suggests.
In terms of the HoC her position is pretty strong. There are two dimensions to her majority. The first on her own side:
She currently has a working majority of 16. But realistically the unionists take that up to near 30 which is pretty unassailable for the next 4 years.
The other dimensions, as pointed out below, is the fractured state of the opposition. Quite apart from needing to summon all the disparate groups on the opposition side, any attempt to vote down Gov't legislation would require all 230 Labour MPs actually voting with Corbyn. I just can't see it: apart from on the EU they're more likely to go through the Gov't lobbies, especially if TM means it about her social agenda.
There's no legal, more or constitutional requirement for her to call either a second referendum or a General Election so barring something unforeseen she can steer us through Brexit and to a GE.
Which leaves the only possibility: that she would want to call an early election. This is very unlikely.
I suspect she will want to make damned sure Article 50 is triggered and Brexit is as copper-bottomed as she can get it. She'll want the country as secure as possible before she goes to the country and at all costs she won't want a GE to be a backdoor referendum on EU membership, which is the only thing that could save Labour. So she will get us as far down the road of no return as possible.
I remember a video of an EU member states meeting where tax harmonisation was on the agenda.
Bertie Ahern was tugging Mr Blair's sleeve every thirty seconds. 'You're certain?" "You'll resist it?" "You're sure?"
I just don't see Ireland being able to stop it.
But at that point they were desperate. Ireland was broke. Their banks had gone under. Government debt-to-GDP was 140%. They were looking at complete and utter collapse if the ECB and the Germans didn't agree to backstop them.
That's not true anymore. Ireland can't be blackmailed when they've got debt-to-GDP down below 80%, and can now borrow at negative rates all the way out to 5 years. The unwinding of NAMA and the privatisation of the banks is likely to see Irish debt-to-GDP below 50% by the end of 2018
The EU had their chance to force Ireland's hand. And they fluffed it.
New scenario.
Marine Le Pen is president of France. France votes to leave the Euro/EU.
Does Gemany try to keep the EU together, or does it split into a Latin EU, a Germanic EU, and an middle/east-european EU?
I don't see it. Juppe will be the Les Republicains candidate, Bayrou says he won't stand in round one if Juppe is the candidate, which pretty much guarantees Juppe beats Le Pen even in the first round. And then he leads her 70:30 on all the polls in round two.
Sarkozy will run and probably win the UMP primary on a low turnout of party loyalists, Juppe may still run anyway, the centre right vote is split, Le Pen wins a clear first round victory and Hollande scrapes ahead of Sarkozy and Juppe to the run-off in which Le Pen beats him 52% to 48%. Not impossible
Yeah, very quiet for all of a day. WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
Sturgeon knows an indyref 2 would be lost in these circumstances. She is no fool. She won't call a vote. Tho she will huff and puff about it, mightily, to please the troops.
If the Republic of Ireland follows us out of the EU in 3-5 years, there might be another opportunity for Scotland in the creation of a federal British Isles.
I think we need to be realistic here. This is the response to the survey question: Are you in favour of an economic and monetary union with one single currency the Euro? (Positives minus negatives.)
With that level of support for the Euro, Ireland ain't leaving.
Yes, France and Italy are much more anti Euro than Ireland, see the rise of FN and 5*. Ireland by contrast has no significant Eurosceptic party
Italy is the one I would watch.
It has several Eurosceptic parties, while France only has one - and that one is tainted by antisemitism and other issues. Liga Norda, Us with Salvini, Forza Italia and the Five Star Movement are all Eurosceptic to a greater of lesser extent.
Indeed but it is Five Star which is challenging Renzi in the polls
It's not surprising that voters reject a snap election. If you vote tory, why would you want an election when your party is in power, you're not unhappy in general with how things are, you are unlikely to be a diehard europhile so the EUref isn't a problem. If you vote labour you can surely see that the party will get roasted in a snap election. Corbynista or Blairite, no labour voter could want an election now. Only Lib Dems voters would want a snap election now. I'm talking about voters only here not members.
On these stats May should probably call a GE. Crush Labour.
She'd get a big fat majority. And Labour would remain riven and doomed as the membership cried foul. At the next election after that, in 2021, or 2022, she'd likely be facing UKIP rather than Labour as main opposition.
Don't you think a GE would turn into another remain and leave argument with labour and lib dems promising a vote for them is a vote to remain in the EU.
It could hit a tory majority,especially down south where the lib dems are challenging.
Indeed. GE massively dangerous for Con because:
- Lab + LD will say if you want to Remain you must vote Lab/LD, we'll keep UK in EU
- UKIP will say Con/Lab/LD all led by Remain - if you want to Leave you must vote UKIP
So incredibly unpredictable situation - Con left in awkward position between two stools.
UKIP could win large number of seats, including many gains from Con. Con could easily lose majority.
GE even more dangerous for a Corbyn led Labour, with the Tories likely to come top regardless and winning centrist voters, UKIP hoovering up hardcore Leavers and the wwc and the LDs winning hardcore Remainers, Labour could lose yet more seats
Agreed. But that's no use for Theresa May if she loses her majority and then can't govern.
She could well be forced into a choice between either resigning or going into coalition with UKIP.
The point is there is a massive downside risk and only a tiny upside - as per posts earlier this evening she has a majority right now of almost 40 with DUP/UUP support.
May has said she won't call an early election. One thing we do know about May is that she says what she means. It 'aint gonna happen.
We know no such thing about may. Some leavers yesterday were suggesting she was really a leaver not an on balance remainer. If so, she didn't say what she means. She's also beena senior politician for years and years, and couldn't have survived without being able to spin and dissemble. I can't see an appetite or an early election either, but she'd gone up with a reason if she felt like changing tack.
Yes, France and Italy are much more anti Euro than Ireland, see the rise of FN and 5*. Ireland by contrast has no significant Eurosceptic party
Italy is the one I would watch.
It has several Eurosceptic parties, while France only has one - and that one is tainted by antisemitism and other issues. Liga Norda, Us with Salvini, Forza Italia and the Five Star Movement are all Eurosceptic to a greater of lesser extent.
Indeed but it is Five Star which is challenging Renzi in the polls
I read somewhere soon after the brexit vote that the five star movement removed eurosceptic text from their website. How strong is their euroscepticism? I don't know their politics well enough but they seem to be all over the place as a party, all things to all people.
I would have guessed that the migrant issues into Italy would've dented support for the EU much more than Euro issues?
This is a silly discussion. There won't be a second Indy referendum. It's just making the nats here feel warm and cuddly again till they wake up and remember they lost. This time being oddly cheered on by lachrymose Remains who can't take the fact that they lost the EUref and want DOOM for everyone until Auntie Theresa tells them it's all been a bad dream.
I'm a leaver actually. I simp,y felt the union was on the way out anyway. If someone coukd have guaranteed Scotland would stay, I'd have voted remain. I'd rather be in the eu with Scotland than out of it without Scotland. Sadly long term I didn't see it as an option, so went with my head and voted leave.
On these stats May should probably call a GE. Crush Labour.
Don't you think a GE would turn into another remain and leave argument with labour and lib dems promising a vote for them is a vote to remain in the EU.
It could hit a tory majority,especially down south where the lib dems are challenging.
Indeed. GE massively dangerous for Con because:
- Lab + LD will say if you want to Remain you must vote Lab/LD, we'll keep UK in EU
- UKIP will say Con/Lab/LD all led by Remain - if you want to Leave you must vote UKIP
So incredibly unpredictable situation - Con left in awkward position between two stools.
UKIP could win large number of seats, including many gains from Con. Con could easily lose majority.
.
May has said she won't call an early election. One thing we do know about May is that she says what she means. It 'aint gonna happen.
We know no such thing about may. Some leavers yesterday were suggesting she was really a leaver not an on balance remainer. If so, she didn't say what she means. She's also beena senior politician for years and years, and couldn't have survived without being able to spin and dissemble. I can't see an appetite or an early election either, but she'd gone up with a reason if she felt like changing tack.
We had this discussion you and I y'day and we may need to beg to differ. That Theresa May is eurosceptic is unquestionable. So the issue is whether she came out for Remain for sly reasons (your take) or out of loyalty (mine). There's nothing in her previous record to suggest she acted with anything other than loyalty. She could never have known Leave would win. It's evident she disliked Cameron's cronyism but she kept her mouth shut, her powder dry and remained loyal to him. And that's why she decided, reluctantly, to support Remain. Like Michael Howard she believes loyalty is paramount. She survived six years in the Home Office, working with LibDems don't forget, and still at the end of everything was Cameron's choice as successor. She's one remarkable lady.
And if you want one more piece of evidence look at the way she cut down Michael Gove and his sponsor Nicky Morgan. The message is clear: backstab and you're out.
On these stats May should probably call a GE. Crush Labour.
She'd get a big fat majority. And Labour would remain riven and doomed as the membership cried foul. At the next election after that, in 2021, or 2022, she'd likely be facing UKIP rather than Labour as main opposition.
Don't you think a GE would turn into another remain and leave argument with labour and lib dems promising a vote for them is a vote to remain in the EU.
It could hit a tory majority,especially down south where the lib dems are challenging.
Why would labour offer such a thing? At the moment I'd not expect the strong leave vote in northern labour seats to translate into too much electoral harm, but make a GE vote an explicit re remain or re leave vote, and it might well do. More likely they'd offer Brexit lite if we had an early GE? Since May seems inclined differently.
Yes, France and Italy are much more anti Euro than Ireland, see the rise of FN and 5*. Ireland by contrast has no significant Eurosceptic party
Italy is the one I would watch.
It has several Eurosceptic parties, while France only has one - and that one is tainted by antisemitism and other issues. Liga Norda, Us with Salvini, Forza Italia and the Five Star Movement are all Eurosceptic to a greater of lesser extent.
Indeed but it is Five Star which is challenging Renzi in the polls
I read somewhere soon after the brexit vote that the five star movement removed eurosceptic text from their website. How strong is their euroscepticism? I don't know their politics well enough but they seem to be all over the place as a party, all things to all people.
I would have guessed that the migrant issues into Italy would've dented support for the EU much more than Euro issues?
On these stats May should probably call a GE. Crush Labour.
Don't you think a GE would turn into another remain and leave argument with labour and lib dems promising a vote for them is a vote to remain in the EU.
It could hit a tory majority,especially down south where the lib dems are challenging.
Indeed. GE massively dangerous for Con because:
- Lab + LD will say iftwo stools.
UKIP could win large number of seats, including many gains from Con. Con could easily lose majority.
.
May has said she won't call an early election. One thing we do know about May is that she says what she means. It 'aint gonna happen.
We know no such thing about may. Some
We had this discussion you and I y'day and we may need to beg to differ. That Theresa May is eurosceptic is unquestionable. So the issue is whether she came out for Remain for sly reasons (your take) or out of loyalty (mine). There's nothing in her previous record to suggest she acted with anything other than loyalty. She could never have known Leave would win. It's evident she disliked Cameron's cronyism but she kept her mouth shut, her powder dry and remained loyal to him. And that's why she decided, reluctantly, to support Remain. Like Michael Howard she believes loyalty is paramount. She survived six years in the Home Office, working with LibDems don't forget, and still at the end of everything was Cameron's choice as successor. She's one remarkable lady.
And if you want one more piece of evidence look at the way she cut down Michael Gove and his sponsor Nicky Morgan. The message is clear: backstab and you're out.
You are mis remembering. I have speculated she may have been remain for sly reasons, but I hope that was not the case and it wasn't my suggestion she was really a leaver and therefore a liar, I was speculating off others raising that scenario.
No e of which, in any case, has a bearing on her meaning what she says. She's a senior politician. They don't lie often - too risky - but she will dissemble, obfuscate and more, it's part of the system.
I dont condemn her for having political skills, necessary ones. On the contrary, if she has that and is sensible she could be great. But people making her out as sone transformative, cast iron truth speaker or indefatigable leader are at best premature as we've not seen how she is as a leader yet, and at worst sound like arch Corbynistas.
Everyone except kle4 has gone very quiet about it. Still in post-referendum blancmange mode when everyone else has moved on.
That's because I'm very pessimistic and I think they are waiting for the opportune moment.
The next two years are going to see all the uncertainty surrounding Brexit turn into a tangible process with a fairly clear road ahead. A governing party playing up public fears of uncertainty prior to the referendum will instead be trying to reassure the electorate about how its negotiating skills have secured a wonderful deal with the EU and wonderful trade deals with the rest of the world. So the future will appear far less unknown and apparently positive. Precisely the opposite of the scenario at the referendum.
So I think that UK opinion will gradually turn further in favour of the Brexit route and the opposition in Scotland will diminish likewise. In any case, Scots will be facing a fait accompli and they wont be choosing whether or not the UK should leave the EU. They'll be choosing whether Scotland should secede and join the EU in the sure knowledge that the UK will be outside it. That's a very different scenario to seceding and joining the EU when the rest of the UK is still within it, the one at the time of the last referendum on secession.
I'm reluctant, incidentally, to refer to a referendum on Scottish "independence" when the UK has just won its independence from the EU and the Scots would be giving all that back.
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
I wonder how bold she plans to be about constitutional reform within the UK. It could be that the UK that Brexits looks very different to the UK of today.
Yes. May has two choices (or rather, she can ride one wave, and take an opportunity). EIther gamble that the economics of Sindy II are outrageously bad, or come up with a better constitutional settlement. Home rule for Scotland? Or is it "Independence or bust" for the Nats?
The SNP clearly don't mind being part of a federal system; they just want to be first-tier members. In fact the main objection seems to be to 'Westminster'.
My approach would be a federal UK, where Westminster becomes the English parliament with a new federal government to do foreign and defence policy located somewhere like Milton Keynes.
Yes, I like all that other than Milton Keynes. It should be somewhere nice .
Yes, France and Italy are much more anti Euro than Ireland, see the rise of FN and 5*. Ireland by contrast has no significant Eurosceptic party
Italy is the one I would watch.
It has several Eurosceptic parties, while France only has one - and that one is tainted by antisemitism and other issues. Liga Norda, Us with Salvini, Forza Italia and the Five Star Movement are all Eurosceptic to a greater of lesser extent.
Indeed but it is Five Star which is challenging Renzi in the polls
I read somewhere soon after the brexit vote that the five star movement removed eurosceptic text from their website. How strong is their euroscepticism? I don't know their politics well enough but they seem to be all over the place as a party, all things to all people.
I would have guessed that the migrant issues into Italy would've dented support for the EU much more than Euro issues?
5*are anti Euro but not anti EU
Surely Italians don't really think that Italy being in or outside the EU would make much difference to the volume of migrants seeking to make the boat trip across from Libya? (I'm willing to stand corrected if you have evidence to the contrary)
By contrast, in the UK the immigration issue is framed almost entirely around that from Eastern European EU countries, where being in the EU makes the world of difference.
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
I wonder how bold she plans to be about constitutional reform within the UK. It could be that the UK that Brexits looks very different to the UK of today.
Yes. May has two choices (or rather, she can ride one wave, and take an opportunity). EIther gamble that the economics of Sindy II are outrageously bad, or come up with a better constitutional settlement. Home rule for Scotland? Or is it "Independence or bust" for the Nats?
The SNP clearly don't mind being part of a federal system; they just want to be first-tier members. In fact the main objection seems to be to 'Westminster'.
My approach would be a federal UK, where Westminster becomes the English parliament with a new federal government to do foreign and defence policy located somewhere like Milton Keynes.
Yes, I like all that other than Milton Keynes. It should be somewhere nice .
A non-Brexit removes the justification for indyref2. There is no point for Sturgeon in being bellicose until the yes of Brexit are defined. In the meantime the optics are of her quietly trying to secure the will of 62% of the population and keep Scotland in the EU by any means possible.
May made clear in Edinburgh yesterday that there would be no triggering of Article 50 before an agreement had been reached with Scotland so we could be years from BREXIT, May clearly sees preserving the union as more important than pushing for an exit from the EU
I wonder how bold she plans to be about constitutional reform within the UK. It could be that the UK that Brexits looks very different to the UK of today.
Yes. May has two choices (or rather, she can ride one wave, and take an opportunity). EIther gamble that the economics of Sindy II are outrageously bad, or come up with a better constitutional settlement. Home rule for Scotland? Or is it "Independence or bust" for the Nats?
The SNP clearly don't mind being part of a federal system; they just want to be first-tier members. In fact the main objection seems to be to 'Westminster'.
My approach would be a federal UK, where Westminster becomes the English parliament with a new federal government to do foreign and defence policy located somewhere like Milton Keynes.
Yes, I like all that other than Milton Keynes. It should be somewhere nice .
The Lake District. Close to all 4 countries.
Liverpool or Manchester?
I'm from Liverpool, "It should be somewhere nice" - so somewhere else is probably better...
Comments
In the remain bubble it might seem that enough people are swayed by EU membership, but the numbers don't line up. If a second referendum was held tomorrow I'd expext a result of about 53% for No, if it were held after a deal which keeps us in the single market then I would expect a result of 58-60% for No. The fundamentals for Scotland are poorer this time than last time.
Remain lost the economic arguments because they were based on the nebulous idea of potential lost GDP. That's not something people can easily understand or put into context. The No campaign's economic arguments will be the price of Brent and the GERS deficit figure. Those are tangible numbers that people know and understand, neither favour Yes as they did two years ago.
So it will balance out.
WHY ISN'T STURGEON MENTIONING INDY REF 2 ON A DAILY BASIS?!
'The first minister said: "It would be inconceivable for any prime minister to seek to stand in the way of a referendum if that is what the Scottish Parliament voted for, and we have heard from other Conservative politicians in the past few weeks that that would be the wrong thing to do as well.
"So I work on the basis that trying to block a referendum, if there's a clear sense that that's what people in Scotland want, would be completely the wrong thing to do."'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36800536
"The flow of money is South"
Oil is just a bonus...
Fuck the right wing media.
It had something to do with Scotland being stymied. Somehow. It didn't make enough sense to be understandable...
- Lab + LD will say if you want to Remain you must vote Lab/LD, we'll keep UK in EU
- UKIP will say Con/Lab/LD all led by Remain - if you want to Leave you must vote UKIP
So incredibly unpredictable situation - Con left in awkward position between two stools.
UKIP could win large number of seats, including many gains from Con. Con could easily lose majority.
https://twitter.com/ewansc/status/753953974038962176
https://twitter.com/ewansc/status/753954760714285056
Lib dems will not make a recovery at GE whilst Corbyn is leader.
In terms of the Union, my reading is that on a RACI chart, Scotland gets C+I. Not a veto. May will Brexit. Tory voters want to leave the EU. May is R+A. No room to hide. I do accept that she might throw the odd Brexiteer minister to the wolves during the process
I'm offering a hugely generous 49/1 on betfair.
This offer won't last long.
(Positives minus negatives.)
With that level of support for the Euro, Ireland ain't leaving.
My approach would be a federal UK, where Westminster becomes the English parliament with a new federal government to do foreign and defence policy located somewhere like Milton Keynes.
Just because they've benefitted from EU membership in the past, doesn't mean it will continue to be their best option. The UK remains their closest neighbour, and largest trading partner.
But.
It is by no means impossible. Imagine that - perhaps caused by Brexit, perhaps caused by something entirely different - the UK economy goes into serious recession in 2017. (Perhaps it's caused by a war in the Middle East that sends oil back to $100.)
In England and Wales, the view is very much "we voted for it, we're going for it". In Scotland, the LibDems and the Labour Party (and even some Conservatives) blame the recession on Brexit. Another referendum is called, and this time it's 60% to Leave.
Unlikely? Yes. Beyond the realms of possibility? No.
* Based on 2015 GDP numbers. Which I personally believe are bullshit. But that's another story.
However, as I've also pointed out before, even a 25% fall in GDP/capita would make it Japan, which isn't actually a 3rd world hellhole. If you wanted it badly enough, you could totally do it.
She could well be forced into a choice between either resigning or going into coalition with UKIP.
The point is there is a massive downside risk and only a tiny upside - as per posts earlier this evening she has a majority right now of almost 40 with DUP/UUP support.
Bertie Ahern was tugging Mr Blair's sleeve every thirty seconds. 'You're certain?" "You'll resist it?" "You're sure?"
I just don't see Ireland being able to stop it.
IANAL but what does the consent of the European Parliament mean there if it's not a veto?
That's not true anymore. Ireland can't be blackmailed when they've got debt-to-GDP down below 80%, and can now borrow at negative rates all the way out to 5 years. The unwinding of NAMA and the privatisation of the banks is likely to see Irish debt-to-GDP below 50% by the end of 2018
The EU had their chance to force Ireland's hand. And they fluffed it.
The only circumstance in which another referendum could happen is if the invocation of Article 50 is delayed for a year or so and there's a definite change in public opinion by then.
But if the Sunday Times report is right Theresa May is going to placate the Brexiteers and plans to leave in two and a half years' time. That would agree with David Davis's preferred timetable for Article 50. Though maybe the Sunday Times has been taken in by the Brexiteers' propaganda.
Marine Le Pen is president of France. France votes to leave the Euro/EU.
Does Gemany try to keep the EU together, or does it split into a Latin EU, a Germanic EU, and an middle/east-european EU?
It has several Eurosceptic parties, while France only has one - and that one is tainted by antisemitism and other issues. Liga Norda, Us with Salvini, Forza Italia and the Five Star Movement are all Eurosceptic to a greater of lesser extent.
(Although with the parliament apparently having a veto, spending some time with the leaders of the various groupings is probably a good idea.)
I wonder if he has the sense to jump before he's pushed.
"Erdogan’s AK Party could be suspended from the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists"
http://www.conservativehome.com/international/2016/07/erdogans-ak-party-could-be-suspended-from-the-alliance-of-european-conservatives-and-reformists.html
In terms of the HoC her position is pretty strong. There are two dimensions to her majority. The first on her own side:
She currently has a working majority of 16. But realistically the unionists take that up to near 30 which is pretty unassailable for the next 4 years.
The other dimensions, as pointed out below, is the fractured state of the opposition. Quite apart from needing to summon all the disparate groups on the opposition side, any attempt to vote down Gov't legislation would require all 230 Labour MPs actually voting with Corbyn. I just can't see it: apart from on the EU they're more likely to go through the Gov't lobbies, especially if TM means it about her social agenda.
There's no legal, more or constitutional requirement for her to call either a second referendum or a General Election so barring something unforeseen she can steer us through Brexit and to a GE.
Which leaves the only possibility: that she would want to call an early election. This is very unlikely.
I suspect she will want to make damned sure Article 50 is triggered and Brexit is as copper-bottomed as she can get it. She'll want the country as secure as possible before she goes to the country and at all costs she won't want a GE to be a backdoor referendum on EU membership, which is the only thing that could save Labour. So she will get us as far down the road of no return as possible.
I reckon.
Can he do this legally?
Sigh.
I would have guessed that the migrant issues into Italy would've dented support for the EU much more than Euro issues?
And if you want one more piece of evidence look at the way she cut down Michael Gove and his sponsor Nicky Morgan. The message is clear: backstab and you're out.
No e of which, in any case, has a bearing on her meaning what she says. She's a senior politician. They don't lie often - too risky - but she will dissemble, obfuscate and more, it's part of the system.
I dont condemn her for having political skills, necessary ones. On the contrary, if she has that and is sensible she could be great. But people making her out as sone transformative, cast iron truth speaker or indefatigable leader are at best premature as we've not seen how she is as a leader yet, and at worst sound like arch Corbynistas.
So I think that UK opinion will gradually turn further in favour of the Brexit route and the opposition in Scotland will diminish likewise. In any case, Scots will be facing a fait accompli and they wont be choosing whether or not the UK should leave the EU. They'll be choosing whether Scotland should secede and join the EU in the sure knowledge that the UK will be outside it. That's a very different scenario to seceding and joining the EU when the rest of the UK is still within it, the one at the time of the last referendum on secession.
I'm reluctant, incidentally, to refer to a referendum on Scottish "independence" when the UK has just won its independence from the EU and the Scots would be giving all that back.
By contrast, in the UK the immigration issue is framed almost entirely around that from Eastern European EU countries, where being in the EU makes the world of difference.