I'm increasingly worried that we'll never end up leaving. The Government and Civil Service will do everything they can to sabotage the renegotiation, and if a Remainer wins the Tory leadership they will agree some meaningless concession and say the people's mandate has been answered.
Alistair, as a Nat (I assume? If not I apologise!) is the message that Scotland can simply slip in to the UKs seat when it leaves? Or is it accepted that Scotland would have to choose independence, get is own currency, then go it alone for a few years and meet all economic tests, then be admitted to the EU, joining the Euro, Schengen etc
The EU has an identifiable process where the UKs membership can transfer to Scotland AND do so by QMV with no Veto being available to any country.
Alistair, as a Nat (I assume? If not I apologise!) is the message that Scotland can simply slip in to the UKs seat when it leaves? Or is it accepted that Scotland would have to choose independence, get is own currency, then go it alone for a few years and meet all economic tests, then be admitted to the EU, joining the Euro, Schengen etc
The EU has an identifiable process where the UKs membership can transfer to Scotland AND do so by QMV with no Veto being available to any country.
What is it?
The Council of Ministers decide that the UK is dissolved by the end of the Acts of Union. That is by QMV. They then decide that of the two successor states, in terms of membership, Scotland is the Continuing state and inherits all treaty rights under their remit. Again it is by QMV.
Can a pollster please do a survey in Scotland and ask why people voted Remain and whether it was anything to do with supporting the SNP's position or strategy.
I live i I know of SNP supporters in England who were being quietly encouraged by the party to vote Leave.
They don't have a majority in Holyrood and therefore they don't have a mandate to fulfil all the promises in their manifesto, but for the record here is what they did say:
"We believe that thst option for our country. We will listen to the concerns of people who voted No in 2014 and seek to address them."
Why is the Torygraph giving more space to the Sunday Post's opinion poll (finding that 59% of people in Scotland support independence) than to the proper one conducted by Panelbase for the Sunday Times, which gave a figure of 52%?
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
I read a report this morning (can't recall where, I've read 1000s this week) which said EU lawyers had pretty much ruled this out.
The UK has to entirely quit the EU, then Scotland needs to go indy, so it can then negotiate re-entry to the EU as a sovereign country.
Which makes sense, otherwise you could have London, Brighton, Herefordshire, my local Tesco or the shouting homeless guy at the bus stop all trying to "remain" part of the EU.
This also means any Scottish re-entry to the EU will be 3 or 4 years away at least, and possibly a decade or more - presuming this is what Scots decide they want.
Unless the EU wants to give two fingers to England
No wonder the East of England and East Midlands are so peed off.
Makes Wales all the more of an enigma though. Afaicr Wales has a similar demography (e.g. non UK born immigration) to Scotland but they've gone in a very different direction.
If the new Con PM calls a GE and gets a majority then yes, we will leave.
But what if it's a Hung Parliament? Then how on earth is it actually going to happen? Coalition with LDs will halt it immediately - as LDs will vote against.
So it would need some kind of grand Con + Lab coalition. That doesn't seem very likely to me.
Should Betfair set up a market on whether we will be in the EU on, say, 1 July 2019 (ie giving 2 years plus a bit of extra time for leeway)?
I reckon it's 50:50 at most that we actually leave.
We leave the EU automatically within 2 years of triggering article 50. Triggering article 50 is not a matter for Parliament, but done under Royal Prerogative. So doesn't matter who has the votes against it.
Yes but who will have the cullions to trigger A50? Knowing the chaos that comes after?
Of course the uncertainty around not triggering might force the next PM's hand, but if that PM wins a GE on a mandate of renegotiate then revote he might get away with it.
What's the point of winning the referendum and then do nothing about it ? The Leavers credibility would diminish by the day.
If the new Con PM calls a GE and gets a majority then yes, we will leave.
But what if it's a Hung Parliament? Then how on earth is it actually going to happen? Coalition with LDs will halt it immediately - as LDs will vote against.
So it would need some kind of grand Con + Lab coalition. That doesn't seem very likely to me.
Should Betfair set up a market on whether we will be in the EU on, say, 1 July 2019 (ie giving 2 years plus a bit of extra time for leeway)?
I reckon it's 50:50 at most that we actually leave.
Seems increasingly to be that the UK will not leave the EU, but we will have two years of chaos, followed by another referendum.
Still in the denial stage.
Yes the uncertainty would be intolerable and would generate more chaos than A50. It is clearly an impossible situation to be still in the EU but informally intending to leave and therefore not able to participate properly in it.
But it's common sense. Scotland is not a sovereign power able to join the EU, no more than Catalunya or Corsica are.
And Spain and France (despite the temptation to fuck England) will not want to encourage separatists in those regions by letting them think they can negotiate directly with Brussels.
It's not going to happen. The Spanish in particular will be obstructive.
And then, if and when Brexit happens, and Sindyref 2 is then won, Scotland will have to join Schengen (meaning borders at Berwick), the euro (meaning interest rates set in Frankfurt) and the eurozone (meaning possible tariffs on trade with England). Also national bankruptcy. Inter alia.
I can see the keen emotional desire for Sindy. But the practicalities are still horrible. Arguably they are now worse.
The Spanish (and French) can be as obstructive as they like, if the process can be achieved by QMV (and it clearly can, even if it involves some fudging) then they cannot Veto it. Without a Veto they get over-ruled.
LauraK I expect Gove will be co-chair of Boris' leadership campaign if he runs, other co-chair will be a Remainer, running on 'unity' ticket
Dr Sarah Wollaston?
LOL, just what we need a turncoat at the top table, she should not be in charge of even deckchairs
She was smart enough to realise that not having a plan was going to be a problem.
If only others were.
nothing worse than a turncoat, especially when they defect to the losing side. Who could ever trust such a despicable person's judgement in future. No principles.
Yeah, Watson's going to tell him to quit tomorrow isn't he?
Does Watson fancy the job for himself. Seems like he might be a bit too far to the right for a lot of members tastes, but a known heavyweight with excellent union connections might be worth a flutter if they are looking for someone to put the party on a General Election footing at potentially short notice.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre The Corbyn cannot hear the Falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
Alistair, as a Nat (I assume? If not I apologise!) is the message that Scotland can simply slip in to the UKs seat when it leaves? Or is it accepted that Scotland would have to choose independence, get is own currency, then go it alone for a few years and meet all economic tests, then be admitted to the EU, joining the Euro, Schengen etc
We do no know yet. That is why Sturgeon is beginning talks. Talks that weren't avaialble during IndyRef1
As I understand it, her number 1 concern is keeping Scotland in the EU. If this can be done whilst remaining a part of the UK that is the path she will take. She only goes for independence if the EU or Westminster tells her that Scotland cannot remain if the UK leave [i]and[/i] Article 50 is actually invoked.
There will be no IndyRef without the trigger being puled on Article 50.
I wonder if it will at any stage occur to investors and business people that some of the EU's more onerous regulations will soon no longer apply to the UK.
I'm sure the voters will love that they ended up with continuing EU free migration but no EU labour law.
"... If you can solve to keep FoM in such a way that it allows BoJo to credibly claim that he has restricted it then it works."
Mr. Charles, I have been reading your posts on here on here with interest and seriousness for some few years. In that time I have never seen you descend to the language of the politicians.
That sentence is unworthy of you and your family. For what the sentence says, to me at least, is that it doesn't matter if FoM has been restricted as long as people can be tricked into thinking it has. Thats the sort of thing Ed Balls used to com up with, "We need to do X so that the electorate will believe Y" - it doesn't matter whether Y is true as long as we can get the plebs to believe it for long enough.
I apologise if I have picked you up on some loose language just after Sunday luncheon, but that sort of talk is really not on. It is in fact the sort of talk that has lead us to where we are today. The plebs have had enough of being conned by their betters.
I was meaning keeping the principle of FoM (to satisfy the EU) while addressing the negative outcomes it can generate. If you can find a way that effectively restricts free movement to the UK to being from western Europe then I think the impact on the ordinary person in the UK will be far less I quite like having a GDP per capita ratio as a way of doing this (ie you have FoM if your GDP per capita is no less than 90% of that in the UK) but very open to other suggestions.
I think that falls into the territory of reasonable compromise even if it isn't the absolute letter of what people voted for.
Similar to this proposal from, I think, Lowlander (apologies if I have got that wrong).
"The EU could have resolved this by having a stratified policy over free movement, by effectively splitting Shengen into three or four tiers, where free movement is permitted but only available at your current national tier. So you can freely move between countries of similar income levels.
This would have effectively killed the main driver between mass movement while in the long term allowing true free movement (assuming all countries eventually move to similar income levels)."
Hard to imagine the governments of the countries in the low-income tiers agreeing to that.
They agreed to restrictions on free movement on Accession.
Sure, they had to agree to that to get in. But now they're in. Why would they vote to have their rights taken away?
After this and the Alton incident it is high time in my opinion that the HSE was stripped of its regulatory role in these and replaced with Her Majesties Railway Inspectorate, Office of Rail Regulation and Rail Accident Investigation Branch.
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
Barroso was quite clear at Sindy 1 that a vote for independence by Scotland would require a totally new application for EU membership, not simple succession.
Scotland's argument that the Vienna Convention on Succession applies is somewhat shaky, in that neither the EU nor the UK (hence Scotland) have ever signed, let alone ratified/acceded to the convention.
Thanks for that. Possibly too a wish to punish the UK by bending the rules for Scotland, might seem less important than not encouraging other separatist areas in the EU and maintaining good relations with the UK as a trading partner? Nicola is a shameless opportunist who learned at the feet of Alex Salmond-- they're both perfect separatist politicians. Her whole purpose is to sew discord and uncertainty and resentment on both sides, until she can paint independence as the more stable option. She always helped by people who talk her up of course and the way independence is being portrayed as all but inevitable in the UK media, is the gift that keeps on giving.
Ha Ha Ha, an objective viewpoint from a sad Tory
Actually Malcolm, she is a shameless opportunist but you sound as if you think thats an insult. Every politician who tries to pull off separation and any nationalist party's kind of populism has to be cunning, opportunist and shamelessly manipulative. The Uk could do with those exact qualities at the helm right now. It's also true I think that the UK media's 'independence is inevitable' spiel is helping the separatist cause. And Nicola is unquestionably fostering a them and us situation with threats to stop Brexit, because she speaks for the Scottish people and 'sorry to the rest of you but'.... Already she's being allowed to posture as the prime minister of a separate country defending its interests against everyone else, not a politician in a united country. Its all mood music and she is brilliant at it.
After this and the Alton incident it is high time in my opinion that the HSE was stripped of its regulatory role in these and replaced with Her Majesties Railway Inspectorate, Office of Rail Regulation and Rail Accident Investigation Branch.
I'll suggest that to my safety colleagues tomorrow!
On a serious note we did have to get involved when the narrow gauge train at Longleet derailed.
This putsch will not work against Corbyn. However, the PLP has one weapon - the nuclear one. Parliament does not recognise the leader of the Labour Party. It only recognises the Leader of the PLP. The leadership could be changed by the MPs. The new leader could be the Leader of the Labour MPs in the House of Commons.
However, there could be massive unrest in the Party as a whole. How many would follow such a strategy ?
Yes - definitely possible.
The question then would be what would happen at the GE?
Who would be put before the public as potential PM?
Also big problem for BBC / ITV / Sky - they would have to decide which Labour leader was in TV debates - this would be an absolutely massive call.
If no agreement it could mean no leader debates I suspect.
"The EU yesterday dealt a devastating blow to Nicola Sturgeon's new bid for independence - by ruling out any prospect of Scotland retaining its EU membership when Britain leaves. The SNP leader yesterday said she is seeking 'immediate discussions' with Brussels to 'protect Scotland's place in the EU'. But The Scottish Mail on Sunday can reveal that the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, has already ruled there is no option but the whole of the UK exiting following Thursday's shock Leave vote."
Yet not a single claim in the entire article is substantiated.
EU rulings are not secretly shown to journalists under cover of dark to be reported on in the abstract. They are openly published and available for all to see freely.
It's just more made up nonsense from the Mail. Not unexpectedly.
But it's common sense. Scotland is not a sovereign power able to join the EU, no more than Catalunya or Corsica are.
And Spain and France (despite the temptation to fuck England) will not want to encourage separatists in those regions by letting them think they can negotiate directly with Brussels.
It's not going to happen. The Spanish in particular will be obstructive.
And then, if and when Brexit happens, and Sindyref 2 is then won, Scotland will have to join Schengen (meaning borders at Berwick), the euro (meaning interest rates set in Frankfurt) and the eurozone (meaning possible tariffs on trade with England). Also national bankruptcy. Inter alia.
I can see the keen emotional desire for Sindy. But the practicalities are still horrible. Arguably they are now worse.
As the white heat of new passion for indy in the wake of Brexit (59%) cools, and the legalities and practicalities reassert themselves, so the prospects of the neverendum will fade.
I'm increasingly worried that we'll never end up leaving. The Government and Civil Service will do everything they can to sabotage the renegotiation, and if a Remainer wins the Tory leadership they will agree some meaningless concession and say the people's mandate has been answered.
Keep cool. Once we have Leave MPs in power the wheels will turn.
"The EU yesterday dealt a devastating blow to Nicola Sturgeon's new bid for independence - by ruling out any prospect of Scotland retaining its EU membership when Britain leaves. The SNP leader yesterday said she is seeking 'immediate discussions' with Brussels to 'protect Scotland's place in the EU'. But The Scottish Mail on Sunday can reveal that the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, has already ruled there is no option but the whole of the UK exiting following Thursday's shock Leave vote."
Yet not a single claim in the entire article is substantiated.
EU rulings are not secretly shown to journalists under cover of dark to be reported on in the abstract. They are openly published and available for all to see freely.
It's just more made up nonsense from the Mail. Not unexpectedly.
But it's common sense. Scotland is not a sovereign power able to join the EU, no more than Catalunya or Corsica are.
And Spain and France (despite the temptation to fuck England) will not want to encourage separatists in those regions by letting them think they can negotiate directly with Brussels.
It's not going to happen. The Spanish in particular will be obstructive.
And then, if and when Brexit happens, and Sindyref 2 is then won, Scotland will have to join Schengen (meaning borders at Berwick), the euro (meaning interest rates set in Frankfurt) and the eurozone (meaning possible tariffs on trade with England). Also national bankruptcy. Inter alia.
I can see the keen emotional desire for Sindy. But the practicalities are still horrible. Arguably they are now worse.
With oil at $50 Sindy is a basket case. Sturgeon is attention seeking.
If Cameron's aim in calling the referendum was to destroy the Eurosceptics in his own party, it looks increasing likely that he will achieve his aim, albeit not in the way he intended.
It appears many leavers thought they were voting for deportation
Shhh
Posting things like that upsets people here.
I posted on Friday morning that it was abundantly clear the Leavers a) did not expect to win b) did not want to win c) had no plan if they did win. That has proved true.
Anecdote: spoke to a barmaid last night, she voted Leave. How did she feel when she woke up on Friday morning: "scared. There has to be a plan, but there is no plan." How would she vote if re-run: "oh god, I wouldn't vote"
spoke to five remainers "how would you vote now?" "Out."
We have seen a lot about the crying of the remainers because it suits the views of the metropolitan media, rather less about the almost complete non-appearance of the 7 Plagues of Project Fear, the FTSE is up, Sterling is where it was in February, the French have said no refugee camps in Kent, and there is no indications of massed troop movements in Europe. Cameron and Osborne are revealed to the public as liars for all to see, people cowed by Project Fear will be voting Leave next time around.
The pound is at 1.36 to the Dollar in February it was at 1.38. That's down.
The FTSE 100 was effectively at 8412 if priced in Dollars back in February when the pound was "where it was in February", it is now at 8347. That's down.
The FTSE 250 was at 22862 in dollar terms in February, it is now 21879. That's down.
If the opinion polls were that close we would call it margin of error difference
I would guess there are many people on twitter and facebook who are chanting "Rerun the referendum it wasn't valid" AND "You cant chuck out Jezza, he has a democratic mandate"
But it's common sense. Scotland is not a sovereign power able to join the EU, no more than Catalunya or Corsica are.
And Spain and France (despite the temptation to fuck England) will not want to encourage separatists in those regions by letting them think they can negotiate directly with Brussels.
It's not going to happen. The Spanish in particular will be obstructive.
And then, if and when Brexit happens, and Sindyref 2 is then won, Scotland will have to join Schengen (meaning borders at Berwick), the euro (meaning interest rates set in Frankfurt) and the eurozone (meaning possible tariffs on trade with England). Also national bankruptcy. Inter alia.
I can see the keen emotional desire for Sindy. But the practicalities are still horrible. Arguably they are now worse.
The Spanish (and French) can be as obstructive as they like, if the process can be achieved by QMV (and it clearly can, even if it involves some fudging) then they cannot Veto it. Without a Veto they get over-ruled.
New members have to be approved by every state. France and Spain would have a veto.
I am not saying they would use it. Just that they do have t.
They then decide that of the two successor states, in terms of membership, Scotland is the Continuing state and inherits all treaty rights under their remit.
Alistair, as a Nat (I assume? If not I apologise!) is the message that Scotland can simply slip in to the UKs seat when it leaves? Or is it accepted that Scotland would have to choose independence, get is own currency, then go it alone for a few years and meet all economic tests, then be admitted to the EU, joining the Euro, Schengen etc
We do no know yet. That is why Sturgeon is beginning talks. Talks that weren't avaialble during IndyRef1
As I understand it, her number 1 concern is keeping Scotland in the EU. If this can be done whilst remaining a part of the UK that is the path she will take. She only goes for independence if the EU or Westminster tells her that Scotland cannot remain if the UK leave [i]and[/i] Article 50 is actually invoked.
There will be no IndyRef without the trigger being puled on Article 50.
We don't actually know she's "beginning talks". Or with whom she thinks she will be having these talks. All that we know is that she wants them.
And the difficulty with the EU (as Greece found) is that you can spend lots of time talking to one set of people, only to discover that they aren't actually the ones making the decisions and aren't even acting on behalf of those making the decisions.
It appears many leavers thought they were voting for deportation
Shhh
Posting things like that upsets people here.
I posted on Friday morning that it was abundantly clear the Leavers a) did not expect to win b) did not want to win c) had no plan if they did win. That has proved true.
Anecdote: spoke to a barmaid last night, she voted Leave. How did she feel when she woke up on Friday morning: "scared. There has to be a plan, but there is no plan." How would she vote if re-run: "oh god, I wouldn't vote"
spoke to five remainers "how would you vote now?" "Out."
We have seen a lot about the crying of the remainers because it suits the views of the metropolitan media, rather less about the almost complete non-appearance of the 7 Plagues of Project Fear, the FTSE is up, Sterling is where it was in February, the French have said no refugee camps in Kent, and there is no indications of massed troop movements in Europe. Cameron and Osborne are revealed to the public as liars for all to see, people cowed by Project Fear will be voting Leave next time around.
The pound is at 1.36 to the Dollar in February it was at 1.38. That's down.
The FTSE 100 was effectively at 8412 if priced in Dollars back in February when the pound was "where it was in February", it is now at 8347. That's down.
The FTSE 250 was at 22862 in dollar terms in February, it is now 21879. That's down.
Are we supposed to get excited about movements in two of those three which are less than average weekly volatility ?
I should point out that on the thread where I tipped Ed Miliband, isam tipped Ed Balls.
The next Labour leader will be chosen for who he or she isn't rather than who he or she is. Their positive qualities are likely to be fairly arbitrary.
Alistair, as a Nat (I assume? If not I apologise!) is the message that Scotland can simply slip in to the UKs seat when it leaves? Or is it accepted that Scotland would have to choose independence, get is own currency, then go it alone for a few years and meet all economic tests, then be admitted to the EU, joining the Euro, Schengen etc
We do no know yet. That is why Sturgeon is beginning talks. Talks that weren't avaialble during IndyRef1
As I understand it, her number 1 concern is keeping Scotland in the EU. If this can be done whilst remaining a part of the UK that is the path she will take. She only goes for independence if the EU or Westminster tells her that Scotland cannot remain if the UK leave [i]and[/i] Article 50 is actually invoked.
There will be no IndyRef without the trigger being puled on Article 50.
For sure , and if forced to do it due to being out of EU it will be a YES vote.
If the new Con PM calls a GE and gets a majority then yes, we will leave.
But what if it's a Hung Parliament? Then how on earth is it actually going to happen? Coalition with LDs will halt it immediately - as LDs will vote against.
So it would need some kind of grand Con + Lab coalition. That doesn't seem very likely to me.
Should Betfair set up a market on whether we will be in the EU on, say, 1 July 2019 (ie giving 2 years plus a bit of extra time for leeway)?
I reckon it's 50:50 at most that we actually leave.
We leave the EU automatically within 2 years of triggering article 50. Triggering article 50 is not a matter for Parliament, but done under Royal Prerogative. So doesn't matter who has the votes against it.
OK, fair enough.
Well it's then a question as to whether the next PM triggers Article 50 BEFORE the GE?
If they go for an immediate GE, then it may well be they'll put their whole plan in the manifesto and only trigger Article 50 once they are re-elected.
Then, if there is no majority Con Government, my previous post stands.
Other possibility is no GE. There's obviously a chance of that - moreso if someone like May becomes PM.
Totally crazy scenario: GE 2016/7 is somehow won by a Labour-SNP that parks the bus on Brexit for three years. Then another GE in 2019/20. Regardless of the latter result, would the referendum have any moral standing after a majority of the House of Commons acted otherwise for a reasonably long parliamentary term? Put another way, is the referendum result a blank cheque for a future UK government to threaten departure? Is David Cameron the cleverest man in postwar UK politics?
It appears many leavers thought they were voting for deportation
Shhh
Posting things like that upsets people here.
I posted on Friday morning that it was abundantly clear the Leavers a) did not expect to win b) did not want to win c) had no plan if they did win. That has proved true.
Anecdote: spoke to a barmaid last night, she voted Leave. How did she feel when she woke up on Friday morning: "scared. There has to be a plan, but there is no plan." How would she vote if re-run: "oh god, I wouldn't vote"
spoke to five remainers "how would you vote now?" "Out."
We have seen a lot about the crying of the remainers because it suits the views of the metropolitan media, rather less about the almost complete non-appearance of the 7 Plagues of Project Fear, the FTSE is up, Sterling is where it was in February, the French have said no refugee camps in Kent, and there is no indications of massed troop movements in Europe. Cameron and Osborne are revealed to the public as liars for all to see, people cowed by Project Fear will be voting Leave next time around.
Setting a few hostages to fortune up?
Further shitstorm incoming on Monday
I think the markets in the next two or three weeks, are going to be crucial as to whether we actually quit.
If there is a bloodbath I suspect people will start to get cold feet, and a renegotiation will become much more tempting, and another vote. As has happened so often in the EU before. Horrible but true.
If there is relative stability the politics will also settle down, and we will go through summer knowing that A50 will be triggered in the Autumn.
It all comes down to the markets. They will decide. As ever. I wonder if they are in shock and we have yet to see the real reaction. Eyes down, brace position.
Yet most Leave voters could not care less about the markets, they voted Leave because of immigration. Personally I think the markets will settle soon but even if they don't that does not necessarily change things
Alistair, as a Nat (I assume? If not I apologise!) is the message that Scotland can simply slip in to the UKs seat when it leaves? Or is it accepted that Scotland would have to choose independence, get is own currency, then go it alone for a few years and meet all economic tests, then be admitted to the EU, joining the Euro, Schengen etc
The EU has an identifiable process where the UKs membership can transfer to Scotland AND do so by QMV with no Veto being available to any country.
What is it?
The Council of Ministers decide that the UK is dissolved by the end of the Acts of Union. That is by QMV. They then decide that of the two successor states, in terms of membership, Scotland is the Continuing state and inherits all treaty rights under their remit. Again it is by QMV.
Nope. The EU are not signatories to the Convention on Successor states so that does not apply.
But it's common sense. Scotland is not a sovereign power able to join the EU, no more than Catalunya or Corsica are.
And Spain and France (despite the temptation to fuck England) will not want to encourage separatists in those regions by letting them think they can negotiate directly with Brussels.
It's not going to happen. The Spanish in particular will be obstructive.
And then, if and when Brexit happens, and Sindyref 2 is then won, Scotland will have to join Schengen (meaning borders at Berwick), the euro (meaning interest rates set in Frankfurt) and the eurozone (meaning possible tariffs on trade with England). Also national bankruptcy. Inter alia.
I can see the keen emotional desire for Sindy. But the practicalities are still horrible. Arguably they are now worse.
The Spanish (and French) can be as obstructive as they like, if the process can be achieved by QMV (and it clearly can, even if it involves some fudging) then they cannot Veto it. Without a Veto they get over-ruled.
New members have to be approved by every state. France and Spain would have a veto.
I am not saying they would use it. Just that they do have t.
It appears many leavers thought they were voting for deportation
Shhh
Posting things like that upsets people here.
I posted on Friday morning that it was abundantly clear the Leavers a) did not expect to win b) did not want to win c) had no plan if they did win. That has proved true.
Anecdote: spoke to a barmaid last night, she voted Leave. How did she feel when she woke up on Friday morning: "scared. There has to be a plan, but there is no plan." How would she vote if re-run: "oh god, I wouldn't vote"
spoke to five remainers "how would you vote now?" "Out."
We have seen a lot about the crying of the remainers because it suits the views of the metropolitan media, rather less about the almost complete non-appearance of the 7 Plagues of Project Fear, the FTSE is up, Sterling is where it was in February, the French have said no refugee camps in Kent, and there is no indications of massed troop movements in Europe. Cameron and Osborne are revealed to the public as liars for all to see, people cowed by Project Fear will be voting Leave next time around.
Setting a few hostages to fortune up?
Further shitstorm incoming on Monday
I think the markets in the next two or three weeks, are going to be crucial as to whether we actually quit.
If there is a bloodbath I suspect people will start to get cold feet, and a renegotiation will become much more tempting, and another vote. As has happened so often in the EU before. Horrible but true.
If there is relative stability the politics will also settle down, and we will go through summer knowing that A50 will be triggered in the Autumn.
It all comes down to the markets. They will decide. As ever. I wonder if they are in shock and we have yet to see the real reaction. Eyes down, brace position.
they will recover, if it drops there will be vultures waiting to pick up the bargains. They don't give a crap how they make the cash.
"The EU yesterday dealt a devastating blow to Nicola Sturgeon's new bid for independence - by ruling out any prospect of Scotland retaining its EU membership when Britain leaves. The SNP leader yesterday said she is seeking 'immediate discussions' with Brussels to 'protect Scotland's place in the EU'. But The Scottish Mail on Sunday can reveal that the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, has already ruled there is no option but the whole of the UK exiting following Thursday's shock Leave vote."
Yet not a single claim in the entire article is substantiated.
EU rulings are not secretly shown to journalists under cover of dark to be reported on in the abstract. They are openly published and available for all to see freely.
It's just more made up nonsense from the Mail. Not unexpectedly.
But it's common sense. Scotland is not a sovereign power able to join the EU, no more than Catalunya or Corsica are.
And Spain and France (despite the temptation to fuck England) will not want to encourage separatists in those regions by letting them think they can negotiate directly with Brussels.
It's not going to happen. The Spanish in particular will be obstructive.
And then, if and when Brexit happens, and Sindyref 2 is then won, Scotland will have to join Schengen (meaning borders at Berwick), the euro (meaning interest rates set in Frankfurt) and the eurozone (meaning possible tariffs on trade with England). Also national bankruptcy. Inter alia.
I can see the keen emotional desire for Sindy. But the practicalities are still horrible. Arguably they are now worse.
With oil at $50 Sindy is a basket case. Sturgeon is attention seeking.
That $50 has gone from being worth £31 to £36 over the last year. I can see it rising again tomorrow.
Scotland is not Catalonia here. The Spanish want to prevent regions being able to secede and then fast-track their way back into the EU. That's what the Catalans would want to do. Scotland, though, is being taken out of the EU against its will and may choose to secede to preserve its membership. As Spain will never vote to leave the EU, no precedent is being created for Catalonia in the EU ensuring continued EU membership.
"The EU yesterday dealt a devastating blow to Nicola Sturgeon's new bid for independence - by ruling out any prospect of Scotland retaining its EU membership when Britain leaves. The SNP leader yesterday said she is seeking 'immediate discussions' with Brussels to 'protect Scotland's place in the EU'. But The Scottish Mail on Sunday can reveal that the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, has already ruled there is no option but the whole of the UK exiting following Thursday's shock Leave vote."
Yet not a single claim in the entire article is substantiated.
EU rulings are not secretly shown to journalists under cover of dark to be reported on in the abstract. They are openly published and available for all to see freely.
It's just more made up nonsense from the Mail. Not unexpectedly.
But it's common sense. Scotland is not a sovereign power able to join the EU, no more than Catalunya or Corsica are.
And Spain and France (despite the temptation to fuck England) will not want to encourage separatists in those regions by letting them think they can negotiate directly with Brussels.
It's not going to happen. The Spanish in particular will be obstructive.
And then, if and when Brexit happens, and Sindyref 2 is then won, Scotland will have to join Schengen (meaning borders at Berwick), the euro (meaning interest rates set in Frankfurt) and the eurozone (meaning possible tariffs on trade with England). Also national bankruptcy. Inter alia.
I can see the keen emotional desire for Sindy. But the practicalities are still horrible. Arguably they are now worse.
With oil at $50 Sindy is a basket case. Sturgeon is attention seeking.
LOL, armchair expert has spoken, Turnip of the day award.
Alistair, as a Nat (I assume? If not I apologise!) is the message that Scotland can simply slip in to the UKs seat when it leaves? Or is it accepted that Scotland would have to choose independence, get is own currency, then go it alone for a few years and meet all economic tests, then be admitted to the EU, joining the Euro, Schengen etc
The EU has an identifiable process where the UKs membership can transfer to Scotland AND do so by QMV with no Veto being available to any country.
What is it?
The Council of Ministers decide that the UK is dissolved by the end of the Acts of Union. That is by QMV. They then decide that of the two successor states, in terms of membership, Scotland is the Continuing state and inherits all treaty rights under their remit. Again it is by QMV.
Nope. The EU are not signatories to the Convention on Successor states so that does not apply.
You don't have to be signatories to Vienna to implement its articles.
The decision is NOT a bilateral one. The EU decides, the UK or its successor states have no say in the matter.
"... If you can solve to keep FoM in such a way that it allows BoJo to credibly claim that he has restricted it then it works."
Mr. Charles, I have been reading your posts on here on here with interest and seriousness for some few years. In that time I have never seen you descend to the language of the politicians.
That sentence is unworthy of you and your family. For what the sentence says, to me at least, is that it doesn't matter if FoM has been restricted as long as people can be tricked into thinking it has. Thats the sort of thing Ed Balls used to com up with, "We need to do X so that the electorate will believe Y" - it doesn't matter whether Y is true as long as we can get the plebs to believe it for long enough.
I apologise if I have picked you up on some loose language just after Sunday luncheon, but that sort of talk is really not on. It is in fact the sort of talk that has lead us to where we are today. The plebs have had enough of being conned by their betters.
I was meaning keeping the principle of FoM (to satisfy the EU) while addressing the negative outcomes it can generate. If you can find a way that effectively restricts free movement to the UK to being from western Europe then I think the impact on the ordinary person in the UK will be far less I quite like having a GDP per capita ratio as a way of doing this (ie you have FoM if your GDP per capita is no less than 90% of that in the UK) but very open to other suggestions.
I think that falls into the territory of reasonable compromise even if it isn't the absolute letter of what people voted for.
Similar to this proposal from, I think, Lowlander (apologies if I have got that wrong).
"The EU could have resolved this by having a stratified policy over free movement, by effectively splitting Shengen into three or four tiers, where free movement is permitted but only available at your current national tier. So you can freely move between countries of similar income levels.
This would have effectively killed the main driver between mass movement while in the long term allowing true free movement (assuming all countries eventually move to similar income levels)."
It's worth remembering that Schengen confers no rights to work, all it is is an agreement between the various members not to need passports to travel between them.
I think the authors meaning is unambiguous if Schengen is replaced with FoM.
The smart money in on a rapid negotiation pre Article 50 - one of the interesting things in international politics is how, once they *have* to get something done, how quickly it will happen.
My guess is that we are looking at a second referendum within 2 months to sign off on such a deal. If Remain are smart, they should start pushing for it - and use that support to get NoBrexit as the alternative on the ballot paper to The Deal.
This putsch will not work against Corbyn. However, the PLP has one weapon - the nuclear one. Parliament does not recognise the leader of the Labour Party. It only recognises the Leader of the PLP. The leadership could be changed by the MPs. The new leader could be the Leader of the Labour MPs in the House of Commons.
However, there could be massive unrest in the Party as a whole. How many would follow such a strategy ?
Yes - definitely possible.
The question then would be what would happen at the GE?
Who would be put before the public as potential PM?
Also big problem for BBC / ITV / Sky - they would have to decide which Labour leader was in TV debates - this would be an absolutely massive call.
If no agreement it could mean no leader debates I suspect.
That is it. There could be many re-selections and effectively a separate SDP Mk2 comes about. The rebel MPs [ 80% ] will feel that since possession is 9/10th of the law, the Party will have to change its opinion too.
Tom Watson becomes a crucial person now. No other person could command the same respect as he would since he also has a mandate.
It appears many leavers thought they were voting for deportation
Shhh
Posting things like that upsets people here.
I posted on Friday morning that it was abundantly clear the Leavers a) did not expect to win b) did not want to win c) had no plan if they did win. That has proved true.
Anecdote: spoke to a barmaid last night, she voted Leave. How did she feel when she woke up on Friday morning: "scared. There has to be a plan, but there is no plan." How would she vote if re-run: "oh god, I wouldn't vote"
spoke to five remainers "how would you vote now?" "Out."
We have seen a lot about the crying of the remainers because it suits the views of the metropolitan media, rather less about the almost complete non-appearance of the 7 Plagues of Project Fear, the FTSE is up, Sterling is where it was in February, the French have said no refugee camps in Kent, and there is no indications of massed troop movements in Europe. Cameron and Osborne are revealed to the public as liars for all to see, people cowed by Project Fear will be voting Leave next time around.
Setting a few hostages to fortune up?
Further shitstorm incoming on Monday
I think the markets in the next two or three weeks, are going to be crucial as to whether we actually quit.
If there is a bloodbath I suspect people will start to get cold feet, and a renegotiation will become much more tempting, and another vote. As has happened so often in the EU before. Horrible but true.
If there is relative stability the politics will also settle down, and we will go through summer knowing that A50 will be triggered in the Autumn.
It all comes down to the markets. They will decide. As ever. I wonder if they are in shock and we have yet to see the real reaction. Eyes down, brace position.
Yet most Leave voters could not care less about the markets, they voted Leave because of immigration. Personally I think the markets will settle soon but even if they don't that does not necessarily change things
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
Barroso was quite clear at Sindy 1 that a vote for independence by Scotland would require a totally new application for EU membership, not simple succession.
Scotland's argument that the Vienna Convention on Succession applies is somewhat shaky, in that neither the EU nor the UK (hence Scotland) have ever signed, let alone ratified/acceded to the convention.
Thanks for that. Possibly too a wish to punish the UK by bending the rules for Scotland, might seem less important than not encouraging other separatist areas in the EU and maintaining good relations with the UK as a trading partner? Nicola is a shameless opportunist who learned at the feet of Alex Salmond-- they're both perfect separatist politicians. Her whole purpose is to sew discord and uncertainty and resentment on both sides, until she can paint independence as the more stable option. She always helped by people who talk her up of course and the way independence is being portrayed as all but inevitable in the UK media, is the gift that keeps on giving.
Ha Ha Ha, an objective viewpoint from a sad Tory
Actually Malcolm, she is a shameless opportunist but you sound as if you think thats an insult. Every politician who tries to pull off separation and any nationalist party's kind of populism has to be cunning, opportunist and shamelessly manipulative. The Uk could do with those exact qualities at the helm right now. It's also true I think that the UK media's 'independence is inevitable' spiel is helping the separatist cause. And Nicola is unquestionably fostering a them and us situation with threats to stop Brexit, because she speaks for the Scottish people and 'sorry to the rest of you but'.... Already she's being allowed to posture as the prime minister of a separate country defending its interests against everyone else, not a politician in a united country. Its all mood music and she is brilliant at it.
Sturgeon is front and centre, informing people of her thoughts,aims and plans. You may not like them. Everybody else is in hiding.
They're moving to a genuine two tier Europe, which is the sensible way.
The EU is the Eurozone; EFTA are the rest.
It's just the rebalancing the arrangement now. Add UK, Denmark, Sweden to the Swiss, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.
It also makes it very clear that Scotland will have to accept the Euro if they want to go and join the EU.
Scotland CANNOT be a truly Independent nation if she chooses the EU.
I think everyone knows the difference between those whose definition of Scottish independence counts, and those whose definition doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Some people asked last week "was I happy that x% of laws were made in Brussels rather than Westminster?"
The reason that I am not troubled is that it is obvious that our Westminster politicians are complete dipsticks. They are a shambles and I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog, though they may be safer doing that as at least the dog knows where to go!
We are heading in the direction of a failed state.
"The EU yesterday dealt a devastating blow to Nicola Sturgeon's new bid for independence - by ruling out any prospect of Scotland retaining its EU membership when Britain leaves. The SNP leader yesterday said she is seeking 'immediate discussions' with Brussels to 'protect Scotland's place in the EU'. But The Scottish Mail on Sunday can reveal that the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, has already ruled there is no option but the whole of the UK exiting following Thursday's shock Leave vote."
Yet not a single claim in the entire article is substantiated.
EU rulings are not secretly shown to journalists under cover of dark to be reported on in the abstract. They are openly published and available for all to see freely.
It's just more made up nonsense from the Mail. Not unexpectedly.
But it's common sense. Scotland is not a sovereign power able to join the EU, no more than Catalunya or Corsica are.
And Spain and France (despite the temptation to fuck England) will not want to encourage separatists in those regions by letting them think they can negotiate directly with Brussels.
It's not going to happen. The Spanish in particular will be obstructive.
And then, if and when Brexit happens, and Sindyref 2 is then won, Scotland will have to join Schengen (meaning borders at Berwick), the euro (meaning interest rates set in Frankfurt) and the eurozone (meaning possible tariffs on trade with England). Also national bankruptcy. Inter alia.
I can see the keen emotional desire for Sindy. But the practicalities are still horrible. Arguably they are now worse.
With oil at $50 Sindy is a basket case. Sturgeon is attention seeking.
That $50 has gone from being worth £31 to £36 over the last year. I can see it rising again tomorrow.
The financial concerns are the only thing I can see reasonably stopping Scotland voting for independence. My concern is that the electorate will see how fast things can go wrong and might think twice before committing.
My real concern in the whole plan is that they would then decide to rejoin the EU and so find themselves in a worse position than they are now.
Leave and be truly independent. Don't leave one domineering bloc and join another.
Has anyone here done any research on whether the EU would allow Scotland, as part of an exiting member country, to remain in the EU? I'd thought there were rules against it, that the EU would require a whole new membership application like any other independent country, but Im assuming Im wrong since all I see is the belief that Scotland can 'vote to stay in the EU' as if that is unquestionably an option on the table?
Barroso was quite clear at Sindy 1 that a vote for independence by Scotland would require a totally new application for EU membership, not simple succession.
Scotland's argument that the Vienna Convention on Succession applies is somewhat shaky, in that neither the EU nor the UK (hence Scotland) have ever signed, let alone ratified/acceded to the convention.
Thanks for that. Possibly too a wish to punish the UK by bending the rules for Scotland, might seem less important than not encouraging other separatist areas in the EU and maintaining good relations with the UK as a trading partner? Nicola is a shameless opportunist who learned at the feet of Alex Salmond-- they're both perfect separatist politicians. Her whole purpose is to sew discord and uncertainty and resentment on both sides, until she can paint independence as the more stable option. She always helped by people who talk her up of course and the way independence is being portrayed as all but inevitable in the UK media, is the gift that keeps on giving.
Ha Ha Ha, an objective viewpoint from a sad Tory
Actually Malcolm, she is a shameless opportunist but you sound as if you think thats an insult. Every politician who tries to pull off separation and any nationalist party's kind of populism has to be cunning, opportunist and shamelessly manipulative. The Uk could do with those exact qualities at the helm right now. It's also true I think that the UK media's 'independence is inevitable' spiel is helping the separatist cause. And Nicola is unquestionably fostering a them and us situation with threats to stop Brexit, because she speaks for the Scottish people and 'sorry to the rest of you but'.... Already she's being allowed to posture as the prime minister of a separate country defending its interests against everyone else, not a politician in a united country. Its all mood music and she is brilliant at it.
To be sure and I believe we are a separate country, we have been on different trajectories for last 20 years at least. We have voted against right wing governments consistently but had them foisted upon us.
So that's the head of the largest centre left grouping in Euro Parliament, the largest centre right grouping in Euro Parliament and now Germany.
Back of the queue.
Yep, the circumstances are completely different as compared to a region seceding and then seeking fast track membership. Allowing Scotland to remain creates no precedent for the Catalans or anyone else to cite.
And then, if and when Brexit happens, and Sindyref 2 is then won, Scotland will have to join Schengen (meaning borders at Berwick), the euro (meaning interest rates set in Frankfurt) and the eurozone (meaning possible tariffs on trade with England). Also national bankruptcy. Inter alia.
I can see the keen emotional desire for Sindy. But the practicalities are still horrible. Arguably they are now worse.
They are indeed worse. The prospect of a meaningful border at Carlisle wasn't really in play in 2014 for those voting for secession, because Sturgeon was able to convince them that accession to the EU would be a doddle. It will be harder to brush under the carpet a second time around.
And if Scotland chose to join the EU, the negotiations between the nature of the border with Scotland would be settled by discussions between the EU and the UK Government, not between Scotland and the UK Government.
It's ironic that the Irish government was arguing against Brexit in order to avoid the problem of significant border controls with the UK, yet Sturgeon is now choosing using the Brexit vote to push for a second referendum thus creating the very same problem.
"The EU yesterday dealt a devastating blow to Nicola Sturgeon's new bid for independence - by ruling out any prospect of Scotland retaining its EU membership when Britain leaves. The SNP leader yesterday said she is seeking 'immediate discussions' with Brussels to 'protect Scotland's place in the EU'. But The Scottish Mail on Sunday can reveal that the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, has already ruled there is no option but the whole of the UK exiting following Thursday's shock Leave vote."
Yet not a single claim in the entire article is substantiated.
EU rulings are not secretly shown to journalists under cover of dark to be reported on in the abstract. They are openly published and available for all to see freely.
It's just more made up nonsense from the Mail. Not unexpectedly.
But it's common sense. Scotland is not a sovereign power able to join the EU, no more than Catalunya or Corsica are.
And Spain and France (despite the temptation to fuck England) will not want to encourage separatists in those regions by letting them think they can negotiate directly with Brussels.
It's not going to happen. The Spanish in particular will be obstructive.
And then, if and when Brexit happens, and Sindyref 2 is then won, Scotland will have to join Schengen (meaning borders at Berwick), the euro (meaning interest rates set in Frankfurt) and the eurozone (meaning possible tariffs on trade with England). Also national bankruptcy. Inter alia.
I can see the keen emotional desire for Sindy. But the practicalities are still horrible. Arguably they are now worse.
With oil at $50 Sindy is a basket case. Sturgeon is attention seeking.
That $50 has gone from being worth £31 to £36 over the last year. I can see it rising again tomorrow.
They're moving to a genuine two tier Europe, which is the sensible way.
The EU is the Eurozone; EFTA are the rest.
It's just the rebalancing the arrangement now. Add UK, Denmark, Sweden to the Swiss, Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.
It also makes it very clear that Scotland will have to accept the Euro if they want to go and join the EU.
Scotland CANNOT be a truly Independent nation if she chooses the EU.
I think everyone knows the difference between those whose definition of Scottish independence counts, and those whose definition doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
The Euro. A smaller percentage of voting rights than in the UK. Reinstated fishing and agricultural rules. Open borders. A regulatory and financial regime dictated by Europe.
The smart money in on a rapid negotiation pre Article 50 - one of the interesting things in international politics is how, once they *have* to get something done, how quickly it will happen.
My guess is that we are looking at a second referendum within 2 months to sign off on such a deal. If Remain are smart, they should start pushing for it - and use that support to get NoBrexit as the alternative on the ballot paper to The Deal.
If they try that there will be serious civil disobedience.
And then, if and when Brexit happens, and Sindyref 2 is then won, Scotland will have to join Schengen (meaning borders at Berwick), the euro (meaning interest rates set in Frankfurt) and the eurozone (meaning possible tariffs on trade with England). Also national bankruptcy. Inter alia.
I can see the keen emotional desire for Sindy. But the practicalities are still horrible. Arguably they are now worse.
The prospect of a meaningful border at Carlisle wasn't really in play in 2014 for those voting for secession, because Sturgeon was able to convince them that accession to the EU would be a doddle. It will be harder to brush under the carpet a second time around.
"The EU yesterday dealt a devastating blow to Nicola Sturgeon's new bid for independence - by ruling out any prospect of Scotland retaining its EU membership when Britain leaves. The SNP leader yesterday said she is seeking 'immediate discussions' with Brussels to 'protect Scotland's place in the EU'. But The Scottish Mail on Sunday can reveal that the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, has already ruled there is no option but the whole of the UK exiting following Thursday's shock Leave vote."
Yet not a single claim in the entire article is substantiated.
EU rulings are not secretly shown to journalists under cover of dark to be reported on in the abstract. They are openly published and available for all to see freely.
It's just more made up nonsense from the Mail. Not unexpectedly.
But it's common sense. Scotland is not a sovereign power able to join the EU, no more than Catalunya or Corsica are.
And Spain and France (despite the temptation to fuck England) will not want to encourage separatists in those regions by letting them think they can negotiate directly with Brussels.
It's not going to happen. The Spanish in particular will be obstructive.
And then, if and when Brexit happens, and Sindyref 2 is then won, Scotland will have to join Schengen (meaning borders at Berwick), the euro (meaning interest rates set in Frankfurt) and the eurozone (meaning possible tariffs on trade with England). Also national bankruptcy. Inter alia.
I can see the keen emotional desire for Sindy. But the practicalities are still horrible. Arguably they are now worse.
With oil at $50 Sindy is a basket case. Sturgeon is attention seeking.
LOL, armchair expert has spoken, Turnip of the day award.
What do you consider to be the impact of the decline in the oil price on the fiscal position of an independent Scotland now versus that in 2014?
Alistair, as a Nat (I assume? If not I apologise!) is the message that Scotland can simply slip in to the UKs seat when it leaves? Or is it accepted that Scotland would have to choose independence, get is own currency, then go it alone for a few years and meet all economic tests, then be admitted to the EU, joining the Euro, Schengen etc
The EU has an identifiable process where the UKs membership can transfer to Scotland AND do so by QMV with no Veto being available to any country.
What is it?
The Council of Ministers decide that the UK is dissolved by the end of the Acts of Union. That is by QMV. They then decide that of the two successor states, in terms of membership, Scotland is the Continuing state and inherits all treaty rights under their remit. Again it is by QMV.
Nope. The EU are not signatories to the Convention on Successor states so that does not apply.
You don't have to be signatories to Vienna to implement its articles.
The decision is NOT a bilateral one. The EU decides, the UK or its successor states have no say in the matter.
Actually they do. In case of disagreement it is decided by the International Court of Justice.
To be sure and I believe we are a separate country, we have been on different trajectories for last 20 years at least. We have voted against right wing governments consistently but had them foisted upon us.
Well, it could be argued that Scotland 'foisted' Labour governments on England though Im not sure you could call them left wing. Thats the thing about being part of a 300 year union involving 4 countries though. You have a large say in whats going on. You lose some but you also win some. Not so easy being a wee fella among 27+.
It appears many leavers thought they were voting for deportation
Shhh
Posting things like that upsets people here.
I posted on Friday morning that it was abundantly clear the Leavers a) did not expect to win b) did not want to win c) had no plan if they did win. That has proved true.
Anecdote: spoke to a barmaid last night, she voted Leave. How did she feel when she woke up on Friday morning: "scared. There has to be a plan, but there is no plan." How would she vote if re-run: "oh god, I wouldn't vote"
spoke to five remainers "how would you vote now?" "Out."
We have seen a lot about the crying of the remainers because it suits the views of the metropolitan media, rather less about the almost complete non-appearance of the 7 Plagues of Project Fear, the FTSE is up, Sterling is where it was in February, the French have said no refugee camps in Kent, and there is no indications of massed troop movements in Europe. Cameron and Osborne are revealed to the public as liars for all to see, people cowed by Project Fear will be voting Leave next time around.
Setting a few hostages to fortune up?
Further shitstorm incoming on Monday
I think the markets in the next two or three weeks, are going to be crucial as to whether we actually quit.
If there is a bloodbath I suspect people will start to get cold feet, and a renegotiation will become much more tempting, and another vote. As has happened so often in the EU before. Horrible but true.
If there is relative stability the politics will also settle down, and we will go through summer knowing that A50 will be triggered in the Autumn.
It all comes down to the markets. They will decide. As ever. I wonder if they are in shock and we have yet to see the real reaction. Eyes down, brace position.
Although its inevitable we really shouldn't base our decisions on the markets. They know as little as we do about what the future looks like for the UK. They mainly know a reasonable amount about what they themselves might think tomorrow.
For once I almost think we should ignore them for a few weeks until there's some actual indication as to what the plans are. Of course we shouldn't have been in the position of having no clear plan, but that's another story.
Osborne might actually be doing the right think by not saying anything. Until he's sure he can provide clarity at least.
The smart money in on a rapid negotiation pre Article 50 - one of the interesting things in international politics is how, once they *have* to get something done, how quickly it will happen.
My guess is that we are looking at a second referendum within 2 months to sign off on such a deal. If Remain are smart, they should start pushing for it - and use that support to get NoBrexit as the alternative on the ballot paper to The Deal.
If they try that there will be serious civil disobedience.
Alistair, as a Nat (I assume? If not I apologise!) is the message that Scotland can simply slip in to the UKs seat when it leaves? Or is it accepted that Scotland would have to choose independence, get is own currency, then go it alone for a few years and meet all economic tests, then be admitted to the EU, joining the Euro, Schengen etc
The EU has an identifiable process where the UKs membership can transfer to Scotland AND do so by QMV with no Veto being available to any country.
What is it?
The Council of Ministers decide that the UK is dissolved by the end of the Acts of Union. That is by QMV. They then decide that of the two successor states, in terms of membership, Scotland is the Continuing state and inherits all treaty rights under their remit. Again it is by QMV.
Nope. The EU are not signatories to the Convention on Successor states so that does not apply.
You don't have to be signatories to Vienna to implement its articles.
The decision is NOT a bilateral one. The EU decides, the UK or its successor states have no say in the matter.
Actually they do. In case of disagreement it is decided by the International Court of Justice.
Would be interested in seeing some references to back up your claim.
But in any case as neither Scotland nor the EU Council of Ministers would be disputing treatment of Scotland as the continuing state in terms of EU membership, then there would be no party to disagree.
It appears many leavers thought they were voting for deportation
Shhh
Posting things like that upsets people here.
I posted on Friday morning that it was abundantly clear the Leavers a) did not expect to win b) did not want to win c) had no plan if they did win. That has proved true.
Anecdote: spoke to a barmaid last night, she voted Leave. How did she feel when she woke up on Friday morning: "scared. There has to be a plan, but there is no plan." How would she vote if re-run: "oh god, I wouldn't vote"
spoke to five remainers "how would you vote now?" "Out."
We have seen a lot about the crying of the remainers because it suits the views of the metropolitan media, rather less about the almost complete non-appearance of the 7 Plagues of Project Fear, the FTSE is up, Sterling is where it was in February, the French have said no refugee camps in Kent, and there is no indications of massed troop movements in Europe. Cameron and Osborne are revealed to the public as liars for all to see, people cowed by Project Fear will be voting Leave next time around.
Setting a few hostages to fortune up?
Further shitstorm incoming on Monday
I think the markets in the next two or three weeks, are going to be crucial as to whether we actually quit.
If there is a bloodbath I suspect people will start to get cold feet, and a renegotiation will become much more tempting, and another vote. As has happened so often in the EU before. Horrible but true.
If there is relative stability the politics will also settle down, and we will go through summer knowing that A50 will be triggered in the Autumn.
It all comes down to the markets. They will decide. As ever. I wonder if they are in shock and we have yet to see the real reaction. Eyes down, brace position.
Yet most Leave voters could not care less about the markets, they voted Leave because of immigration. Personally I think the markets will settle soon but even if they don't that does not necessarily change things
The political power of the markets is overrated.
Indeed, obviously if you are relatively wealthy and have a lot of investments it is a concern but most of the wealthy voted Remain on Thursday, it was the poor and those on average incomes who voted Leave and who have little to lose anyway!
Comments
Cameron really did surround himself with some scum.
Afaicr Wales has a similar demography (e.g. non UK born immigration) to Scotland but they've gone in a very different direction.
@SamCoatesTimes: Exc (from November) - Law firm GRM provides legal advice Corbyn that would have to re-seek MP/MEP nominations https://t.co/WDjVqOrHA3
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/a-vote-of-confidence-in-jeremy-corbyn-after-brexit?bucket=
The Corbyn cannot hear the Falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
As I understand it, her number 1 concern is keeping Scotland in the EU. If this can be done whilst remaining a part of the UK that is the path she will take. She only goes for independence if the EU or Westminster tells her that Scotland cannot remain if the UK leave [i]and[/i] Article 50 is actually invoked.
There will be no IndyRef without the trigger being puled on Article 50.
After this and the Alton incident it is high time in my opinion that the HSE was stripped of its regulatory role in these and replaced with Her Majesties Railway Inspectorate, Office of Rail Regulation and Rail Accident Investigation Branch.
After a new leader has been elected without Corbyn
Actually Malcolm, she is a shameless opportunist but you sound as if you think thats an insult. Every politician who tries to pull off separation and any nationalist party's kind of populism has to be cunning, opportunist and shamelessly manipulative. The Uk could do with those exact qualities at the helm right now. It's also true I think that the UK media's 'independence is inevitable' spiel is helping the separatist cause. And Nicola is unquestionably fostering a them and us situation with threats to stop Brexit, because she speaks for the Scottish people and 'sorry to the rest of you but'.... Already she's being allowed to posture as the prime minister of a separate country defending its interests against everyone else, not a politician in a united country. Its all mood music and she is brilliant at it.
Spain is in the euro, with all that entails.
Any government there has very limited room to move in any direction.
Compare and contrast with free Britain.
On a serious note we did have to get involved when the narrow gauge train at Longleet derailed.
The question then would be what would happen at the GE?
Who would be put before the public as potential PM?
Also big problem for BBC / ITV / Sky - they would have to decide which Labour leader was in TV debates - this would be an absolutely massive call.
If no agreement it could mean no leader debates I suspect.
@GuardianAnushka: Labour has just cancelled the shadow cabinet meeting tomorrow.
I am not saying they would use it. Just that they do have t.
And the difficulty with the EU (as Greece found) is that you can spend lots of time talking to one set of people, only to discover that they aren't actually the ones making the decisions and aren't even acting on behalf of those making the decisions.
The next Labour leader will be chosen for who he or she isn't rather than who he or she is. Their positive qualities are likely to be fairly arbitrary.
There was over 44,000 signatories from the Cities of London and Westminster constituency this morning but there's under 15,000 now:
http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=131215&area=lon
Do we get the idea that there's a lot of fakes here ?
Surely Corbyn would just get an injunction until it was decided.
Until we left, the UK would have a veto...
The decision is NOT a bilateral one. The EU decides, the UK or its successor states have no say in the matter.
My guess is that we are looking at a second referendum within 2 months to sign off on such a deal. If Remain are smart, they should start pushing for it - and use that support to get NoBrexit as the alternative on the ballot paper to The Deal.
Tom Watson becomes a crucial person now. No other person could command the same respect as he would since he also has a mandate.
Back of the queue.
This is absolutely priceless. For the first thirty seconds I really thought the guy was a genuine remainer
You may not like them.
Everybody else is in hiding.
The reason that I am not troubled is that it is obvious that our Westminster politicians are complete dipsticks. They are a shambles and I wouldn't trust them to walk my dog, though they may be safer doing that as at least the dog knows where to go!
We are heading in the direction of a failed state.
My real concern in the whole plan is that they would then decide to rejoin the EU and so find themselves in a worse position than they are now.
Leave and be truly independent. Don't leave one domineering bloc and join another.
And if Scotland chose to join the EU, the negotiations between the nature of the border with Scotland would be settled by discussions between the EU and the UK Government, not between Scotland and the UK Government.
It's ironic that the Irish government was arguing against Brexit in order to avoid the problem of significant border controls with the UK, yet Sturgeon is now choosing using the Brexit vote to push for a second referendum thus creating the very same problem.
Independence..
http://archive.is/1Uh6o
How many votes do you think we'll get at the next Eurovision?
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/747115651098107904
For once I almost think we should ignore them for a few weeks until there's some actual indication as to what the plans are. Of course we shouldn't have been in the position of having no clear plan, but that's another story.
Osborne might actually be doing the right think by not saying anything. Until he's sure he can provide clarity at least.
Not sure. But they'll probably have to add a negative scale to accommodate it.
But in any case as neither Scotland nor the EU Council of Ministers would be disputing treatment of Scotland as the continuing state in terms of EU membership, then there would be no party to disagree.