One example "In the scenario of total and sudden contraction, its main UK creditor, the Bank of England, would sell off the gilts it has bought from Deutsche, putting the proceeds on Deutsche’s BoE Settlement Account, thus enabling it to settle its CHAPS liabilities. Deutsche’s liquidator would likewise sell off the gilts Deutsche was holding as High-Quality Liquid Assets in compliance with global liquidity rules, in order to pay depositors."
It's tosh, in that - if DB goes bust - then the German government would pick up the bill, just as the UK government did for RBS, Northern Rock, etc. Shareholders in Deutsche would lose everything, of course, but it would be effectively nationalised, as has happened to every major failing retail and commercial bank in the Western World in the last 75 years.
No bail-in for DB bond holders ? The Greeks and the Cypriots won't be happy.
The SNP takes things to loony land. Say there's another indyref and Scotland becomes independent and applies to join the EU, and its application is accepted, and then the Brexit negotiations result in rUK leaving the single market with EU27 (or EU28 with Scotland now a member).
The hypothesis breaks down there. If part of the country left in the middle of Brexit negotiations, there's no way on Earth that the rUK would press on with leaving the single market.
That's putting the cart before the horse. The UK is leaving the EU come what may in 2019.
Even if the SNP gets an Independence Referendum there is simply not enough time to organise a referendum, provide the appropriate time for campaigning, hold the referendum then have negotiations for separation and exit before the Article 50 clock runs out and we leave the EU.
You're acting as if a SindyRef Yes vote means Scotland is independent tomorrow, it isn't. Scotland needs independence negotiations with the UK just as much as the UK needs negotiations with the EU. Sindy can't and won't be complete before Brexit negotiations end.
Sindy would throw an almighty spanner in the works that would provide the necessary cover for fudging the Article 50 process or extending it indefinitely. If nothing else, why would the EU continue to offer the same terms to the UK knowing that it is about to be dismembered?
Not really, to extend the Article 50 process requires unanimity from all 28 EU Member States and a number of them are all too happy to see us leave (especially after the vote) and/or not happy to encourage member states to dismember easily (eg Spain). The idea that the process will be halted has about as much chance as standing in front of an oncoming freight train and putting your hand out to say stop.
Disagree: Brexit is a big old PITA for everybody. It costs the rest of the EU money, it inconveniences their citizens and it wastes their politicians' time in negotiations. Everyone would be happy to pause it, if they thought that pausing it might stop it.
Not so. I have just checked ONS site and the RPI figure published yesterday had inflation at 2%!
CPI was 1% and RPI was 1.3%. It looks like you are misreading the stats
RPI is 2.0% YoY, RPIJ is 1.3% YoY. Neither are really very useful. CPI was 1.0%, it is the international benchmark of inflation.
But until the late 1990s we relied on the RPI.
Which was wrong.
Maybe so , but it means that when comparisons are made with 27% inflation in 1975 adjustments need to be made to take account of such data having been based on the RPI.
The SNP takes things to loony land. Say there's another indyref and Scotland becomes independent and applies to join the EU, and its application is accepted, and then the Brexit negotiations result in rUK leaving the single market with EU27 (or EU28 with Scotland now a member).
The hypothesis breaks down there. If part of the country left in the middle of Brexit negotiations, there's no way on Earth that the rUK would press on with leaving the single market.
That's putting the cart before the horse. The UK is leaving the EU come what may in 2019.
Even if the SNP gets an Independence Referendum there is simply not enough time to organise a referendum, provide the appropriate time for campaigning, hold the referendum then have negotiations for separation and exit before the Article 50 clock runs out and we leave the EU.
You're acting as if a SindyRef Yes vote means Scotland is independent tomorrow, it isn't. Scotland needs independence negotiations with the UK just as much as the UK needs negotiations with the EU. Sindy can't and won't be complete before Brexit negotiations end.
Sindy would throw an almighty spanner in the works that would provide the necessary cover for fudging the Article 50 process or extending it indefinitely. If nothing else, why would the EU continue to offer the same terms to the UK knowing that it is about to be dismembered?
Not really, to extend the Article 50 process requires unanimity from all 28 EU Member States and a number of them are all too happy to see us leave (especially after the vote) and/or not happy to encourage member states to dismember easily (eg Spain). The idea that the process will be halted has about as much chance as standing in front of an oncoming freight train and putting your hand out to say stop.
Disagree: Brexit is a big old PITA for everybody. It costs the rest of the EU money, it inconveniences their citizens and it wastes their politicians' time in negotiations. Everyone would be happy to pause it, if they thought that pausing it might stop it.
Thanks. Well, that's a shocker and no mistake - especially since SM polls haven't been overly favourable to Clinton.
On the other hand, we knew it was close-ish, and Clinton did actually have some small poll leads there in August. Perhaps the lack of polling since has hidden the move.
The SNP takes things to loony land. Say there's another indyref and Scotland becomes independent and applies to join the EU, and its application is accepted, and then the Brexit negotiations result in rUK leaving the single market with EU27 (or EU28 with Scotland now a member).
The hypothesis breaks down there. If part of the country left in the middle of Brexit negotiations, there's no way on Earth that the rUK would press on with leaving the single market.
That's putting the cart before the horse. The UK is leaving the EU come what may in 2019.
Even if the SNP gets an Independence Referendum there is simply not enough time to organise a referendum, provide the appropriate time for campaigning, hold the referendum then have negotiations for separation and exit before the Article 50 clock runs out and we leave the EU.
You're acting as if a SindyRef Yes vote means Scotland is independent tomorrow, it isn't. Scotland needs independence negotiations with the UK just as much as the UK needs negotiations with the EU. Sindy can't and won't be complete before Brexit negotiations end.
Sindy would throw an almighty spanner in the works that would provide the necessary cover for fudging the Article 50 process or extending it indefinitely. If nothing else, why would the EU continue to offer the same terms to the UK knowing that it is about to be dismembered?
They would have to be prepared to leave with no deal, all the UK negotiators, plus all we can beg, borrow, or steal from our allies are going to be tied up talking with Barnier and Verhofstadt.
From BBC page 'The Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation, which includes mortgage interest payments, rose to 2.0% in September from 1.8% in August.'
Headline:
UK inflation at 1% as price of clothes and fuel rises
You're acting as if a SindyRef Yes vote means Scotland is independent tomorrow, it isn't. Scotland needs independence negotiations with the UK just as much as the UK needs negotiations with the EU. Sindy can't and won't be complete before Brexit negotiations end.
They could adopt the SeanT approach to negotiations.
"Fck it, we're off. No deal. See ya!"
It would be catastrophic, but that is apparently not a consideration
What's wrong with that?
Past polling shows that telling Brussels to fuck off is popular.
So "another referendum on the same issue" is in the air?
One thing that hasn't changed is that Scotland has no right to belong to the EU and would have to apply for membership. Belonging to the single market but not the EU - probably meaning customs posts on the border with England - would be akin to using sterling without having a say over monetary policy. In short, it's a load of old cock, although if they wrap it in the saltire and denounce their opponents as "talking Scotland down", Sturgeon's party may be able to sell it to a large proportion of their own supporters.
Scotland wouldn't be like Norway with the oil and the big sovereign fund.
The SNP is full of "me me me" pork belly-chasing types who dream of getting as many grants out of the EU as politicians and their business supporters do in Ireland. That's what the EU means for them. They can dream away, but the talk of a second referendum is a waste of public money. Brexit would change so little in Scotland that the SNP's barefaced assertion that the Euref result necessitates tearing up the indyref mandate - which was very clearly to keep the union - is utterly dishonest and self-serving. If the Greens had any backbone they would bring the minority SNP government down. But they haven't and won't.
How can you say that being removed from the EU and the single market against their will does not constitute a major change?
Because "they" voted to be "us" by 45/55 quite recently. There is (currently) no "they" at the express vote of the Scottish people.
So the fact that Scotland voted heavily to Remain has no bearing on the subsequent independence debate post Brexit. Really?
The SNP takes things to loony land. Say there's another indyref and Scotland becomes independent and applies to join the EU, and its application is accepted, and then the Brexit negotiations result in rUK leaving the single market with EU27 (or EU28 with Scotland now a member).
The hypothesis breaks down there. If part of the country left in the middle of Brexit negotiations, there's no way on Earth that the rUK would press on with leaving the single market.
Quite so. Scotland becoming independent would ruin the Hard Brexiteers' dream of total isolation from their neighbours.
Not so. I have just checked ONS site and the RPI figure published yesterday had inflation at 2%!
CPI was 1% and RPI was 1.3%. It looks like you are misreading the stats
RPI is 2.0% YoY, RPIJ is 1.3% YoY. Neither are really very useful. CPI was 1.0%, it is the international benchmark of inflation.
But until the late 1990s we relied on the RPI.
Which was wrong.
RPI at lease has the merit of including an element of housing costs. Basing monetary policy on CPI alone was wrong on a whole different level.
Housing costs are linked to interest rates. Targeting an inflation measure which includes a cost that relies on the variable is downright stupid.
Inflation targeting has its limitations, full stop. When the process of globalisation is creating systemic deflation, using monetary policy to medicate positive inflation at the cost of inflating asset bubbles is what I'd call downright stupid.
From BBC page 'The Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation, which includes mortgage interest payments, rose to 2.0% in September from 1.8% in August.'
Headline:
UK inflation at 1% as price of clothes and fuel rises
Disagree: Brexit is a big old PITA for everybody. It costs the rest of the EU money, it inconveniences their citizens and it wastes their politicians' time in negotiations. Everyone would be happy to pause it, if they thought that pausing it might stop it.
You wish.
I'm wrong about a lot of things but I haven't yet been wrong about what the EU is going to do.
The problem with the stopping article 50 scenario isn't that the rest of the EU won't do it, it's that Britain won't ask them to.
So "another referendum on the same issue" is in the air?
One thing that hasn't changed is that Scotland has no right to belong to the EU and would have to apply for membership. Belonging to the single market but not the EU - probably meaning customs posts on the border with England - would be akin to using sterling without having a say over monetary policy. In short, it's a load of old cock, although if they wrap it in the saltire and denounce their opponents as "talking Scotland down", Sturgeon's party may be able to sell it to a large proportion of their own supporters.
Scotland wouldn't be like Norway with the oil and the big sovereign fund.
The SNP is full of "me me me" pork belly-chasing types who dream of getting as many grants out of the EU as politicians and their business supporters do in Ireland. That's what the EU means for them. They can dream away, but the talk of a second referendum is a waste of public money. Brexit would change so little in Scotland that the SNP's barefaced assertion that the Euref result necessitates tearing up the indyref mandate - which was very clearly to keep the union - is utterly dishonest and self-serving. If the Greens had any backbone they would bring the minority SNP government down. But they haven't and won't.
How can you say that being removed from the EU and the single market against their will does not constitute a major change?
Because "they" voted to be "us" by 45/55 quite recently. There is (currently) no "they" at the express vote of the Scottish people.
So the fact that Scotland voted heavily to Remain has no bearing on the subsequent independence debate post Brexit. Really?
I didn't say it did. I am saying that Scotland can't be removed from the single market against its will any more than Manchester or Newbury can, they voted by a clear majority to remain part of the UK.
Not so. I have just checked ONS site and the RPI figure published yesterday had inflation at 2%!
CPI was 1% and RPI was 1.3%. It looks like you are misreading the stats
RPI is 2.0% YoY, RPIJ is 1.3% YoY. Neither are really very useful. CPI was 1.0%, it is the international benchmark of inflation.
But until the late 1990s we relied on the RPI.
Which was wrong.
Maybe so , but it means that when comparisons are made with 27% inflation in 1975 adjustments need to be made to take account of such data having been based on the RPI.
But when comparisons are made with wages growth in 2016 its not.....
Maybe so , but it means that when comparisons are made with 27% inflation in 1975 adjustments need to be made to take account of such data having been based on the RPI.
Obviously if you want to make a comparison you would still use RPI even if there are now better measures. ONS still calculates RPI for such purposes.
None of which changes the fact that CPI is the rate that is most important for policy, and is currently below target and at an historically very low level. If you are looking for an economic crisis there must be better places to start.
From BBC page 'The Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation, which includes mortgage interest payments, rose to 2.0% in September from 1.8% in August.'
Headline:
UK inflation at 1% as price of clothes and fuel rises
So "another referendum on the same issue" is in the air?
One thing that hasn't changed is that Scotland has no right to belong to the EU and would have to apply for membership. Belonging to the single market but not the EU - probably meaning customs posts on the border with England - would be akin to using sterling without having a say over monetary policy. In short, it's a load of old cock, although if they wrap it in the saltire and denounce their opponents as "talking Scotland down", Sturgeon's party may be able to sell it to a large proportion of their own supporters.
Scotland wouldn't be like Norway with the oil and the big sovereign fund.
The SNP is full of "me me me" pork belly-chasing types who dream of getting as many grants out of the EU as politicians and their business supporters do in Ireland. That's what the EU means for them. They can dream away, but the talk of a second referendum is a waste of public money. Brexit would change so little in Scotland that the SNP's barefaced assertion that the Euref result necessitates tearing up the indyref mandate - which was very clearly to keep the union - is utterly dishonest and self-serving. If the Greens had any backbone they would bring the minority SNP government down. But they haven't and won't.
How can you say that being removed from the EU and the single market against their will does not constitute a major change?
Because "they" voted to be "us" by 45/55 quite recently. There is (currently) no "they" at the express vote of the Scottish people.
So the fact that Scotland voted heavily to Remain has no bearing on the subsequent independence debate post Brexit. Really?
I didn't say it did. I am saying that Scotland can't be removed from the single market against its will any more than Manchester or Newbury can, they voted by a clear majority to remain part of the UK.
What are you talking about? London is being removed from the EU against its will, as are Scotland, NI and Gib.
Thanks. Well, that's a shocker and no mistake - especially since SM polls haven't been overly favourable to Clinton.
On the other hand, we knew it was close-ish, and Clinton did actually have some small poll leads there in August. Perhaps the lack of polling since has hidden the move.
Clinton is doing much better in the south than elsewhere. There has been a 9% points towards her compared to 2012. Trump is doing 1% better in the north east compared to 2012.
Thanks. Well, that's a shocker and no mistake - especially since SM polls haven't been overly favourable to Clinton.
On the other hand, we knew it was close-ish, and Clinton did actually have some small poll leads there in August. Perhaps the lack of polling since has hidden the move.
Not so. I have just checked ONS site and the RPI figure published yesterday had inflation at 2%!
CPI was 1% and RPI was 1.3%. It looks like you are misreading the stats
RPI is 2.0% YoY, RPIJ is 1.3% YoY. Neither are really very useful. CPI was 1.0%, it is the international benchmark of inflation.
But until the late 1990s we relied on the RPI.
Which was wrong.
RPI at lease has the merit of including an element of housing costs. Basing monetary policy on CPI alone was wrong on a whole different level.
Housing costs are linked to interest rates. Targeting an inflation measure which includes a cost that relies on the variable is downright stupid.
If one was to bump VAT (either up or down), would have have a strong effect on inflation, or is that ironed out of the index?
An increase in VAT increases consumer prices, so yes for a year CPI would be higher. It happened when the government raised VAT from 17.5% to 20%. Funnily enough we didn't see as much price deflation when the previous Labour government decreased VAT from 17.5% to 15% for a year!
From BBC page 'The Retail Prices Index (RPI) measure of inflation, which includes mortgage interest payments, rose to 2.0% in September from 1.8% in August.'
Headline:
UK inflation at 1% as price of clothes and fuel rises
Yes - that refers to the CPI - nobody appears to be contesting that!
And its the figure that is used nowadays to measure 'inflation' - its what benefits/pensions etc are indexed to - RPI is no longer used....
Rail fares are linked to RPI. Generally increases are linked to CPI, costs to RPI. A neat little way of making the government some more money.
Had the BoE cut interest rates in July, the rail fares increase would not have been as much as it was. The cynic in me thinks that the BoE were asked to hold off for a month.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government is battening down the hatches for the coming Brexit talks, instructing officials to avoid any back-door contacts that could hand the U.K. an advantage.
Not so. I have just checked ONS site and the RPI figure published yesterday had inflation at 2%!
CPI was 1% and RPI was 1.3%. It looks like you are misreading the stats
RPI is 2.0% YoY, RPIJ is 1.3% YoY. Neither are really very useful. CPI was 1.0%, it is the international benchmark of inflation.
But until the late 1990s we relied on the RPI.
Which was wrong.
RPI at lease has the merit of including an element of housing costs. Basing monetary policy on CPI alone was wrong on a whole different level.
Housing costs are linked to interest rates. Targeting an inflation measure which includes a cost that relies on the variable is downright stupid.
If one was to bump VAT (either up or down), would have have a strong effect on inflation, or is that ironed out of the index?
An increase in VAT increases consumer prices, so yes for a year CPI would be higher. It happened when the government raised VAT from 17.5% to 20%. Funnily enough we didn't see as much price deflation when the previous Labour government decreased VAT from 17.5% to 15% for a year!
Disagree: Brexit is a big old PITA for everybody. It costs the rest of the EU money, it inconveniences their citizens and it wastes their politicians' time in negotiations. Everyone would be happy to pause it, if they thought that pausing it might stop it.
You wish.
I'm wrong about a lot of things but I haven't yet been wrong about what the EU is going to do.
The problem with the stopping article 50 scenario isn't that the rest of the EU won't do it, it's that Britain won't ask them to.
Apparently this question came up in the High Court
“We do not argue that an Article 50 notice can be revoked and we would like the court to proceed on the basis a notification is irrevocable,” Wright told the court.
Asked from the judges’ bench if that meant there was no such thing as giving conditional notice, Wright said: “We accept that.”
His guidance appears to resolve one of the biggest questions of the Brexit negotiations: Whether Britain could at some point decide to revoke its intention to leave after negotiations begin.
Let's say the UK had narrowly voted overall to Remain, by a similar margin of, say, 51.5% to 49.5% due to even heavier Remain votes in London, Scotland and NI.
I presume those now pleading for special exceptions for those areas would have been equally vociferous in advocating that the rest of England and Wales should be allowed to withdraw in spite of the national result?
So "another referendum on the same issue" is in the air?
One thing that hasn't changed is that Scotland has no right to belong to the EU and would have to apply for membership. Belonging to the single market but not the EU - probably meaning customs posts on the border with England - would be akin to using sterling without having a say over monetary policy. In short, it's a load of old cock, although if they wrap it in the saltire and denounce their opponents as "talking Scotland down", Sturgeon's party may be able to sell it to a large proportion of their own supporters.
Scotland wouldn't be like Norway with the oil and the big sovereign fund.
The SNP is full of "me me me" pork belly-chasing types who dream of getting as many grants out of the EU as politicians and their business supporters do in Ireland. That's what the EU means for them. They can dream away, but the talk of a second referendum is a waste of public money. Brexit would change so little in Scotland that the SNP's barefaced assertion that the Euref result necessitates tearing up the indyref mandate - which was very clearly to keep the union - is utterly dishonest and self-serving. If the Greens had any backbone they would bring the minority SNP government down. But they haven't and won't.
How can you say that being removed from the EU and the single market against their will does not constitute a major change?
Because "they" voted to be "us" by 45/55 quite recently. There is (currently) no "they" at the express vote of the Scottish people.
So the fact that Scotland voted heavily to Remain has no bearing on the subsequent independence debate post Brexit. Really?
I didn't say it did. I am saying that Scotland can't be removed from the single market against its will any more than Manchester or Newbury can, they voted by a clear majority to remain part of the UK.
What are you talking about? London is being removed from the EU against its will, as are Scotland, NI and Gib.
Anything else is just sophistry.
What an idiotic comment. London, Ni and Gib are not members of the EU, the UK is, only the UK can leave the EU. The UK voted to leave.
You're acting as if a SindyRef Yes vote means Scotland is independent tomorrow, it isn't. Scotland needs independence negotiations with the UK just as much as the UK needs negotiations with the EU. Sindy can't and won't be complete before Brexit negotiations end.
They could adopt the SeanT approach to negotiations.
"Fck it, we're off. No deal. See ya!"
It would be catastrophic, but that is apparently not a consideration
What's wrong with that?
Past polling shows that telling Brussels to fuck off is popular.
And not catastrophic whatsoever.
People don't seem to understand that our trade with Europe under the present circumstances is resulting in more and more of our money flowing toward Europe. That isn't a good thing folks.
So "another referendum on the same issue" is in the air?
One thing that hasn't changed is that Scotland has no right to belong to the EU and would have to apply for membership. Belonging to the single market but not the EU - probably meaning customs posts on the border with England - would be akin to using sterling without having a say over monetary policy. In short, it's a load of old cock, although if they wrap it in the saltire and denounce their opponents as "talking Scotland down", Sturgeon's party may be able to sell it to a large proportion of their own supporters.
Scotland wouldn't be like Norway with the oil and the big sovereign fund.
The SNP is full of "me me me" pork belly-chasing types who dream of getting as many grants out of the EU as politicians and their business supporters do in Ireland. That's what the EU means for them. They can dream away, but the talk of a second referendum is a waste of public money. Brexit would change so little in Scotland that the SNP's barefaced assertion that the Euref result necessitates tearing up the indyref mandate - which was very clearly to keep the union - is utterly dishonest and self-serving. If the Greens had any backbone they would bring the minority SNP government down. But they haven't and won't.
How can you say that being removed from the EU and the single market against their will does not constitute a major change?
Because "they" voted to be "us" by 45/55 quite recently. There is (currently) no "they" at the express vote of the Scottish people.
So the fact that Scotland voted heavily to Remain has no bearing on the subsequent independence debate post Brexit. Really?
I didn't say it did. I am saying that Scotland can't be removed from the single market against its will any more than Manchester or Newbury can, they voted by a clear majority to remain part of the UK.
What are you talking about? London is being removed from the EU against its will, as are Scotland, NI and Gib.
Anything else is just sophistry.
What an idiotic comment. London, Ni and Gib are not members of the EU, the UK is, only the UK can leave the EU. The UK voted to leave.
Incidentally London voted more than 40% leave.
And Scotland recently reinforced that it wants to be part of the UK too.
Let's say the UK had narrowly voted overall to Remain, by a similar margin of, say, 51.5% to 49.5% due to even heavier Remain votes in London, Scotland and NI.
I presume those now pleading for special exceptions for those areas would have been equally vociferous in advocating that the rest of England and Wales should be allowed to withdraw in spite of the national result?
This kind of hair-splitting about different regional votes is mind-numbingly tedious. The only interesting question now is what kind of Brexit we get.
Disagree: Brexit is a big old PITA for everybody. It costs the rest of the EU money, it inconveniences their citizens and it wastes their politicians' time in negotiations. Everyone would be happy to pause it, if they thought that pausing it might stop it.
You wish.
I'm wrong about a lot of things but I haven't yet been wrong about what the EU is going to do.
The problem with the stopping article 50 scenario isn't that the rest of the EU won't do it, it's that Britain won't ask them to.
Apparently this question came up in the High Court
“We do not argue that an Article 50 notice can be revoked and we would like the court to proceed on the basis a notification is irrevocable,” Wright told the court.
Asked from the judges’ bench if that meant there was no such thing as giving conditional notice, Wright said: “We accept that.”
His guidance appears to resolve one of the biggest questions of the Brexit negotiations: Whether Britain could at some point decide to revoke its intention to leave after negotiations begin.
The scenario we were discussing up-thread was that the other member states would agree to a (potentially indefinite) extension, which I don't think anybody disagrees is legally possible, were everybody to want to do it.
The argument about whether the notification can be revoked is different; Some people think that Britain could just say, "We withdraw our notification" and that would be that, while other people say that the member states would all have to make a treaty change to formally stop the process. This isn't actually being argued about in the British court case you mention, because for their own reasons both sides are stipulating that it's irrevocable.
PS. IANAL but it's probably not a good idea to take legal advice from Breitbart.
Disagree: Brexit is a big old PITA for everybody. It costs the rest of the EU money, it inconveniences their citizens and it wastes their politicians' time in negotiations. Everyone would be happy to pause it, if they thought that pausing it might stop it.
You wish.
I'm wrong about a lot of things but I haven't yet been wrong about what the EU is going to do.
The problem with the stopping article 50 scenario isn't that the rest of the EU won't do it, it's that Britain won't ask them to.
Apparently this question came up in the High Court
“We do not argue that an Article 50 notice can be revoked and we would like the court to proceed on the basis a notification is irrevocable,” Wright told the court.
Asked from the judges’ bench if that meant there was no such thing as giving conditional notice, Wright said: “We accept that.”
His guidance appears to resolve one of the biggest questions of the Brexit negotiations: Whether Britain could at some point decide to revoke its intention to leave after negotiations begin.
The scenario we were discussing up-thread was that the other member states would agree to a (potentially indefinite) extension, which I don't think anybody disagrees is legally possible, were everybody to want to do it.
The argument about whether the notification can be revoked is different; Some people think that Britain could just say, "We withdraw our notification" and that would be that, while other people say that the member states would all have to make a treaty change to formally stop the process. This isn't actually being argued about in the British court case you mention, because for their own reasons both sides are stipulating that it's irrevocable.
PS. IANAL but it's probably not a good idea to take legal advice from Breitbart.
It should be fairly safe to read literal quotes from Attorney General Jeremy Wright, he was the one giving the advise not Breibart.
So "another referendum on the same issue" is in the air?
One thing that hasn't changed is that Scotland has no right to belong to the EU and would have to apply for membership. Belonging to the single market but not the EU - probably meaning customs posts on the border with England - would be akin to using sterling without having a say over monetary policy. In short, it's a load of old cock, although if they wrap it in the saltire and denounce their opponents as "talking Scotland down", Sturgeon's party may be able to sell it to a large proportion of their own supporters.
Scotland wouldn't be like Norway with the oil and the big sovereign fund.
The SNP is full of "me me me" pork belly-chasing types who dream of getting as many grants out of the EU as politicians and their business supporters do in Ireland. That's what the EU means for them. They can dream away, but the talk of a second referendum is a waste of public money. Brexit would change so little in Scotland that the SNP's barefaced assertion that the Euref result necessitates tearing up the indyref mandate - which was very clearly to keep the union - is utterly dishonest and self-serving. If the Greens had any backbone they would bring the minority SNP government down. But they haven't and won't.
How can you say that being removed from the EU and the single market against their will does not constitute a major change?
Because "they" voted to be "us" by 45/55 quite recently. There is (currently) no "they" at the express vote of the Scottish people.
So the fact that Scotland voted heavily to Remain has no bearing on the subsequent independence debate post Brexit. Really?
I didn't say it did. I am saying that Scotland can't be removed from the single market against its will any more than Manchester or Newbury can, they voted by a clear majority to remain part of the UK.
What are you talking about? London is being removed from the EU against its will, as are Scotland, NI and Gib.
Anything else is just sophistry.
What an idiotic comment. London, Ni and Gib are not members of the EU, the UK is, only the UK can leave the EU. The UK voted to leave.
Incidentally London voted more than 40% leave.
To be fair there is no reason why Gib couldnt be a member if we leave.
Jersey Guernsey IoM are outside EU even though we are in
Sounds like a good opportunity then. Get it unbanned (like it recently was in the USA) and our exports can rise from zero to more.
If we export our beef to Japan what do we eat instead - Cake ?
Increase production? It's already happening because of the horse meat scandal. There has been a rush from supermarkets to buy British beef which is reared and processed in the UK rather than a deep supply chain which has Romanian horses sent to the Netherlands and shipped from France with dodgy labels added in Belgium.
To be fair there is no reason why Gib couldnt be a member if we leave.
Jersey Guernsey IoM are outside EU even though we are in
It's an interesting idea, is there currently any example of a small dependency being a member of the EU when the "parent" nation isn't ? I cant see it working since those entities are not fully responsible for their own law making (ie defense and foreign policy) and so in all likelihood could not be signatories to the required treaties. The other minor detail is Gib was only admitted to the EU as a dependent territory of the UK.
Sounds like a good opportunity then. Get it unbanned (like it recently was in the USA) and our exports can rise from zero to more.
If we export our beef to Japan what do we eat instead - Cake ?
Is the plan to export all beef to Japan? I thought not....
We are not self sufficient in food production in this country and have not been for many years .
And yet production of livestock is now increasing as a domestic bias sets in for both consumers and supermatkets. The horse meat scandal showed just how vulnerable supply chains sourced from overseas were to low standards or criminal activity.
To be fair there is no reason why Gib couldnt be a member if we leave.
Jersey Guernsey IoM are outside EU even though we are in
It's an interesting idea, is there currently any example of a small dependency being a member of the EU when the "parent" nation isn't ? I cant see it working since those entities are not fully responsible for their own law making (ie defense and foreign policy) and so in all likelihood could not be signatories to the required treaties. The other minor detail is Gib was only admitted to the EU as a dependent territory of the UK.
But it does raise the question whether Gib could become an independent contracting party to the EEA and EFTA.
Jeez, I can't remember the last time I saw such a collective sense of humour failure. And all over a silly tweet about cows, you po-faced miserablists.
Sounds like a good opportunity then. Get it unbanned (like it recently was in the USA) and our exports can rise from zero to more.
If we export our beef to Japan what do we eat instead - Cake ?
Is the plan to export all beef to Japan? I thought not....
We are not self sufficient in food production in this country and have not been for many years .
Yes, something that will probably not change given how global food trade is.
Well also British tastes have changed to be more international as well. If I were to look in my own fridge I would find Italian, Swiss and British cheese two of which we cant make here. In my fruit bowl there is a pineapple (I guess from Kenya) and I get mangoes from India.
Sounds like a good opportunity then. Get it unbanned (like it recently was in the USA) and our exports can rise from zero to more.
If we export our beef to Japan what do we eat instead - Cake ?
No, demand for British beef would simply mean farmers would increase the number of beef cattle raised to meet that demand.
You do not know much about farming do you ?
So when demand goes up, supply goes down?
Supply depends on payments ( including subsidies ) versus costs of production . Demand may go up but my best friend a farmer in Herefordshire pulled out of beef production 2 years ago and will not return to it . He gets greater financial rewards by rearing rare breeds .
Sounds like a good opportunity then. Get it unbanned (like it recently was in the USA) and our exports can rise from zero to more.
If we export our beef to Japan what do we eat instead - Cake ?
No, demand for British beef would simply mean farmers would increase the number of beef cattle raised to meet that demand.
You do not know much about farming do you ?
So when demand goes up, supply goes down?
Supply depends on payments ( including subsidies ) versus costs of production . Demand may go up but my best friend a farmer in Herefordshire pulled out of beef production 2 years ago and will not return to it . He gets greater financial rewards by rearing rare breeds .
Ah, anecdote wins the day again. Who would have thunk it.
Jeez, I can't remember the last time I saw such a collective sense of humour failure. And all over a silly tweet about cows, you po-faced miserablists.
Shouldn't have gone there while the jam angle was still insufficiently explored
Sounds like a good opportunity then. Get it unbanned (like it recently was in the USA) and our exports can rise from zero to more.
If we export our beef to Japan what do we eat instead - Cake ?
No, demand for British beef would simply mean farmers would increase the number of beef cattle raised to meet that demand.
You do not know much about farming do you ?
So when demand goes up, supply goes down?
Supply depends on payments ( including subsidies ) versus costs of production . Demand may go up but my best friend a farmer in Herefordshire pulled out of beef production 2 years ago and will not return to it . He gets greater financial rewards by rearing rare breeds .
if they did take the plunge and were accepted into full membership of the euro they could clean up in the financial and services sector
And when the next crash comes, they can fund their own bailout.
"With RBS and HBOS – two of the world’s biggest banks – Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term." (Alex Salmond's March 2008 "Scotland will be a Celtic Lion" speech, which has since been scrubbed from the internet)
Is that the Halifax and Nat West English banks you are talking about there turnip head
Yes, there's a nasty fascism creeping in about Brexit and any of those who challenge its proponents' worldview. SeanT called Remainers traitors as a term of common abuse. Several idiots on here actually believe it.
SeanT is SeanT - MalcolmG with richer prose. I got bored about the tenth time he had a go at me and haven't really bewen bothered since.
But it does feel odd that Brexiteers aren't more relaxed, magnaminous, etc. I don't think they are quite sure they are relaly going to get what they want, insofar as they know what they want.
On liberalism, the site is predominently Cameroonish, i.e. socially liberal and mildly conservative. The 25% of the population who really like Corbyn is under-represented (BJO, me, and er...) as are the hard right, though plato seems to be moving to fill the gap. The most interesting posts IMO are from the people like DavidL who one can't quite predict!
Nick I think you mean the poncier Luvvie English version of my good self. I have to say I am not averse to being mentioned as any way similar to our resident novelist.
"The SNP leader told US voters not to vote for Donald Trump ahead of the election despite her party's once cosy relationship with the presidential hopeful."
Oh Dear what a combination , Deluded Harry and the Express
I'm quite sure the SNP would say that what I just said is "scaremongering", but the fact is that if A is in a single market with B and C is not, then A cannot be in a single market with C.
The SNP takes things to loony land. Say there's another indyref and Scotland becomes independent and applies to join the EU, and its application is accepted, and then the Brexit negotiations result in rUK leaving the single market with EU27 (or EU28 with Scotland now a member). Should there then be a third Scottish referendum, so that Scottish people can get the chance to go back into the more important single market? Of course there would also have to be a referendum in rUK, on the issue of recreating the union, because an independent country doesn't have the right to decide for itself on whether to unite with the country next door.
This is the kind of crazy talk we get to when groups in local councils talk foreign policy.
And "local council" isn't being rude. The will of the Scottish people expressed in a very high turnout referendum is that the Scottish parliament should be a regional representative body with devolved legislative powers within Britain.
The SNP takes things to loony land. Say there's another indyref and Scotland becomes independent and applies to join the EU, and its application is accepted, and then the Brexit negotiations result in rUK leaving the single market with EU27 (or EU28 with Scotland now a member).
The hypothesis breaks down there. If part of the country left in the middle of Brexit negotiations, there's no way on Earth that the rUK would press on with leaving the single market.
That's putting the cart before the horse. The UK is leaving the EU come what may in 2019.
Even if the SNP gets an Independence Referendum there is simply not enough time to organise a referendum, provide the appropriate time for campaigning, hold the referendum then have negotiations for separation and exit before the Article 50 clock runs out and we leave the EU.
You're acting as if a SindyRef Yes vote means Scotland is independent tomorrow, it isn't. Scotland needs independence negotiations with the UK just as much as the UK needs negotiations with the EU. Sindy can't and won't be complete before Brexit negotiations end.
Sindy would throw an almighty spanner in the works that would provide the necessary cover for fudging the Article 50 process or extending it indefinitely. If nothing else, why would the EU continue to offer the same terms to the UK knowing that it is about to be dismembered?
They would have to be prepared to leave with no deal, all the UK negotiators, plus all we can beg, borrow, or steal from our allies are going to be tied up talking with Barnier and Verhofstadt.
We would be leaving debt free and have much reduced needs as we would not be paying Westminster's debts. We would do very well thank you. If not we get share of all UK assets , B of E reserves etc and hey presto still doing fine.
Nicola Sturgeon promised English voters she would take Scotland out of the UK if they voted leave. England voted for independence and therefore no referendum is required in Scotland. Instead of acting to deny England the independence she seeks for her only country she should instruct her Westminster colleagues to support brexit as long as it includes a UK separation as well.
There are a few errors, the SNP won a record 2 million votes in the history of Holyrood, it's the voting system designed to prevent an overall majority.
Should Nicola Sturgeon go for it, they are hedging their bets but behind the scene, they are working very hard.
See Angus Robertson's comment last weekend suggesting they are so close to independence.
It's a golden chance for Scottish independence but the question is when? I would say from between 2020 to 2026.
Comments
Thanks. Well, that's a shocker and no mistake - especially since SM polls haven't been overly favourable to Clinton.
On the other hand, we knew it was close-ish, and Clinton did actually have some small poll leads there in August. Perhaps the lack of polling since has hidden the move.
Past polling shows that telling Brussels to fuck off is popular.
More power to Nicola's elbow.
We are all Scottish Nationalists now.
The problem with the stopping article 50 scenario isn't that the rest of the EU won't do it, it's that Britain won't ask them to.
None of which changes the fact that CPI is the rate that is most important for policy, and is currently below target and at an historically very low level. If you are looking for an economic crisis there must be better places to start.
Anything else is just sophistry.
Nate Silver – Verified account @NateSilver538
Red states have shifted to Clinton by almost *9* points since 2012. Swing states just 2 points. Blue states haven't shifted at all.
Time for Trump to take the Last Train to Georgia?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-19/germany-said-to-shut-door-on-brexit-back-channels-in-blow-to-may
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government is battening down the hatches for the coming Brexit talks, instructing officials to avoid any back-door contacts that could hand the U.K. an advantage.
What a tiresome and childish argument. You could equally argue the heavily leave areas were being kept in the EU against their will for forty years.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/17/britain-cannot-revoke-article-50-invoked-governments-top-lawyer-says/
“We do not argue that an Article 50 notice can be revoked and we would like the court to proceed on the basis a notification is irrevocable,” Wright told the court.
Asked from the judges’ bench if that meant there was no such thing as giving conditional notice, Wright said: “We accept that.”
His guidance appears to resolve one of the biggest questions of the Brexit negotiations: Whether Britain could at some point decide to revoke its intention to leave after negotiations begin.
I presume those now pleading for special exceptions for those areas would have been equally vociferous in advocating that the rest of England and Wales should be allowed to withdraw in spite of the national result?
Amazing innovation.
https://twitter.com/LOLGOP/status/788700988806950912
Incidentally London voted more than 40% leave.
People don't seem to understand that our trade with Europe under the present circumstances is resulting in more and more of our money flowing toward Europe. That isn't a good thing folks.
The argument about whether the notification can be revoked is different; Some people think that Britain could just say, "We withdraw our notification" and that would be that, while other people say that the member states would all have to make a treaty change to formally stop the process. This isn't actually being argued about in the British court case you mention, because for their own reasons both sides are stipulating that it's irrevocable.
PS. IANAL but it's probably not a good idea to take legal advice from Breitbart.
As if Brexit based its strategy on sales of one animal product to one country.
This sort of nonsense gives everyone a bad name.
Jersey Guernsey IoM are outside EU even though we are in
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/19/arizona-republic-morrison-cronkite-news-poll/92390100/
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-nearest-run-thing/
NEW THREAD
Should Nicola Sturgeon go for it, they are hedging their bets but behind the scene, they are working very hard.
See Angus Robertson's comment last weekend suggesting they are so close to independence.
It's a golden chance for Scottish independence but the question is when? I would say from between 2020 to 2026.