politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The opening IndyRef2 odds make it odds-on that it’ll take plac

SystemSystem Posts: 12,552
edited March 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The opening IndyRef2 odds make it odds-on that it’ll take place and odds-on that Scotland will vote YES

Lots ofactivity from the bookies following Nicola Stugeon’s announcement that the SNP is going for a second IndyRef because of the vastly changed circumstances as a result of BREXIT.

Read the full story here


«1345678

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,581
    edited March 2017
    Game changer ?

    https://twitter.com/Aidan___Kerr/status/841274889948545024
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,581
    https://twitter.com/DavidHughesPA/status/841273627651764224?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,938
    edited March 2017
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Game changer ?

    https://twitter.com/Aidan___Kerr/status/841274889948545024

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/DavidHughesPA/status/841273627651764224?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

    EU doesn't want to Tango with Nicola... YET!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,578
    I wonder if this will be a once in a generation opportunity? :smiley:
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    FPT, but relevant to this thread:
    surbiton said:

    Fine. Does that apply to the EEA as well ?

    I would extremely surprised if it doesn't. Joining the EEA and EFTA would require agreement from Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and from the EU27 (actually EU28 until the UK actually leaves!). There might be a mechanism whereby the EU could use QMV and force any dissenters amongst the EU27 to amend the EEA Treaty against their will, but that must surely be politically very unlikely even if were legally possible.

    What you have to remember is that Scotland is of almost no interest to the EU. It's tiny, it's remote and its public finances as an independent state would be dire. Why would our EU friends go out of their way to give it special treatment? They've got bigger fish to fry.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    Giving the latest poll on independence today still has No ahead by 4% I would certainly not say a Yes vote is certain even if it will go to the wire
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,046
    FPT
    david_herdson said:

    surbiton said:

    david_herdson said:

    PeterC said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    williamglenn said:

    Your judgement is lacking. Having established that the Theresa May is not in control, the EU, and the UK, would have no interest in going over the cliff. There will be a humiliating climbdown.

    Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for a climbdown, humiliating or otherwise.
    This presumes A50 cannot be reversed. But no one knows for sure about that as the treaty does not address the issue. It would be useful to get a definitive ruling so each will then know where he stands.
    Without being explicit, the text of the treaty is about as clear as it could be, as indeed is the logic of the clause. How is it possible to state that membership will end at the commencement of the agreement / the two-year limit / the extended limit, if one side could unilaterally terminate the withdrawal discussions and return to the status quo ante?
    I think Tusk said that Brexit could be reversed. Logically, Brexit only takes place after the final agreement is done and agreed by all the countries and the European parliament. So until the whole process is gone through, there is nothing on the European side to stop reversing A50.

    Britain may not agree with that. But that is where lawyers make money.
    Not true. If Britain and the EU don't agree, Britain's membership expires on the second anniversary of the UK invoking A50. The clause is explicit on that.

    The only way it doesn't happen is for the UK and *all* other members to agree an indefinite / extremely long-dated extension to the Brexit negotiations.
    Or for it to be ruled that the constitutional requirements of the UK to leave were not met, ergo the notification is void. Without parliamentary approval of the exit deal, this would be the case.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Late Autumn 2019 looks the likeliest date, given Brexit is supposed to be done and dusted by March 2019 and there is supposed to be a General Election in May 2020.

    Might May (if still PM) welcome the certainty either way that a referendum would produce? And could she stay on after a Yes vote (I think she could, actually)? Either way there's no need to agree anything yet.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    FPT - why would you sign a deal with the SNP government?

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/841280510227828738
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,578
    williamglenn said:

    FPT

    david_herdson said:

    surbiton said:

    david_herdson said:

    PeterC said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    williamglenn said:

    Your judgement is lacking. Having established that the Theresa May is not in control, the EU, and the UK, would have no interest in going over the cliff. There will be a humiliating climbdown.

    Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for a climbdown, humiliating or otherwise.
    This presumes A50 cannot be reversed. But no one knows for sure about that as the treaty does not address the issue. It would be useful to get a definitive ruling so each will then know where he stands.
    Without being explicit, the text of the treaty is about as clear as it could be, as indeed is the logic of the clause. How is it possible to state that membership will end at the commencement of the agreement / the two-year limit / the extended limit, if one side could unilaterally terminate the withdrawal discussions and return to the status quo ante?
    I think Tusk said that Brexit could be reversed. Logically, Brexit only takes place after the final agreement is done and agreed by all the countries and the European parliament. So until the whole process is gone through, there is nothing on the European side to stop reversing A50.

    Britain may not agree with that. But that is where lawyers make money.
    Not true. If Britain and the EU don't agree, Britain's membership expires on the second anniversary of the UK invoking A50. The clause is explicit on that.

    The only way it doesn't happen is for the UK and *all* other members to agree an indefinite / extremely long-dated extension to the Brexit negotiations.
    Or for it to be ruled that the constitutional requirements of the UK to leave were not met, ergo the notification is void. Without parliamentary approval of the exit deal, this would be the case.
    My reading of the article was the constitutional requirements only apply for the decision to notify.

    1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    williamglenn said:

    FPT

    david_herdson said:

    surbiton said:

    david_herdson said:

    PeterC said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    williamglenn said:

    Your judgement is lacking. Having established that the Theresa May is not in control, the EU, and the UK, would have no interest in going over the cliff. There will be a humiliating climbdown.

    Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for a climbdown, humiliating or otherwise.
    This presumes A50 cannot be reversed. But no one knows for sure about that as the treaty does not address the issue. It would be useful to get a definitive ruling so each will then know where he stands.
    Without being explicit, the text of the treaty is about as clear as it could be, as indeed is the logic of the clause. How is it possible to state that membership will end at the commencement of the agreement / the two-year limit / the extended limit, if one side could unilaterally terminate the withdrawal discussions and return to the status quo ante?
    I think Tusk said that Brexit could be reversed. Logically, Brexit only takes place after the final agreement is done and agreed by all the countries and the European parliament. So until the whole process is gone through, there is nothing on the European side to stop reversing A50.

    Britain may not agree with that. But that is where lawyers make money.
    Not true. If Britain and the EU don't agree, Britain's membership expires on the second anniversary of the UK invoking A50. The clause is explicit on that.

    The only way it doesn't happen is for the UK and *all* other members to agree an indefinite / extremely long-dated extension to the Brexit negotiations.
    Or for it to be ruled that the constitutional requirements of the UK to leave were not met, ergo the notification is void. Without parliamentary approval of the exit deal, this would be the case.

    I don't see why Article 50 being reversible is such a complicated issue. If the UK decided it no longer wanted to leave within the 2 year period, then the EU 27 are not going to force us out and will be happy to stop the process. Its a sign of the weakness of Leave that they seem to be so worried about this.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,966
    HYUFD said:

    Giving the latest poll on independence today still has No ahead by 4% I would certainly not say a Yes vote is certain even if it will go to the wire

    I'm baffled at the odds being offered on a No vote. Might get some money down when I get home.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Top news...

    Buy turnips.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,226
    williamglenn said:

    FPT

    david_herdson said:

    surbiton said:

    david_herdson said:

    PeterC said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    williamglenn said:

    Your judgement is lacking. Having established that the Theresa May is not in control, the EU, and the UK, would have no interest in going over the cliff. There will be a humiliating climbdown.

    Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for a climbdown, humiliating or otherwise.
    This presumes A50 cannot be reversed. But no one knows for sure about that as the treaty does not address the issue. It would be useful to get a definitive ruling so each will then know where he stands.
    Without being explicit, the text of the treaty is about as clear as it could be, as indeed is the logic of the clause. How is it possible to state that membership will end at the commencement of the agreement / the two-year limit / the extended limit, if one side could unilaterally terminate the withdrawal discussions and return to the status quo ante?
    I think Tusk said that Brexit could be reversed. Logically, Brexit only takes place after the final agreement is done and agreed by all the countries and the European parliament. So until the whole process is gone through, there is nothing on the European side to stop reversing A50.

    Britain may not agree with that. But that is where lawyers make money.
    Not true. If Britain and the EU don't agree, Britain's membership expires on the second anniversary of the UK invoking A50. The clause is explicit on that.

    The only way it doesn't happen is for the UK and *all* other members to agree an indefinite / extremely long-dated extension to the Brexit negotiations.
    Or for it to be ruled that the constitutional requirements of the UK to leave were not met, ergo the notification is void. Without parliamentary approval of the exit deal, this would be the case.
    You've become become entirely irrational about this. We're leaving.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,881
    CarlottaVance said:

    FPT - why would you sign a deal with the SNP government?

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/841280510227828738

    Are you saying such deals should be regarded in the same light as manifesto commitments ?
  • eekeek Posts: 30,494
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/DavidHughesPA/status/841273627651764224?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

    Since when has the truth (or common sense) got in the way of a Sindy referendum...
  • isamisam Posts: 42,128
    SeanT said:

    What a mess.

    I don't believe there will be an indyref before 2019 and final Brexit - even if TMay was minded to allow it, the added chaos and confusion would make her Brexit negotiation practically pointless, and politically and intellectually implausible.

    But what Sturgeon has done is put a loaded gun to TMay's head, and made a soft Brexit more likely (or even no Brexit?)

    Why doesn't she just say 'you're not having one'
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,581
    Given that we've had or are about to have re-runs of referenda on EC/EU affairs and Scottish Independence, why can't we have a re-run of the AV referendum?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,856
    @SeanT - I hope you're not going to have another meltdown like last time?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,938
    SeanT said:

    What a mess.



    Your not "wobbling" on what you did are you Sean? This is what we voted for when we voted to LEAVE!
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Tissue_Price said:

    Late Autumn 2019 looks the likeliest date, given Brexit is supposed to be done and dusted by March 2019 and there is supposed to be a General Election in May 2020.

    Might May (if still PM) welcome the certainty either way that a referendum would produce? And could she stay on after a Yes vote (I think she could, actually)? Either way there's no need to agree anything yet.

    No UK Prime Minister could stay on after a chunk of the country is gone. Sean T was absolutely correct on this point before as he was if Cameron lost the EU ref.

    It would not be politically acceptable that an arrangement which has been there since 1707 and no longer exists is just one of those things. It is not.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,966
    Mortimer said:

    williamglenn said:

    FPT

    david_herdson said:

    surbiton said:

    david_herdson said:

    PeterC said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    williamglenn said:

    Your judgement is lacking. Having established that the Theresa May is not in control, the EU, and the UK, would have no interest in going over the cliff. There will be a humiliating climbdown.

    Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for a climbdown, humiliating or otherwise.
    This presumes A50 cannot be reversed. But no one knows for sure about that as the treaty does not address the issue. It would be useful to get a definitive ruling so each will then know where he stands.
    Without being explicit, the text of the treaty is about as clear as it could be, as indeed is the logic of the clause. How is it possible to state that membership will end at the commencement of the agreement / the two-year limit / the extended limit, if one side could unilaterally terminate the withdrawal discussions and return to the status quo ante?
    I think Tusk said that Brexit could be reversed. Logically, Brexit only takes place after the final agreement is done and agreed by all the countries and the European parliament. So until the whole process is gone through, there is nothing on the European side to stop reversing A50.

    Britain may not agree with that. But that is where lawyers make money.
    Not true. If Britain and the EU don't agree, Britain's membership expires on the second anniversary of the UK invoking A50. The clause is explicit on that.

    The only way it doesn't happen is for the UK and *all* other members to agree an indefinite / extremely long-dated extension to the Brexit negotiations.
    Or for it to be ruled that the constitutional requirements of the UK to leave were not met, ergo the notification is void. Without parliamentary approval of the exit deal, this would be the case.
    You've become become entirely irrational about this. We're leaving.
    Give him time, he's still in the denial phase. Anger should be fun to watch after his sanguine confidence that we're not going at all.

    Other gamers may be interested to know that I remember the stages of grief by mentally working my way through Majora's Mask.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Looks like we're headed for a hard brexit and a hard Scexit.
    I'm OK with that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    SeanT said:

    What a mess.

    I don't believe there will be an indyref before 2019 and final Brexit - even if TMay was minded to allow it, the added chaos and confusion would make her Brexit negotiation practically pointless, and politically and intellectually implausible.

    But what Sturgeon has done is put a loaded gun to TMay's head, and made a soft Brexit more likely (or even no Brexit?)

    If there is no Brexit or soft Brexit watch UKIP shoot up the polls like a rocket. May has both the SNP and UKIP on either side of her, if she gives in entirely to one side she gives a big boost to the other
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited March 2017
    SeanT said:

    What a mess.

    I don't believe there will be an indyref before 2019 and final Brexit - even if TMay was minded to allow it, the added chaos and confusion would make her Brexit negotiation practically pointless, and politically and intellectually implausible.

    But what Sturgeon has done is put a loaded gun to TMay's head, and made a soft Brexit more likely (or even no Brexit?)

    You were right in your earlier post. Nicola Sturgeon knows perfectly well that IndyRef2 during the EU negotiations is a complete non-starter. She also knows perfectly well that the idea of Scotland 'remaining' in the EU or Single Market is fantasy. It's just an excuse for another grievance.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    May staying on after a Yes vote would make the 2020 election exceedingly competitive.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    Essexit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Giving the latest poll on independence today still has No ahead by 4% I would certainly not say a Yes vote is certain even if it will go to the wire

    I'm baffled at the odds being offered on a No vote. Might get some money down when I get home.
    Sensible
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,046
    Essexit said:

    Mortimer said:

    williamglenn said:

    FPT

    david_herdson said:

    surbiton said:

    david_herdson said:

    PeterC said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    williamglenn said:

    Your judgement is lacking. Having established that the Theresa May is not in control, the EU, and the UK, would have no interest in going over the cliff. There will be a humiliating climbdown.

    Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for a climbdown, humiliating or otherwise.
    This presumes A50 cannot be reversed. But no one knows for sure about that as the treaty does not address the issue. It would be useful to get a definitive ruling so each will then know where he stands.
    Without being explicit, the text of the treaty is about as clear as it could be, as indeed is the logic of the clause. How is it possible to state that membership will end at the commencement of the agreement / the two-year limit / the extended limit, if one side could unilaterally terminate the withdrawal discussions and return to the status quo ante?
    I think Tusk said that Brexit could be reversed. Logically, Brexit only takes place after the final agreement is done and agreed by all the countries and the European parliament. So until the whole process is gone through, there is nothing on the European side to stop reversing A50.

    Britain may not agree with that. But that is where lawyers make money.
    Not true. If Britain and the EU don't agree, Britain's membership expires on the second anniversary of the UK invoking A50. The clause is explicit on that.

    The only way it doesn't happen is for the UK and *all* other members to agree an indefinite / extremely long-dated extension to the Brexit negotiations.
    Or for it to be ruled that the constitutional requirements of the UK to leave were not met, ergo the notification is void. Without parliamentary approval of the exit deal, this would be the case.
    You've become become entirely irrational about this. We're leaving.
    Give him time, he's still in the denial phase. Anger should be fun to watch after his sanguine confidence that we're not going at all.
    Let's face it - I've been right all along. It's the politics that make Brexit impossible, not the economics.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    edited March 2017
    RobD said:

    I wonder if this will be a once in a generation opportunity? :smiley:

    Certainly if Quebec is anything to go by a second referendum vote against independence by just 51% to 49% really does settle for a generation
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    FPT, but relevant to this thread:

    surbiton said:

    Fine. Does that apply to the EEA as well ?

    I would extremely surprised if it doesn't. Joining the EEA and EFTA would require agreement from Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and from the EU27 (actually EU28 until the UK actually leaves!). There might be a mechanism whereby the EU could use QMV and force any dissenters amongst the EU27 to amend the EEA Treaty against their will, but that must surely be politically very unlikely even if were legally possible.

    What you have to remember is that Scotland is of almost no interest to the EU. It's tiny, it's remote and its public finances as an independent state would be dire. Why would our EU friends go out of their way to give it special treatment? They've got bigger fish to fry.
    What you have to remember is that Scotland is of almost no interest to the EU. ?

    It is psychologically and politically very important. It will show that part of a country that left wants to re-join. Spain will be told to lump it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,578
    williamglenn said:

    Essexit said:

    Mortimer said:

    williamglenn said:

    FPT

    david_herdson said:

    surbiton said:

    david_herdson said:

    PeterC said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    williamglenn said:

    Your judgement is lacking. Having established that the Theresa May is not in control, the EU, and the UK, would have no interest in going over the cliff. There will be a humiliating climbdown.

    Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for a climbdown, humiliating or otherwise.
    This presumes A50 cannot be reversed. But no one knows for sure about that as the treaty does not address the issue. It would be useful to get a definitive ruling so each will then know where he stands.
    Without being explicit, the text of the treaty is about as clear as it could be, as indeed is the logic of the clause. How is it possible to state that membership will end at the commencement of the agreement / the two-year limit / the extended limit, if one side could unilaterally terminate the withdrawal discussions and return to the status quo ante?
    I think Tusk said that Brexit could be reversed. Logically, Brexit only takes place after the final agreement is done and agreed by all the countries and the European parliament. So until the whole process is gone through, there is nothing on the European side to stop reversing A50.

    Britain may not agree with that. But that is where lawyers make money.
    Not true. If Britain and the EU don't agree, Britain's membership expires on the second anniversary of the UK invoking A50. The clause is explicit on that.

    The only way it doesn't happen is for the UK and *all* other members to agree an indefinite / extremely long-dated extension to the Brexit negotiations.
    Or for it to be ruled that the constitutional requirements of the UK to leave were not met, ergo the notification is void. Without parliamentary approval of the exit deal, this would be the case.
    You've become become entirely irrational about this. We're leaving.
    Give him time, he's still in the denial phase. Anger should be fun to watch after his sanguine confidence that we're not going at all.
    Let's face it - I've been right all along. It's the politics that make Brexit impossible, not the economics.
    I'd be wary of declaring victory just yet!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    RobD said:

    I wonder if this will be a once in a generation opportunity? :smiley:

    Fruitflies?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,744
    What a shambles Johnson and co have created. If it happens which looks likely it'll be Theresa May not David Cameron who will be held responsible for the break-up of the UK.

    Though I'm not in favour of Scotland and ultimately Ireland going independent this is great news for Scotland.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    JonathanD said:

    williamglenn said:

    FPT

    david_herdson said:

    surbiton said:

    david_herdson said:

    PeterC said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    williamglenn said:

    Your judgement is lacking. Having established that the Theresa May is not in control, the EU, and the UK, would have no interest in going over the cliff. There will be a humiliating climbdown.

    Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for a climbdown, humiliating or otherwise.
    This presumes A50 cannot be reversed. But no one knows for sure about that as the treaty does not address the issue. It would be useful to get a definitive ruling so each will then know where he stands.
    Without being explicit, the text of the treaty is about as clear as it could be, as indeed is the logic of the clause. How is it possible to state that membership will end at the commencement of the agreement / the two-year limit / the extended limit, if one side could unilaterally terminate the withdrawal discussions and return to the status quo ante?
    I think Tusk said that Brexit could be reversed. Logically, Brexit only takes place after the final agreement is done and agreed by all the countries and the European parliament. So until the whole process is gone through, there is nothing on the European side to stop reversing A50.

    Britain may not agree with that. But that is where lawyers make money.
    Not true. If Britain and the EU don't agree, Britain's membership expires on the second anniversary of the UK invoking A50. The clause is explicit on that.

    The only way it doesn't happen is for the UK and *all* other members to agree an indefinite / extremely long-dated extension to the Brexit negotiations.
    Or for it to be ruled that the constitutional requirements of the UK to leave were not met, ergo the notification is void. Without parliamentary approval of the exit deal, this would be the case.

    I don't see why Article 50 being reversible is such a complicated issue. If the UK decided it no longer wanted to leave within the 2 year period, then the EU 27 are not going to force us out and will be happy to stop the process. Its a sign of the weakness of Leave that they seem to be so worried about this.
    Because it increases the incentive for the EU27 to offer a sh1tty deal
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,581
    FPT - But on topic

    It is 7/1 and 8/1 that Theresa May steps down as PM in 2018 and 2019 respectively with @LadPolitics

    Massive if Scots vote for Independence

    Dave admitted he would have quit in 2014, so if Mrs May is as honourable as Dave, she would quit too.

    I think Alex Salmond said last year, you lose a referendum like the Indyref or the EURef, you have to quit.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,111
    If Scotland does leave the UK, then Tory majority ought to be nailed on in the rUK General Election that follows.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited March 2017
    surbiton said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Late Autumn 2019 looks the likeliest date, given Brexit is supposed to be done and dusted by March 2019 and there is supposed to be a General Election in May 2020.

    Might May (if still PM) welcome the certainty either way that a referendum would produce? And could she stay on after a Yes vote (I think she could, actually)? Either way there's no need to agree anything yet.

    No UK Prime Minister could stay on after a chunk of the country is gone. Sean T was absolutely correct on this point before as he was if Cameron lost the EU ref.

    It would not be politically acceptable that an arrangement which has been there since 1707 and no longer exists is just one of those things. It is not.
    I'm not so sure. It might be very politically acceptable to many of Theresa May's supporters. The inherited situation is hardly her responsibility and should the people of Scotland opt for self-determination then that will be that.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 2,004
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Given that we've had or are about to have re-runs of referenda on EC/EU affairs and Scottish Independence, why can't we have a re-run of the AV referendum?

    I'd support that!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    The likely scenario is that may says no to a referendum in 2019, but that one takes place in 2021. This is surely exactly what Sturgeon wants.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,703
    Got to say I feel this is an over-reaction to the Twickenham match, but there we are.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,226
    williamglenn said:

    Essexit said:

    Mortimer said:

    williamglenn said:

    FPT

    david_herdson said:

    surbiton said:

    david_herdson said:

    PeterC said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    williamglenn said:

    Your judgement is lacking. Having established that the Theresa May is not in control, the EU, and the UK, would have no interest in going over the cliff. There will be a humiliating climbdown.

    Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for a climbdown, humiliating or otherwise.
    This presumes A50 cannot be reversed. But no one knows for sure about that as the treaty does not address the issue. It would be useful to get a definitive ruling so each will then know where he stands.
    Without being explicit, the text of the treaty is about as clear as it could be, as indeed is the logic of the clause. How is it possible to state that membership will end at the commencement of the agreement / the two-year limit / the extended limit, if one side could unilaterally terminate the withdrawal discussions and return to the status quo ante?
    I think Tusk said that Brexit could be reversed. Logically, Brexit only takes place after the final agreement is done and agreed by all the countries and the European parliament. So until the whole process is gone through, there is nothing on the European side to stop reversing A50.

    Britain may not agree with that. But that is where lawyers make money.
    Not true. If Britain and the EU don't agree, Britain's membership expires on the second anniversary of the UK invoking A50. The clause is explicit on that.

    The only way it doesn't happen is for the UK and *all* other members to agree an indefinite / extremely long-dated extension to the Brexit negotiations.
    Or for it to be ruled that the constitutional requirements of the UK to leave were not met, ergo the notification is void. Without parliamentary approval of the exit deal, this would be the case.
    You've become become entirely irrational about this. We're leaving.
    Give him time, he's still in the denial phase. Anger should be fun to watch after his sanguine confidence that we're not going at all.
    Let's face it - I've been right all along. It's the politics that make Brexit impossible, not the economics.
    Ha. There was literally a mass referendum where your views on Europe were wholly rejected.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited March 2017
    TheValiant said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Given that we've had or are about to have re-runs of referenda on EC/EU affairs and Scottish Independence, why can't we have a re-run of the AV referendum?

    I'd support that!
    I don't. We should have a vote on it
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    SandyRentool said:

    If Scotland does leave the UK, then Tory majority ought to be nailed on in the rUK General Election that follows.

    Rewarding the party that broke up Britian? I would fancy a UKIP surge myself. At 500/1.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    For some reason I am reminded of this tweet

    https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/595112367358406656
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,581
    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/841257664642441218
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    williamglenn said:

    Let's face it - I've been right all along. It's the politics that make Brexit impossible, not the economics.

    It's the politics that make stopping Brexit impossible. You've been utterly deranged all along.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,938
    Alistair said:

    For some reason I am reminded of this tweet

    https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/595112367358406656

    :smiley:
  • isamisam Posts: 42,128
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT - But on topic

    It is 7/1 and 8/1 that Theresa May steps down as PM in 2018 and 2019 respectively with @LadPolitics

    Massive if Scots vote for Independence

    Dave admitted he would have quit in 2014, so if Mrs May is as honourable as Dave, she would quit too.

    I think Alex Salmond said last year, you lose a referendum like the Indyref or the EURef, you have to quit.

    What is the double for a referendum in each of those years*Scotland votes to leave?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    perhaps Mrs May should offer Nicola a referendum next time they manage to win against England at Twickenham.. that's as close to kicking it into the long grass as possible.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,581
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Got to say I feel this is an over-reaction to the Twickenham match, but there we are.

    Thief!

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/841265993649385472
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/841257664642441218

    Good job we got all that stability. Imagine the chaos if Ed Milliband had got in and we hadn't had a Euro Ref or a second Indy Ref.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    edited March 2017
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT - But on topic

    It is 7/1 and 8/1 that Theresa May steps down as PM in 2018 and 2019 respectively with @LadPolitics

    Massive if Scots vote for Independence

    Dave admitted he would have quit in 2014, so if Mrs May is as honourable as Dave, she would quit too.

    I think Alex Salmond said last year, you lose a referendum like the Indyref or the EURef, you have to quit.

    Albeit it was Cameron who called the EU ref, given Sturgeon has called indyref2 she would certainly have to resign if she lost it as Salmond did. May could resign but given she opposed the referendum in the first place is not quite in the same position
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Game changer ?

    https://twitter.com/Aidan___Kerr/status/841274889948545024

    That's why 2021 is the likeliest time for a referendum. It suits May because it gives her a clear hand for the Brexit negotiation. It suits Sturgeon because it gives her four more years to build a case. And it suits the EU because it means an independent Scotland can be fast-tracked in as a member, without any worries about breaching protocols or upsetting the Spanish.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    SeanT said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FPT - But on topic

    It is 7/1 and 8/1 that Theresa May steps down as PM in 2018 and 2019 respectively with @LadPolitics

    Massive if Scots vote for Independence

    Dave admitted he would have quit in 2014, so if Mrs May is as honourable as Dave, she would quit too.

    I think Alex Salmond said last year, you lose a referendum like the Indyref or the EURef, you have to quit.

    TMay would definitely quit if she lost the indyref. I'm not a betting expert but there seems to be serious value here, if the odds on a YES vote before 2020 are significantly lower than 8/1 (and they must be)
    This is similar to putting Constituency bets on the SNP rather than betting on Indy Ref. Not quite AntiFrank levels but you'd have to be insane to back the Yes odds when you can get proxies like these.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    edited March 2017
    SeanT said:

    surbiton said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Late Autumn 2019 looks the likeliest date, given Brexit is supposed to be done and dusted by March 2019 and there is supposed to be a General Election in May 2020.

    Might May (if still PM) welcome the certainty either way that a referendum would produce? And could she stay on after a Yes vote (I think she could, actually)? Either way there's no need to agree anything yet.

    No UK Prime Minister could stay on after a chunk of the country is gone. Sean T was absolutely correct on this point before as he was if Cameron lost the EU ref.

    It would not be politically acceptable that an arrangement which has been there since 1707 and no longer exists is just one of those things. It is not.
    Yes. TMay would resign if she lost an indyref vote. She's been notably passionate about "our precious union". She'd resign immediately (especially as her personal pursuit of Hard Brexit turned out to be a primary cause of Scottish secession)
    It was the Leave vote which would be the principal cause of any Scottish secession, leaving the single market and controls on free movement just the inevitable result of that
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,938
    SouthamObserver said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Game changer ?

    https://twitter.com/Aidan___Kerr/status/841274889948545024

    That's why 2021 is the likeliest time for a referendum. It suits May because it gives her a clear hand for the Brexit negotiation. It suits Sturgeon because it gives her four more years to build a case. And it suits the EU because it means an independent Scotland can be fast-tracked in as a member, without any worries about breaching protocols or upsetting the Spanish.

    Isn't there a danger Nicola/SNP could be quite unpopular by 2021 though? I mean, that is another four years into the future and the SNP will have been in power for 14 years at that point... It is pushing electoral gravity quite a lot
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    williamglenn said:

    Essexit said:

    Mortimer said:

    williamglenn said:

    FPT

    david_herdson said:

    surbiton said:

    david_herdson said:

    PeterC said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    williamglenn said:

    Your judgement is lacking. Having established that the Theresa May is not in control, the EU, and the UK, would have no interest in going over the cliff. There will be a humiliating climbdown.

    Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for a climbdown, humiliating or otherwise.
    This presumes A50 cannot be reversed. But no one knows for sure about that as the treaty does not address the issue. It would be useful to get a definitive ruling so each will then know where he stands.
    Without being explicit, the text of the treaty is about as clear as it could be, as indeed is the logic of the clause. How is it possible to state that membership will end at the commencement of the agreement / the two-year limit / the extended limit, if one side could unilaterally terminate the withdrawal discussions and return to the status quo ante?
    I think Tusk said that Brexit could be reversed. Logically, Brexit only takes place after the final agreement is done and agreed by all the countries and the European parliament. So until the whole process is gone through, there is nothing on the European side to stop reversing A50.

    Britain may not agree with that. But that is where lawyers make money.
    Not true. If Britain and the EU don't agree, Britain's membership expires on the second anniversary of the UK invoking A50. The clause is explicit on that.

    The only way it doesn't happen is for the UK and *all* other members to agree an indefinite / extremely long-dated extension to the Brexit negotiations.
    Or for it to be ruled that the constitutional requirements of the UK to leave were not met, ergo the notification is void. Without parliamentary approval of the exit deal, this would be the case.
    You've become become entirely irrational about this. We're leaving.
    Give him time, he's still in the denial phase. Anger should be fun to watch after his sanguine confidence that we're not going at all.
    Let's face it - I've been right all along. It's the politics that make Brexit impossible, not the economics.
    The politics that could lead to a PM Farage if we don't leave you mean?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,111
    Alistair said:

    SandyRentool said:

    If Scotland does leave the UK, then Tory majority ought to be nailed on in the rUK General Election that follows.

    Rewarding the party that broke up Britian? I would fancy a UKIP surge myself. At 500/1.
    Tory Unionists aren't going to be flocking to Jezza or the Farronite 451. It would take a big swing to deprive the Tories of their majority in rUK. (A well informed person can probably put a number to that)
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    SeanT said:

    surbiton said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Late Autumn 2019 looks the likeliest date, given Brexit is supposed to be done and dusted by March 2019 and there is supposed to be a General Election in May 2020.

    Might May (if still PM) welcome the certainty either way that a referendum would produce? And could she stay on after a Yes vote (I think she could, actually)? Either way there's no need to agree anything yet.

    No UK Prime Minister could stay on after a chunk of the country is gone. Sean T was absolutely correct on this point before as he was if Cameron lost the EU ref.

    It would not be politically acceptable that an arrangement which has been there since 1707 and no longer exists is just one of those things. It is not.
    Yes. TMay would resign if she lost an indyref vote. She's been notably passionate about "our precious union". She'd resign immediately (especially as her personal pursuit of Hard Brexit turned out to be a primary cause of Scottish secession)

    Absolutely right. If losing a great chunk of your country is not a resignation issue, then what is?

    What is panning out currently is Jeremy Corbyn's wet dream, by the way. He has no interest in winning elections, but he is a huge fan of the UK ceasing to exist.

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,705
    surbiton said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    FPT, but relevant to this thread:

    surbiton said:

    Fine. Does that apply to the EEA as well ?

    I would extremely surprised if it doesn't. Joining the EEA and EFTA would require agreement from Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and from the EU27 (actually EU28 until the UK actually leaves!). There might be a mechanism whereby the EU could use QMV and force any dissenters amongst the EU27 to amend the EEA Treaty against their will, but that must surely be politically very unlikely even if were legally possible.

    What you have to remember is that Scotland is of almost no interest to the EU. It's tiny, it's remote and its public finances as an independent state would be dire. Why would our EU friends go out of their way to give it special treatment? They've got bigger fish to fry.
    What you have to remember is that Scotland is of almost no interest to the EU. ?

    It is psychologically and politically very important. It will show that part of a country that left wants to re-join. Spain will be told to lump it.
    I would suggest that if Scotland is independent and accepted in the EU, the long term prospects for Italy, Spain, Belgium and Germany to name a few as single countries is significantly commuted. The long term result after a lot of angst, anger and hopefully no spilt blood could well the advancement and acceleration of a federal states of Europe, but without the dominance of two or three large countries.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    edited March 2017
    SeanT said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    surbiton said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Late Autumn 2019 looks the likeliest date, given Brexit is supposed to be done and dusted by March 2019 and there is supposed to be a General Election in May 2020.

    Might May (if still PM) welcome the certainty either way that a referendum would produce? And could she stay on after a Yes vote (I think she could, actually)? Either way there's no need to agree anything yet.

    No UK Prime Minister could stay on after a chunk of the country is gone. Sean T was absolutely correct on this point before as he was if Cameron lost the EU ref.

    It would not be politically acceptable that an arrangement which has been there since 1707 and no longer exists is just one of those things. It is not.
    I'm not so sure. It might be very politically acceptable to many of Theresa May's supporters. The inherited situation is hardly her responsibility and should the people of Scotland opt for self-determination then that will be that.
    TMay personally decided to go for Hard Brexit - leaving the Single Market, after Sturgeon personally guaranteed no referendum if we stayed in the Single Market (e.g EEA etc)

    So TMay is implicated, heavily, if YES wins.

    Besides, it's the politics. If you lose votes as important as this (and indyref would be even bigger than Brexit) you resign. That's just the way it is.
    It was not May who called the referendum unlike Cameron, Salmond and Sturgeon and leaving the single market was the inevitable result of the Leave vote and its anti immigration posters
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    GIN1138 said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Game changer ?

    https://twitter.com/Aidan___Kerr/status/841274889948545024

    That's why 2021 is the likeliest time for a referendum. It suits May because it gives her a clear hand for the Brexit negotiation. It suits Sturgeon because it gives her four more years to build a case. And it suits the EU because it means an independent Scotland can be fast-tracked in as a member, without any worries about breaching protocols or upsetting the Spanish.

    Isn't there a danger Nicola/SNP could be quite unpopular by 2021 though? I mean, that is another four years into the future and the SNP will have been in power for 14 years at that point... It is pushing electoral gravity quite a lot

    It's four more years without politics as usual. That suits the SNP.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited March 2017
    Mind you, looking on the bright side, a Labour-led government without Scottish MPs to support it looks an agreeably remote prospect.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,111
    Alistair said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/841257664642441218

    Good job we got all that stability. Imagine the chaos if Ed Milliband had got in and we hadn't had a Euro Ref or a second Indy Ref.
    And no rail strikes today either!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,046
    Remember Guy Verhofstadt's 'impossible' plan for UK citizens who want it to keep their EU citizenship and instead imagine that this is the basis of a differentiated deal for Scotland.

    This is how the negotiations could go: months of May pushing back against the EU offering variations of schemes to allow UK citizens to maintain their rights.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,046
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Mind you, looking on the bright side, a Labour-led government without Scottish MPs to support it looks an agreeably remote prospect.

    An English Labour party wrapping itself in the flag of St George would be a surprisingly tough opponent.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,351
    williamglenn said:

    FPT

    david_herdson said:

    surbiton said:

    david_herdson said:

    PeterC said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    williamglenn said:

    Your judgement is lacking. Having established that the Theresa May is not in control, the EU, and the UK, would have no interest in going over the cliff. There will be a humiliating climbdown.

    Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for a climbdown, humiliating or otherwise.
    This presumes A50 cannot be reversed. But no one knows for sure about that as the treaty does not address the issue. It would be useful to get a definitive ruling so each will then know where he stands.
    Without being explicit, the text of the treaty is about as clear as it could be, as indeed is the logic of the clause. How is it possible to state that membership will end at the commencement of the agreement / the two-year limit / the extended limit, if one side could unilaterally terminate the withdrawal discussions and return to the status quo ante?
    I think Tusk said that Brexit could be reversed. Logically, Brexit only takes place after the final agreement is done and agreed by all the countries and the European parliament. So until the whole process is gone through, there is nothing on the European side to stop reversing A50.

    Britain may not agree with that. But that is where lawyers make money.
    Not true. If Britain and the EU don't agree, Britain's membership expires on the second anniversary of the UK invoking A50. The clause is explicit on that.

    The only way it doesn't happen is for the UK and *all* other members to agree an indefinite / extremely long-dated extension to the Brexit negotiations.
    Or for it to be ruled that the constitutional requirements of the UK to leave were not met, ergo the notification is void. Without parliamentary approval of the exit deal, this would be the case.
    You're just making it up now.

    The Supreme Court has ruled what's needed. The government and parliament are doing it.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    edited March 2017
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Game changer ?

    It was already the default, surely? The only way this isn't true is if England secedes from the UK and Scotland is then accepted as the successor state - convoluted and unlikely, although possible if the political will was there on all sides. The timing is impossible if Article 50 is invoked this month though.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    SeanT said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    surbiton said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Late Autumn 2019 looks the likeliest date, given Brexit is supposed to be done and dusted by March 2019 and there is supposed to be a General Election in May 2020.

    Might May (if still PM) welcome the certainty either way that a referendum would produce? And could she stay on after a Yes vote (I think she could, actually)? Either way there's no need to agree anything yet.

    No UK Prime Minister could stay on after a chunk of the country is gone. Sean T was absolutely correct on this point before as he was if Cameron lost the EU ref.

    It would not be politically acceptable that an arrangement which has been there since 1707 and no longer exists is just one of those things. It is not.
    I'm not so sure. It might be very politically acceptable to many of Theresa May's supporters. The inherited situation is hardly her responsibility and should the people of Scotland opt for self-determination then that will be that.
    TMay personally decided to go for Hard Brexit - leaving the Single Market, after Sturgeon personally guaranteed no referendum if we stayed in the Single Market (e.g EEA etc)

    So TMay is implicated, heavily, if YES wins.

    Besides, it's the politics. If you lose votes as important as this (and indyref would be even bigger than Brexit) you resign. That's just the way it is.
    It used to be the case that if your Parliamentary party voted no confidence in you, you resign. On balance I think May would probably resign but it's not a slam-dunk.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,226
    williamglenn said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Mind you, looking on the bright side, a Labour-led government without Scottish MPs to support it looks an agreeably remote prospect.

    An English Labour party wrapping itself in the flag of St George would be a surprisingly tough opponent.
    The Labour party doesn't have a good track record with the St. George flag.....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,046
    david_herdson said:

    williamglenn said:

    FPT

    david_herdson said:

    surbiton said:

    david_herdson said:

    PeterC said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    williamglenn said:

    Your judgement is lacking. Having established that the Theresa May is not in control, the EU, and the UK, would have no interest in going over the cliff. There will be a humiliating climbdown.

    Unfortunately, there is no mechanism for a climbdown, humiliating or otherwise.
    This presumes A50 cannot be reversed. But no one knows for sure about that as the treaty does not address the issue. It would be useful to get a definitive ruling so each will then know where he stands.
    Without being explicit, the text of the treaty is about as clear as it could be, as indeed is the logic of the clause. How is it possible to state that membership will end at the commencement of the agreement / the two-year limit / the extended limit, if one side could unilaterally terminate the withdrawal discussions and return to the status quo ante?
    I think Tusk said that Brexit could be reversed. Logically, Brexit only takes place after the final agreement is done and agreed by all the countries and the European parliament. So until the whole process is gone through, there is nothing on the European side to stop reversing A50.

    Britain may not agree with that. But that is where lawyers make money.
    Not true. If Britain and the EU don't agree, Britain's membership expires on the second anniversary of the UK invoking A50. The clause is explicit on that.

    The only way it doesn't happen is for the UK and *all* other members to agree an indefinite / extremely long-dated extension to the Brexit negotiations.
    Or for it to be ruled that the constitutional requirements of the UK to leave were not met, ergo the notification is void. Without parliamentary approval of the exit deal, this would be the case.
    You're just making it up now.

    The Supreme Court has ruled what's needed. The government and parliament are doing it.
    Fudge is always in plentiful supply.

    https://www.bindmans.com/uploads/files/documents/Final_Article_50_Opinion_10.2.17.pdf
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    williamglenn said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Mind you, looking on the bright side, a Labour-led government without Scottish MPs to support it looks an agreeably remote prospect.

    An English Labour party wrapping itself in the flag of St George would be a surprisingly tough opponent.
    First they'll have to eject the half of their members that find said flag racist.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Mind you, looking on the bright side, a Labour-led government without Scottish MPs to support it looks an agreeably remote prospect.

    I would even prefer a Corbyn government to losing part of my country and freed of Tory SNP puppet posters I could see an Umunna led Labour Party winning in England and Wales in not too long a timeframe, though in the short term English voters would want a PM who will play hardball with the Scots in the even of an independence vote
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,703
    Mr. Eagles, ha, I hadn't actually seen that tweet.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,285
    edited March 2017
    SeanT said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Game changer ?

    https://twitter.com/Aidan___Kerr/status/841274889948545024

    That's why 2021 is the likeliest time for a referendum. It suits May because it gives her a clear hand for the Brexit negotiation. It suits Sturgeon because it gives her four more years to build a case. And it suits the EU because it means an independent Scotland can be fast-tracked in as a member, without any worries about breaching protocols or upsetting the Spanish.

    It would have to be held before the next Holyrood election, though. Which is in May 2021. Sturgeon can't risk losing that and indyref2 being derailed.

    Late 2020 early 2021? Or on the same day as the Holyrood vote?

    Four more years might also be enough time for the oil price to recover. However, if by then we have left the Single Market, Scoxit might really mean a hard border at Berwick, tariffs on Scottish exports to England etc

    A harder sell.

    FFS this is all avoidable if TMay softens her Brexit stance. Go for EEA-type status. Fuck Liam Fox. The UK is saved.
    Sturgeon would still have found another reason for a second sindy vote. It is the reason the snp exist and they have have not opposition in Scotland / england political outlook is miles away from the Scottish public.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,351
    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    What a mess.

    I don't believe there will be an indyref before 2019 and final Brexit - even if TMay was minded to allow it, the added chaos and confusion would make her Brexit negotiation practically pointless, and politically and intellectually implausible.

    But what Sturgeon has done is put a loaded gun to TMay's head, and made a soft Brexit more likely (or even no Brexit?)

    If there is no Brexit or soft Brexit watch UKIP shoot up the polls like a rocket. May has both the SNP and UKIP on either side of her, if she gives in entirely to one side she gives a big boost to the other
    She can't boost the SNP as long as she behaves reasonably; their support's maxed out.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    SeanT said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Game changer ?

    https://twitter.com/Aidan___Kerr/status/841274889948545024

    That's why 2021 is the likeliest time for a referendum. It suits May because it gives her a clear hand for the Brexit negotiation. It suits Sturgeon because it gives her four more years to build a case. And it suits the EU because it means an independent Scotland can be fast-tracked in as a member, without any worries about breaching protocols or upsetting the Spanish.

    It would have to be held before the next Holyrood election, though. Which is in May 2021. Sturgeon can't risk losing that and indyref2 being derailed.

    Late 2020 early 2021? Or on the same day as the Holyrood vote?

    Four more years might also be enough time for the oil price to recover. However, if by then we have left the Single Market, Scoxit might really mean a hard border at Berwick, tariffs on Scottish exports to England etc

    A harder sell.

    FFS this is all avoidable if TMay softens her Brexit stance. Go for EEA-type status. Fuck Liam Fox. The UK is saved.
    So is UKIP!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,744
    surbiton said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    FPT, but relevant to this thread:

    surbiton said:

    Fine. Does that apply to the EEA as well ?

    I would extremely surprised if it doesn't. Joining the EEA and EFTA would require agreement from Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and from the EU27 (actually EU28 until the UK actually leaves!). There might be a mechanism whereby the EU could use QMV and force any dissenters amongst the EU27 to amend the EEA Treaty against their will, but that must surely be politically very unlikely even if were legally possible.

    What you have to remember is that Scotland is of almost no interest to the EU. It's tiny, it's remote and its public finances as an independent state would be dire. Why would our EU friends go out of their way to give it special treatment? They've got bigger fish to fry.
    What you have to remember is that Scotland is of almost no interest to the EU. ?

    It is psychologically and politically very important. It will show that part of a country that left wants to re-join. Spain will be told to lump it.
    Almost certainly correct. What strange bedfellows this nonsense has thrown up. Next Ireland should secede followed by the big cities. May Johnson Davis and Co can find solace with their co revolutionaries in Hartlepool Clackton Blackpool and Stoke
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    SeanT said:

    FFS this is all avoidable if TMay softens her Brexit stance. Go for EEA-type status. Fuck Liam Fox. The UK is saved.

    Saved for Farage! Hurrah!

    In any case, surely the Government are putting forward a Hard Brexit (and putting it about that we are prepared for "no deal") precisely so that we can get a softer Brexit in negotiations.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,111
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Eagles, ha, I hadn't actually seen that tweet.

    "Renowned PB author denies plagiarism allegations"
  • RestharrowRestharrow Posts: 233
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    SeanT said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Game changer ?

    https://twitter.com/Aidan___Kerr/status/841274889948545024

    That's why 2021 is the likeliest time for a referendum. It suits May because it gives her a clear hand for the Brexit negotiation. It suits Sturgeon because it gives her four more years to build a case. And it suits the EU because it means an independent Scotland can be fast-tracked in as a member, without any worries about breaching protocols or upsetting the Spanish.

    It would have to be held before the next Holyrood election, though. Which is in May 2021. Sturgeon can't risk losing that and indyref2 being derailed.

    Late 2020 early 2021? Or on the same day as the Holyrood vote?

    Four more years might also be enough time for the oil price to recover. However, if by then we have left the Single Market, Scoxit might really mean a hard border at Berwick, tariffs on Scottish exports to England etc

    A harder sell.

    FFS this is all avoidable if TMay softens her Brexit stance. Go for EEA-type status. Fuck Liam Fox. The UK is saved.
    Sturgeon would still have found another reason for a second sindy vote. It is the reason the snp exist and they have have not opposition in Scotland / england political outlook is miles away from the Scottish public.
    A post-2020 referendum would be a three-way choice: remain; leave the UK but join the EU; or "become an independent country".
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,191
    What is it with Unionism and violent metaphors?

    https://twitter.com/allisonpearson/status/841280441692913664

    Always good when the fucknuggets come out for the other side.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,351
    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    I wonder if this will be a once in a generation opportunity? :smiley:

    Fruitflies?
    Salmon.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 85,285
    trumps best mate on bbc news now banging on about Scotland's 1000 year European shared history.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Sturgeon was told by the Supreme Court that Scotland could not have a veto on leaving the EU.

    So she just tries to create her own one anyway. Don't think it's going to work, just makes everything harder for everyone.

    Pity she can't focus on Scotland's Health, Education, and Employment. Those are the bits she's supposed to be responsible for.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,226
    Tissue_Price said:

    SeanT said:

    FFS this is all avoidable if TMay softens her Brexit stance. Go for EEA-type status. Fuck Liam Fox. The UK is saved.

    Saved for Farage! Hurrah!

    In any case, surely the Government are putting forward a Hard Brexit (and putting it about that we are prepared for "no deal") precisely so that we can get a softer Brexit in negotiations.
    Indeed.

    Unlike the Poshos, Mrs May actually knows how to:

    a) Whip the parly party
    b) Conduct a negotiation with a basically hostile bloc

    and looks well on course to

    c) Win a proper majority by securing Tory/Lab marginals, none of this knifeedge rubbish achieved by becoming pseudo Lib Dems...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    edited March 2017
    Roger said:

    surbiton said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    FPT, but relevant to this thread:

    surbiton said:

    Fine. Does that apply to the EEA as well ?

    I would extremely surprised if it doesn't. Joining the EEA and EFTA would require agreement from Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and from the EU27 (actually EU28 until the UK actually leaves!). There might be a mechanism whereby the EU could use QMV and force any dissenters amongst the EU27 to amend the EEA Treaty against their will, but that must surely be politically very unlikely even if were legally possible.

    What you have to remember is that Scotland is of almost no interest to the EU. It's tiny, it's remote and its public finances as an independent state would be dire. Why would our EU friends go out of their way to give it special treatment? They've got bigger fish to fry.
    What you have to remember is that Scotland is of almost no interest to the EU. ?

    It is psychologically and politically very important. It will show that part of a country that left wants to re-join. Spain will be told to lump it.
    Almost certainly correct. What strange bedfellows this nonsense has thrown up. Next Ireland should secede followed by the big cities. May Johnson Davis and Co can find solace with their co revolutionaries in Hartlepool Clackton Blackpool and Stoke
    Oh for goodness sake I am not going through border control to commute from Essex into London. Of course California now has a separatist movement too after Trump
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,111
    The LibDems are complaining that the SNP are going back on their word.

    You could never make such a complaint against the 'Ignore the result of the Referendum Party'.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,226
    Zooooooooomm

    The Snpers have been unleashed.

    Oh the hilarity when it fails again.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    david_herdson said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    I wonder if this will be a once in a generation opportunity? :smiley:

    Fruitflies?
    Salmon.
    Smoult
  • isamisam Posts: 42,128
    Tissue_Price said:

    SeanT said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    surbiton said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Late Autumn 2019 looks the likeliest date, given Brexit is supposed to be done and dusted by March 2019 and there is supposed to be a General Election in May 2020.

    Might May (if still PM) welcome the certainty either way that a referendum would produce? And could she stay on after a Yes vote (I think she could, actually)? Either way there's no need to agree anything yet.

    No UK Prime Minister could stay on after a chunk of the country is gone. Sean T was absolutely correct on this point before as he was if Cameron lost the EU ref.

    It would not be politically acceptable that an arrangement which has been there since 1707 and no longer exists is just one of those things. It is not.
    I'm not so sure. It might be very politically acceptable to many of Theresa May's supporters. The inherited situation is hardly her responsibility and should the people of Scotland opt for self-determination then that will be that.
    TMay personally decided to go for Hard Brexit - leaving the Single Market, after Sturgeon personally guaranteed no referendum if we stayed in the Single Market (e.g EEA etc)

    So TMay is implicated, heavily, if YES wins.

    Besides, it's the politics. If you lose votes as important as this (and indyref would be even bigger than Brexit) you resign. That's just the way it is.
    It used to be the case that if your Parliamentary party voted no confidence in you, you resign. On balance I think May would probably resign but it's not a slam-dunk.
    Best price for ref before 2020 is 8/11
    Best price they leave 10/11

    I make that just under 30%

    If you think TM the PM is more than 80% to resign then those 7/1 and 8/1 bets that she leaves in 18 or 19 are ok

    She could leave for other reasons too I guess
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    david_herdson said:

    HYUFD said:

    SeanT said:

    What a mess.

    I don't believe there will be an indyref before 2019 and final Brexit - even if TMay was minded to allow it, the added chaos and confusion would make her Brexit negotiation practically pointless, and politically and intellectually implausible.

    But what Sturgeon has done is put a loaded gun to TMay's head, and made a soft Brexit more likely (or even no Brexit?)

    If there is no Brexit or soft Brexit watch UKIP shoot up the polls like a rocket. May has both the SNP and UKIP on either side of her, if she gives in entirely to one side she gives a big boost to the other
    She can't boost the SNP as long as she behaves reasonably; their support's maxed out.
    She has done by seeming to go for hard Brexit, once the actual terms look softer ie a job offer requirement not a points system and some continued EU budget contributions it will be UKIP with the boost
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,351
    Roger said:

    What a shambles Johnson and co have created. If it happens which looks likely it'll be Theresa May not David Cameron who will be held responsible for the break-up of the UK.

    Though I'm not in favour of Scotland and ultimately Ireland going independent this is great news for Scotland.

    The shambles is of the EU's making. You cannot have an organisation wielding huge and increasing power without adequate democratic control. You particularly can't have it if that power is wielded without care or competence.

    The details of Brexit were the responsibilities of individuals but had - say - Miliband won the 2015 election, the pressure to Brexit wouldn't have gone away. On the contrary, the likelihood is that the Tories would now be led by either an outright Leaver (Boris - not necessarily a fully-committed one, but one who'd have played that card in the leadership election), or at best a very luke-warm Remainer like May, who'd carry across Cameron's renegotiate-and-referendum policy. Meanwhile, UKIP would probably have taken a chunk out of Labour's support and be polling at 20%+.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,226
    SeanT said:

    Mortimer said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    SeanT said:

    FFS this is all avoidable if TMay softens her Brexit stance. Go for EEA-type status. Fuck Liam Fox. The UK is saved.

    Saved for Farage! Hurrah!

    In any case, surely the Government are putting forward a Hard Brexit (and putting it about that we are prepared for "no deal") precisely so that we can get a softer Brexit in negotiations.
    Indeed.

    Unlike the Poshos, Mrs May actually knows how to:

    a) Whip the parly party
    b) Conduct a negotiation with a basically hostile bloc

    and looks well on course to

    c) Win a proper majority by securing Tory/Lab marginals, none of this knifeedge rubbish achieved by becoming pseudo Lib Dems...
    Lots of wishful thinking there. She hasn't even started (b) and (c) is years away.

    Meanwhile, she risks (d) breaking up the country by pursuing Hard Brexit. That will be her legacy, if she loses indyref2.
    You might want to read what my Indeed was about Sean.

    Strategy is being read by otherwise bright people on this board as Gospel.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,703
    Mr. Rentool, *cackles evilly*

    Well, I didn't have a go at Mr. T when he borrowed UKIPalypse for one of his Telegraph blogs. Damned shame they ended, now I come to think of it.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,551
    I'm not convinced by suggestions of delay to 2021. The reason for a 2nd referendum is Brexit - it will have to be held before Brexit to have enough impact. The SNP case will be simple:
    1. The UK will be run by the Tories for a generation
    2. The Tories don't have the UK's best interests in mind never mind Scotland
    3. Brexit shows self-determination wins over all other factors. You really can change your future in a way many people didn't believe in 2014
    4. Yes Scotland trades most with the rest of the UK. But that ship will sink with hard Brexit, so reforge the auld alliance and switch the focus back to Europe
    5. An independent Scotland will remain part of the single market (she WILL get that offered by Brussels). And there's no question about being thrown out of the British Isles single market as we already have non-UK members in it (Eire, IOM, CI)
    6. There's no risk-free status quo to fall back on now. Independence - the single market is more of the status quo than thrown on the mercy of WTO tariffs.

    And so timings. Scotland will declare the referendum for next autumn and start its discussions with Brussels now. Westminster will say no, Scotland will go ahead with the vote anyway (or, unless Maybe doesn't want to present that particular gift to the leave case, it will happen next autumn without dispute).

    Either way, the offer will be an independent Scotland in Europe, or a Scotland dragged to the bottom of the Atlantic by the sinking Brexit Britain. And if I had a vote, I'd vote to leave. And it puts SLAB in a hell of a position. Campaign to remain and give succour to both Corbyn and the Tories. Or campaign to leave and risk giving it to the SNP.

    Were I Dugdale the appealing option surely is to provide the opposition to the SNP in an independent Scotland offering a Labour version of independence rather than eternal SNP rule.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Mind you, looking on the bright side, a Labour-led government without Scottish MPs to support it looks an agreeably remote prospect.

    I suspect the end of the UK will bring about a level of soul-searching and reflection in England that we probably need and which, in any case, will be forced on us by the rest of the world. That will have an affect on domestic politics.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,191
    SeanT said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    What is it with Unionism and violent metaphors?

    https://twitter.com/allisonpearson/status/841280441692913664

    Always good when the fucknuggets come out for the other side.

    Pearson was right about the Brexit result, though.
    As a born again righty & Brexiteer, I'm sure she's a lot more in touch with the English political psyche than the Scots.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,226
    This seems like pure vanity by the Sturge.

    On the day that she was going to be overshadowed by a proper leader who could not only manage her party but also ride out tricky legal issues relating to independence, she threw her toys out of the pram.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,351
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Got to say I feel this is an over-reaction to the Twickenham match, but there we are.

    Thief!

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/841265993649385472
    Double-thief:

    https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/841269290082922496
This discussion has been closed.