politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An unconventional carry-on

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

Hear, hear!!

https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1159927511754641409

Yet some people still claim that the coalition was a golden era of good government.

With late Blair and Brown before it, and majority Cammo, May then Bozo afterward, I reckon there’s still a pretty solid case for arguing so.

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

Jam tomorrow , unlikely it will ever appear and likely they will move it to England in any case. They have been leaking how they will spread it around various places so it will end up building sections around UK and assembling in Scotland. Will be peanuts in the end even if it goes ahead.

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

They will all be cancelled when the Brexit bill comes in. Savings will have to start somewhere when we become a 2nd line economy...

IanB2 said:

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

Hear, hear!!

https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1159927511754641409

Yet some people still claim that the coalition was a golden era of good government.

With late Blair and Brown before it, and majority Cammo, May then Bozo afterward, I reckon there’s still a pretty solid case for arguing so.

Lots of seeds were sown during the coalition.

Many have grown since, others will do so in future years.

Peter_the_Punter said:

another_richard said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

another_richard said:

Am I the only person who thinks Moeen Ali has been hard done by ?

Okay he played crap in the Edgbaston Test but he was far from being the only one and his record is good over the last year.

He's a terrific player and I think he has been hard done by in the past but he's out of form with bat and ball now and can have no complaints this time.

It's no defence to say others should have gone too, even if true. Why isn't Foakes in the side? Neither Bairstow nor Buttler can be justified any longer.

Its been said before that for some players its harder to be dropped from the England side than it is to be selected in the first place.

Whereas for others its different - I'll add Sam Curran to Ben Foakes in that category.

Twas ever thus. Go back through the history of the game and you will find dozens of great players who remained uncapped, and others who had long Test careers without conspicuous success. The principle applies as much today as ever.

Why has James Hidreth never been capped?

Who outside Head Office ever thought Dawid Malan and Toby Roland-Jones were Test standard?

Didn't Roland-Jones take quite a few wickets in his games for England?

IanB2 said:

algarkirk said:

kjh said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

blutherup said:

This piece by Vernon Bogdanor in yesterday's Times was interesting, especially:

"... were an anti no-deal majority or Remain majority returned in November, a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

In other words, Johnson & Cummings should know that if they set an election date after the October 31st Brexit date, a new government could press the rewind button if so minded.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz

Yes, that's been mentioned here before. Not sure I buy it.

Yep, by me. I was shot down in flames by several on here. I had raised it several times before and so when the Prof raised yesterday I posted again. He should know what he is talking about and it seems only to reasonable to me, but the counter arguments on here were consistent.

There is no question that the UK parliament has power to make retrospective legislation, in the same way that it has the power to pass an act declaring that the moon is made of green cheese, and that this became true only at a date which has already passed. The trickier question is: Does the EU have the power retrospectively to extend the date and do the necessary deeming? Unless it has it is no use.

I imagine the EU would offer (and therefore agree) the extension during the election campaign, and depending on the outcome the new government could then confirm.

Somebody has to actually ask them though, and Boris wouldn't do that during the campaign.

They would also have to agree to the retrospective application of Article 50, in the unlikely the event they were asked. I don't find this a very reassuring thought. We drive off a cliff, the landing doesn't totally destroy us and we somehow manage to drive back to where we were and start again.

Hmmmm.....I can think of better solutions.

SouthamObserver said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

another_richard said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

another_richard said:

Am I the only person who thinks Moeen Ali has been hard done by ?

Okay he played crap in the Edgbaston Test but he was far from being the only one and his record is good over the last year.

He's a terrific player and I think he has been hard done by in the past but he's out of form with bat and ball now and can have no complaints this time.

It's no defence to say others should have gone too, even if true. Why isn't Foakes in the side? Neither Bairstow nor Buttler can be justified any longer.

Its been said before that for some players its harder to be dropped from the England side than it is to be selected in the first place.

Whereas for others its different - I'll add Sam Curran to Ben Foakes in that category.

Twas ever thus. Go back through the history of the game and you will find dozens of great players who remained uncapped, and others who had long Test careers without conspicuous success. The principle applies as much today as ever.

Why has James Hidreth never been capped?

Who outside Head Office ever thought Dawid Malan and Toby Roland-Jones were Test standard?

Didn't Roland-Jones take quite a few wickets in his games for England?

17 wickets sub 20. Then got injured.

OldKingCole said:

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

Nigelb said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Philip_Thompson said:

SouthamObserver said:

Then let’s see the government suggest that and put the detail in it. For example, how does it propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no FTA within the agreed transition timeframe?

That's up to the future negotiations.

How does the EU propose to ensure there is no change to the current situation at the Irish border if there is no deal before 31 October?

It doesn’t. The EU will decide what changes there will be and over what timeframe if there is No Deal. The UK will lose any any say. As we know, No Deal puts the UK entirely at the mercy of the goodwill of others.

So be it.

Yep - for you being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others is freedom. I am happy to admit I just don’t get that.

You are arguing with someone who takes the proposition of Brexit=Freedom as axiomatic.
It is a waste of effort.

I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.

Specifically not that much. What does Rotherham gain from the EU membership that involves freedom of movement - quite a bit, I'd argue. We'll soon find out, of course.

Well argue it then.

How many people from Rotherham are working elsewhere in the EU compared with how many from elsewhere are working in Rotherham.

And what sort of people are doing so.

There's a whole different reality to freedom of movement in working class areas as there is in upper middle class safezones.

Auf Wiedersehen, lass?

By 2030 we’ll all be watching a great TV series “Żegnaj miłości” about British builders working away from home in Poland....

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

algarkirk said:

kjh said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

blutherup said:

This piece by Vernon Bogdanor in yesterday's Times was interesting, especially:

"... were an anti no-deal majority or Remain majority returned in November, a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

In other words, Johnson & Cummings should know that if they set an election date after the October 31st Brexit date, a new government could press the rewind button if so minded.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz

Yes, that's been mentioned here before. Not sure I buy it.

Yep, by me. I was shot down in flames by several on here. I had raised it several times before and so when the Prof raised yesterday I posted again. He should know what he is talking about and it seems only to reasonable to me, but the counter arguments on here were consistent.

There is no question that the UK parliament has power to make retrospective legislation, in the same way that it has the power to pass an act declaring that the moon is made of green cheese, and that this became true only at a date which has already passed. The trickier question is: Does the EU have the power retrospectively to extend the date and do the necessary deeming? Unless it has it is no use.

I imagine the EU would offer (and therefore agree) the extension during the election campaign, and depending on the outcome the new government could then confirm.

Somebody has to actually ask them though, and Boris wouldn't do that during the campaign.

They would also have to agree to the retrospective application of Article 50, in the unlikely the event they were asked. I don't find this a very reassuring thought. We drive off a cliff, the landing doesn't totally destroy us and we somehow manage to drive back to where we were and start again.

Hmmmm.....I can think of better solutions.

No, they can just offer it.

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

SouthamObserver said:

I believe that I am a free person living in a free country right now. All I see from No Deal is less freedom for me, my family, my business and my country. I would love to understand what I am missing. I guess that is why I engage. But I never seem to get an answer.

What does Rotherham gain from from thousands of East European Roma moving there.

I've asked that many times yet there never seems to be an answer.

Specifically not that much. What does Rotherham gain from the EU membership that involves freedom of movement - quite a bit, I'd argue. We'll soon find out, of course.

Well argue it then.

How many people from Rotherham are working elsewhere in the EU compared with how many from elsewhere are working in Rotherham.

And what sort of people are doing so.

There's a whole different reality to freedom of movement in working class areas as there is in upper middle class safezones.

OK, my argument would be that being in the EU delivers more jobs and a higher tax take for the UK than leaving it will do. Rotherham benefits directly from both.

So the Rotherhams must accept the disadvantages so that the Royal Leamington Spas gain the advantages ?

How about a little redistribution of the advantages and disadvantages.

Perhaps those less desirable migrants might be rehoused from Rotherham to Royal Leamington Spa.

I wonder how that would change attitudes in the two towns.

How does Rotherham not benefit from public spending or job creation? Could it benefit more? Absolutely. But that has nothing to do with EU membership. That is about government spending priorities.

So you agree that allowing uncontrolled immigration without providing the necessary housing, infrastructure and public services was damaging to the communities which received that uncontrolled immigration.

But we didn't get that necessary spending on the extra housing, infrastructure and public services.

Instead we got Blair and Brown and Cameron lying year after year that immigration was going to be controlled.

And were the people in nice upper middle class safezones willing to pay more tax for the necessary housing, infrastructure and public services to be provided in the likes of Rotherham or Hartlepool or the Lincolnshire farm towns ?

We know the answer to that is they weren't.

alex. said:

IanB2 said:

nichomar said:

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

Hear, hear!!

https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1159927511754641409

Yet some people still claim that the coalition was a golden era of good government.

Without it Johnson could go to the palace and ask for a dissolution so that Election Day falls on 31st October.

The most interesting thing about our “unwritten” constitution is that once something is covered by an Act, you can’t simply repeal it and go back to how things were before.

So what does happen if you repeal an act without a replacement?

No single simple answer to that one. Broadly the answer is the obvious one.

algarkirk said:

alex. said:

IanB2 said:

nichomar said:

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

Hear, hear!!

https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1159927511754641409

Yet some people still claim that the coalition was a golden era of good government.

Without it Johnson could go to the palace and ask for a dissolution so that Election Day falls on 31st October.

The most interesting thing about our “unwritten” constitution is that once something is covered by an Act, you can’t simply repeal it and go back to how things were before.

So what does happen if you repeal an act without a replacement?

No single simple answer to that one. Broadly the answer is the obvious one.

The obvious one being? Assuming “go back to how things were before” is not it.

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.

If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it

So Canada v the US

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.

If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it

Scotland would be in a similar position as every other European country except UK and France.

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.

If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it

That comment is a bit silly on various levels.

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

algarkirk said:

kjh said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

blutherup said:

This piece by Vernon Bogdanor in yesterday's Times was interesting, especially:

"... were an anti no-deal majority or Remain majority returned in November, a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

In other words, Johnson & Cummings should know that if they set an election date after the October 31st Brexit date, a new government could press the rewind button if so minded.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz

Yes, that's been mentioned here before. Not sure I buy it.

Yep, by me. I was shot down in flames by several on here. I had raised it several times before and so when the Prof raised yesterday I posted again. He should know what he is talking about and it seems only to reasonable to me, but the counter arguments on here were consistent.

There is no question that the UK parliament has power to make retrospective legislation, in the same way that it has the power to pass an act declaring that the moon is made of green cheese, and that this became true only at a date which has already passed. The trickier question is: Does the EU have the power retrospectively to extend the date and do the necessary deeming? Unless it has it is no use.

I imagine the EU would offer (and therefore agree) the extension during the election campaign, and depending on the outcome the new government could then confirm.

Somebody has to actually ask them though, and Boris wouldn't do that during the campaign.

They would also have to agree to the retrospective application of Article 50, in the unlikely the event they were asked. I don't find this a very reassuring thought. We drive off a cliff, the landing doesn't totally destroy us and we somehow manage to drive back to where we were and start again.

Hmmmm.....I can think of better solutions.

No, they can just offer it.

And if the PM says 'No'....?

In any case, why would they offer it? All the Members have to agree, and we know Macron is thinking 'assez', even if nobody else is.

Macron’s playing to his domestic media doesn’t mean that anything is actually going to be vetoed. That’s a mistake HY regularly makes,

another_richard said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.

If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it

That comment is a bit silly on various levels.

No it isn't, any sensible strategist will prepare for the greatest threats however unlikely.

Scotland's greatest threat would be a Russian invasion by a Nationalist Putin Governnment if it abandoned Trident and left NATO after going independent it would be on its own with plenty of oil

IanB2 said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

IanB2 said:

algarkirk said:

kjh said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

blutherup said:

This piece by Vernon Bogdanor in yesterday's Times was interesting, especially:

"... were an anti no-deal majority or Remain majority returned in November, a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

In other words, Johnson & Cummings should know that if they set an election date after the October 31st Brexit date, a new government could press the rewind button if so minded.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz

Yes, that's been mentioned here before. Not sure I buy it.

Yep, but and it seems only to reasonable to me, but the counter arguments on here were consistent.

There is no question that the UK parliament has power to make retrospective legis the EU have the power retrospectively to extend the date and do the necessary deeming? Unless it has it is no use.

I imagine the EU would offer (and therefore agree) the extension during the election campaign, and depending on the outcome the new government could then confirm.

Somebody has to actually ask them though, and Boris wouldn't do that during the campaign.

They would also have to agree to the retrospective application of Article 50, in the unlikely the event they were asked. I don't find this a very reassuring thought. We drive off a cliff, the landing doesn't totally destroy us and we somehow manage to drive back to where we were and start again.

Hmmmm.....I can think of better solutions.

No, they can just offer it.

And if the PM says 'No'....?

In any case, why would they offer it? All the Members have to agree, and we know Macron is thinking 'assez', even if nobody else is.

Macron’s playing to his domestic media doesn’t mean that anything is actually going to be vetoed. That’s a mistake HY regularly makes,

That's my view. The EU have been remarkably consistent and united throughout Brexit and I don't see Macron or anybody else breaking ranks now, but it doesn't alter the fact that an extension is within their gift. There is no obligation to accommodate us, and we shouldn't just assume they will.

Cyclefree said:

Beibheirli_C said:

rottenborough said:

SouthamObserver said:

I would argue the money could be spent better in other ways.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1160119579038953473

The public inquiry into this collective clusterf*ck is going to be fascinating.

I thought Brexit was meant to SAVE money? I seem to recall that we are meant to be £350m a week better off. I am sure it was on the side of a bus somewhere....

You and your inconvenient facts ......

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.

If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it

Putin already has Norilsk and therefore has no interest in Scotland.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1160129755620007937

Except if Canadian Tory leader Andrew Scheer beats Trudeau in November's Canadian election it would be full speed ahead for a UK and Canada FTA.

Polls currently put it neck and neck

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/03/05/scheer-off-to-london-to-lay-groundwork-for-canada-uk-free-trade-deal/#.XU6yrcnTW7O

Dura_Ace said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.

If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it

Putin already has Norilsk and therefore has no interest in Scotland.

You can never be 100% sure of that

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.

If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it

So Canada v the US

Canada and the US are both in NATO

As would Scotland. Your point is?

The SNP had a policy to leave NATO until 2012 and could return to it

another_richard said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.

If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it

That comment is a bit silly on various levels.

A bit silly doesn’t begin to describe it.
It approaches Dan Brown logic.

kle4 said:

I really am so pissed off at our MPs. None of this was necessary. If they were determined to leave or remain they could have showed some godsdamned spine much much earlier than this and made a decision that meant we were not in this horrific limbo right now.

To compound matters the one decision they did make definitively, triggering article 50, they falsely profess to not understand given their phoney surprise that it means we leave unless they decide something else.

Seriously, I'm at my wits end with these idiots. The reasoning of so many of them is still party focused. BoJo and the clowns are pillorying an agreement they voted for and pretending they are not pursuing the option they are, only caring about looking tough ahead of a GE. You have Grieve and co posturing about doing anything to stop no deal when that clearly is not the case since they wont vote for a deal nor so far support someone they dont like to do so. You have Corbynista central who dont seem to care what Brexit option occurs so long as they get to blame the Tories. You have the Nandyites who love to bemoan everything from everyone while using every excuse as to why they cannot back anything.

I could go on, and it's not very original, but my gods it's frustrating. I think David H is right that at this point the gov will do whatever it can, never mind the consequences or conventions. Only victory matters no matter the cost, they have literally said words close to that effect. And while it's ok to think high costs are worth it, or even to think wrongly thered be no cost, people who say 'any' cost or price is acceptable go way too far.

It is deeply concerning that no price is to high to win for all sides of this now. They dont care about achieving Brexit or stopping Brexit - we could have done both if they wanted that above all else. No, they want to achieve it in the way they want and no other way, making anger at not leaving or tears at leaving so much spit in our faces.

BoJo, Corbyn, that arse Grieve and all the rest, they truly believe we are all really stupid. And the worst part is they are probably right.

I have sympathy with your stance - but also, surprisingly, with theirs.

Reply cut because under vanilla, I can only write a couple of dozen words in response to the above without cutting it and making it incoherent)
(1/2)

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1160129755620007937

Except if Canadian Tory leader Andrew Scheer beats Trudeau in November's Canadian election it would be full speed ahead for a UK and Canada FTA.

Polls currently put it neck and neck

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/03/05/scheer-off-to-london-to-lay-groundwork-for-canada-uk-free-trade-deal/#.XU6yrcnTW7O

That article was written long before before the UK government announced the No Deal tariffs which led the Canadian government to decide it had no need to roll-over CETA.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with my point that if the Canadian Tories win November's Canadian election and beat Trudeau's Liberals it would be full speed ahead to a Canada UK FTA.

Polls currently have it neck and neck between the Tories and Liberals in Canada

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_Canadian_federal_election

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1160129755620007937

Except if Canadian Tory leader Andrew Scheer beats Trudeau in November's Canadian election it would be full speed ahead for a UK and Canada FTA.

Polls currently put it neck and neck

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/03/05/scheer-off-to-london-to-lay-groundwork-for-canada-uk-free-trade-deal/#.XU6yrcnTW7O

That article was written long before before the UK government announced the No Deal tariffs which led the Canadian government to decide it had no need to roll-over CETA.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with my point that if the Canadian Tories win November's Canadian election and beat Trudeau's Liberals it would be full speed ahead to a Canada UK FTA.

Polls currently have it neck and neck between the Tories and Liberals in Canada

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_Canadian_federal_election

Why does Canada need an FTA with the UK if the UK has already unilaterally decided to make it easier for Canadian companies to trade with the UK?

HYUFD said:

Dura_Ace said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.

If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it

Putin already has Norilsk and therefore has no interest in Scotland.

You can never be 100% sure of that

You can never be sure that Scotland won't be obliterated by a massive asteroid strike. For a sensible discussion of risk, you need to identify high impact events that have a more than a merely non-zero chance of happening.

algarkirk said:

kjh said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

blutherup said:

This piece by Vernon Bogdanor in yesterday's Times was interesting, especially:

"... were an anti no-deal majority or Remain majority returned in November, a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

In other words, Johnson & Cummings should know that if they set an election date after the October 31st Brexit date, a new government could press the rewind button if so minded.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-the-commons-could-thwart-boris-johnsons-no-deal-brexit-trkgbggcz

Yes, that's been mentioned here before. Not sure I buy it.

Yep, by me. I was shot down in flames by several on here. I had raised it several times before and so when the Prof raised yesterday I posted again. He should know what he is talking about and it seems only to reasonable to me, but the counter arguments on here were consistent.

There is no question that the UK parliament has power to make retrospective legislation, in the same way that it has the power to pass an act declaring that the moon is made of green cheese, and that this became true only at a date which has already passed. The trickier question is: Does the EU have the power retrospectively to extend the date and do the necessary deeming? Unless it has it is no use.

Hi algarkirk,

2 points:

a) Did you see my earlier post to you re 'speculation' on my part. Firstly apologies. I can't count so I thought you were referring to a different paragraph of mine. Secondly just to clarify I wasn't speculating. I was commenting upon the suggestion in David's article -see last paragraph. I agree (and hope) a PM would not stay on if failed in a VONC and a viable alternative was apparent, but I was referring to the suggesting being made that he might.

b) Re above - Everyone agreed we could do as you say. The other posters on here thought the EU could not 'stop the clock' as you rightly question. Vernon Bogdanor interestingly only seem to cover the Uk side of things. The assumption being, I assume, that the EU side was not an issue. As you say if they can't what is the point in him raising it. The posters on here seem confident they can not do it.

kinabalu said:

Scary header. I'm losing confidence in my view that we are neither Brexiting nor having a GE this year. Still just about clinging to it, but 'clinging' is now the word.

Still, maybe we should leave. I have just had a few days in Yarmouth, hanging with the WWC, and it was a nice vibe. OK there was the slightly depressing stuff - the obesity, the fleets of mobility scooters ridden by under 70s, a certain amount of unevolved behaviour - but this was more than outweighed by the positives, open friendly people, straightforward fun and games being had, belly laughs galore, and in particular what was striking was the number of multi generational holidays going on, kids, parents, grandparents all together on holiday in a lovely relaxed and unselfconscious way.

As I say, nice, and I came away thinking if these people want to leave the EU (for whatever reasons make sense in their own heads) then leave is what we should be doing. They did vote for it, remember.

Yeah, they sound like the salt-of-the-earth types I grew up with and I can see what you're saying. The trouble is that they are exactly the sort of people who will want somebody else to sort things out for them when it all goes shit-shaped.

These are my people. I know them. It's always somebody else's fault.

Anecdote alert: I came across my first Leaver to Remainer convert this morning. I have to say my jaw dropped when my mother spontaneously announced this. She liked Theresa May and really dislikes Boris Johnson.

I know it’s saturday but it’s a bit early to be back from the pub lunch and discussing ww3 taking place in Scotland.

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Dura_Ace said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.

If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it

Putin already has Norilsk and therefore has no interest in Scotland.

You can never be 100% sure of that

Russia is not going to invade Scotland. Russia might increase the number of times it probes Scottish air space, which might mean, ironically, that Scotland comes to depend on the English & Welsh RAF to see off the MIGs.

Though I expect Scotland will charge enough for the rent of Scottish air bases that Nicola comes out on top again.

Why should the English and Welsh RAF fly to protect Scotland from Russian MIGs without significant fees in return if Scotland left NATO and could not be bothered to form its own air force?

Because Scotland is on the way to London.

Peter_the_Punter said:

kinabalu said:

Scary header. I'm losing confidence in my view that we are neither Brexiting nor having a GE this year. Still just about clinging to it, but 'clinging' is now the word.

Still, maybe we should leave. I have just had a few days in Yarmouth, hanging with the WWC, and it was a nice vibe. OK there was the slightly depressing stuff - the obesity, the fleets of mobility scooters ridden by under 70s, a certain amount of unevolved behaviour - but this was more than outweighed by the positives, open friendly people, straightforward fun and games being had, belly laughs galore, and in particular what was striking was the number of multi generational holidays going on, kids, parents, grandparents all together on holiday in a lovely relaxed and unselfconscious way.

As I say, nice, and I came away thinking if these people want to leave the EU (for whatever reasons make sense in their own heads) then leave is what we should be doing. They did vote for it, remember.

Yeah, they sound like the salt-of-the-earth types I grew up with and I can see what you're saying. The trouble is that they are exactly the sort of people who will want somebody else to sort things out for them when it all goes shit-shaped.

These are my people. I know them. It's always somebody else's fault.

That's why in a democracy it is essential that politicians put only broadly feasible and realisable offers to the electorate. As it is parliament's job to deliver, it is politicians job to keep within the bounds of both consent and realism. So you can't say 'No Tax. High Public Expenditure'. Brexit is testing this out in a really simple way.

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Dura_Ace said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.

If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it

Putin already has Norilsk and therefore has no interest in Scotland.

You can never be 100% sure of that

Russia is not going to invade Scotland. Russia might increase the number of times it probes Scottish air space, which might mean, ironically, that Scotland comes to depend on the English & Welsh RAF to see off the MIGs.

Though I expect Scotland will charge enough for the rent of Scottish air bases that Nicola comes out on top again.

Why should the English and Welsh RAF fly to protect Scotland from Russian MIGs without significant fees in return if Scotland left NATO and could not be bothered to form its own air force?

Because Scotland is on the way to London.

But England would have Trident nuclear weapons unlike an independent Scotland and be in NATO too which Scotland might have left

Is HY predicting that Putin invades Scotland before or after we’ve declared war on Iran? It would be helpful if he could sort all his predictions into some sort of time order.

And I still wonder where his NI-only referendum fits into all this?

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Dura_Ace said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.

If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it

Putin already has Norilsk and therefore has no interest in Scotland.

You can never be 100% sure of that

Russia is not going to invade Scotland. Russia might increase the number of times it probes Scottish air space, which might mean, ironically, that Scotland comes to depend on the English & Welsh RAF to see off the MIGs.

Though I expect Scotland will charge enough for the rent of Scottish air bases that Nicola comes out on top again.

Why should the English and Welsh RAF fly to protect Scotland from Russian MIGs without significant fees in return if Scotland left NATO and could not be bothered to form its own air force?

Don’t we currently cover Irish airspace?

algarkirk said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

kinabalu said:

Scary header. I'm losing confidence in my view that we are neither Brexiting nor having a GE this year. Still just about clinging to it, but 'clinging' is now the word.

Still, maybe we should leave. I have just had a few days in Yarmouth, hanging with the WWC, and it was a nice vibe. OK there was the slightly depressing stuff - the obesity, the fleets of mobility scooters ridden by under 70s, a certain amount of unevolved behaviour - but this was more than outweighed by the positives, open friendly people, straightforward fun and games being had, belly laughs galore, and in particular what was striking was the number of multi generational holidays going on, kids, parents, grandparents all together on holiday in a lovely relaxed and unselfconscious way.

As I say, nice, and I came away thinking if these people want to leave the EU (for whatever reasons make sense in their own heads) then leave is what we should be doing. They did vote for it, remember.

Yeah, they sound like the salt-of-the-earth types I grew up with and I can see what you're saying. The trouble is that they are exactly the sort of people who will want somebody else to sort things out for them when it all goes shit-shaped.

These are my people. I know them. It's always somebody else's fault.

That's why in a democracy it is essential that politicians put only broadly feasible and realisable offers to the electorate. As it is parliament's job to deliver, it is politicians job to keep within the bounds of both consent and realism. So you can't say 'No Tax. High Public Expenditure'. Brexit is testing this out in a really simple way.

Yes, it would be hard to disagree with that. You can understand the anger of many who voted Brexit and now feel themselves short-changed.

kinabalu said:

Scary header. I'm losing confidence in my view that we are neither Brexiting nor having a GE this year. Still just about clinging to it, but 'clinging' is now the word.

Still, maybe we should leave. I have just had a few days in Yarmouth, hanging with the WWC, and it was a nice vibe. OK there was the slightly depressing stuff - the obesity, the fleets of mobility scooters ridden by under 70s, a certain amount of unevolved behaviour - but this was more than outweighed by the positives, open friendly people, straightforward fun and games being had, belly laughs galore, and in particular what was striking was the number of multi generational holidays going on, kids, parents, grandparents all together on holiday in a lovely relaxed and unselfconscious way.

As I say, nice, and I came away thinking if these people want to leave the EU (for whatever reasons make sense in their own heads) then leave is what we should be doing. They did vote for it, remember.

Not sure I buy the argument that the WWC voted Brexit in significantly greater numbers than anyone else. In my WWC family it was a straight split on age lines. Given that a lot of younger WWC don't do fit the sociologists' categories neatly I'd assert that class had almost nothing to do with it.

HYUFD said:

Why should the English and Welsh RAF fly to protect Scotland from Russian MIGs without significant fees in return if Scotland left NATO and could not be bothered to form its own air force?

Bear in mind that NATO is merely an instrument of US foreign and security policy. If the US wants the GIUK air policed then there will be an appropriate NATO mission to do so as there is in Iceland, the Baltic and Montenegro. None of them pay "significant fees".

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Russia is not going to invade Scotland. Russia might increase the number of times it probes Scottish air space, which might mean, ironically, that Scotland comes to depend on the English & Welsh RAF to see off the MIGs.

Though I expect Scotland will charge enough for the rent of Scottish air bases that Nicola comes out on top again.

Why should the English and Welsh RAF fly to protect Scotland from Russian MIGs without significant fees in return if Scotland left NATO and could not be bothered to form its own air force?

Because Scotland is on the way to London.

But England would have Trident nuclear weapons unlike an independent Scotland and be in NATO too which Scotland might have left

The reducto ad absurdum of Conservative defence policy: we only need nukes so let's cashier the soldiers, sailors and airmen.

Let's try another angle. We know, because President Trump has complained about it, that the United States makes a loss on its overseas bases. I expect it will be the same for EWRAF.

Beibheirli_C said:

another_richard said:

Perhaps those less desirable migrants might be rehoused from Rotherham to Royal Leamington Spa.

I wonder how that would change attitudes in the two towns.

What?

Two seconds thought please.... a migrant coming from a poor part of the world to better their circumstances is looking for affordable housing. Will they choose a somewhat run-down area where they can manage to get somewhere? Or will they choose an area where a month's rent would cost them a year's wages?

Migrants are going where they can afford to go. That is why the only migrants in Mayfair are multi-millionaires

Which is the point I've been making here for over a decade.

The cost-benefit breakdown of uncontrolled immigration varies from location to location.

And its the poorer areas in the UK which attract the least desirable migrants.

Now lets think how attitudes to immigration might change if those poorer areas didn't receive those least desirable migrants and they were instead housed in nice upper middle class areas.

I suggest that the poorer areas would be less concerned about immigration and the nice upper middle class areas would instead become strongly opposed about allowing the 'wrong' sort of migration.

Peter_the_Punter said:

These are my people. I know them. It's always somebody else's fault.

Alistair's definition of Brexiteers...

AlastairMeeks said:

Anecdote alert: I came across my first Leaver to Remainer convert this morning. I have to say my jaw dropped when my mother spontaneously announced this. She liked Theresa May and really dislikes Boris Johnson.

Very close anecdote here. My mother was a remainer - albeit only after I corrected some factual errors she had absorbed from a lifetime of reading the Daily Express - but carried on supporting the Tories because she liked Mrs May. Her take on it was that the PM was getting the job done while the men around her were all talk. Given that she remains the only UK politician who has ever come up with an actual practical plan to leave the EU she had a good point. Getting rid of May and replacing her with the archetypal useless male overprivileged prick has finally cured her of voting Conservative. I've been trying to do that since I was a teenager with no luck at all.

alex. said:

HYUFD said:

alex. said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1160129755620007937

Except if Canadian Tory leader Andrew Scheer beats Trudeau in November's Canadian election it would be full speed ahead for a UK and Canada FTA.

Polls currently put it neck and neck

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/03/05/scheer-off-to-london-to-lay-groundwork-for-canada-uk-free-trade-deal/#.XU6yrcnTW7O

That article was written long before before the UK government announced the No Deal tariffs which led the Canadian government to decide it had no need to roll-over CETA.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with my point that if the Canadian Tories win November's Canadian election and beat Trudeau's Liberals it would be full speed ahead to a Canada UK FTA.

Polls currently have it neck and neck between the Tories and Liberals in Canada

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_Canadian_federal_election

Same question as with the US.

What would the U.K. objectives be in seeking an FTA with Canada, and what would they be offering the Canadians in return? Honestly most of the time with you I get the impression that simply the existence of an FTA is sufficient, regardless of what it says. Which is bizarre because the answer that Brexiteers usually give when challenged on all the FTAs that the U.K. benefitted from through the EU was that they weren’t sufficiently directed to U.K. objectives.

But then you aren’t a Brexiteer so maybe you have different answers...

Canada exports more to the UK than the UK exports to Canada (the reverse of the US) so they need a FTA more than us

Why? I thought we were looking to significantly grow our exports to replace those that will be lost through leaving the EU/Single Market. Whereas for Canada it’s much more of a “nice to have”.

We need FTAs with Switzerland (basically done), the US, Saudi Arabia and China more as we export more to them than Canada

Dura_Ace said:

HYUFD said:

Why should the English and Welsh RAF fly to protect Scotland from Russian MIGs without significant fees in return if Scotland left NATO and could not be bothered to form its own air force?

Bear in mind that NATO is merely an instrument of US foreign and security policy. If the US wants the GIUK air policed then there will be an appropriate NATO mission to do so as there is in Iceland, the Baltic and Montenegro. None of them pay "significant fees".

Given Trump can't stand Sturgeon and Salmond unlikely while he remains POTUS

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Russia is not going to invade Scotland. Russia might increase the number of times it probes Scottish air space, which might mean, ironically, that Scotland comes to depend on the English & Welsh RAF to see off the MIGs.

Though I expect Scotland will charge enough for the rent of Scottish air bases that Nicola comes out on top again.

Why should the English and Welsh RAF fly to protect Scotland from Russian MIGs without significant fees in return if Scotland left NATO and could not be bothered to form its own air force?

Because Scotland is on the way to London.

But England would have Trident nuclear weapons unlike an independent Scotland and be in NATO too which Scotland might have left

The reducto ad absurdum of Conservative defence policy: we only need nukes so let's cashier the soldiers, sailors and airmen.

Let's try another angle. We know, because President Trump has complained about it, that the United States makes a loss on its overseas bases. I expect it will be the same for EWRAF.

We only need nukes for our defence, soldiers, sailors and airmen are only needed to defend other NATO members, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar or to undertake overseas military action with the USA or UN peacekeeping missions

HYUFD said:

alex. said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Dura_Ace said:

HYUFD said:

another_richard said:

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Dura_Ace said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

malcolmg said:

They would be replaced with Scottish forces jobs G. Permanent real jobs for Scotland.

Really !!!!

Defence jobs would probably be a net gain for Scotland as there would be no economies of scale as enjoyed by the UK forces now.

Naval shipbuilding at Govan and Clydebank would be right in the shit. Of that, there is no doubt.

It is in the shit as it is , dwindling to nothing in any event. They are building next to nothing and now plan all the support ships abroad to "save" money. What is left could build ships required for Scotland to patrol its own waters etc.
Hard to see it not being a win-win.

8 x Type 26 and 5 x Type 31 are planned to be built in Govan/Clydebank over the next 15 years. That's over 10bn quid/75,000 tons of very high tech naval shipbuilding. There is no way a Scottish Navy could replace even 10% of that activity.

How big a navy would an independent Scotland need ?

The Danish and Norwegian navies seem quite sizeable.

If say an independent Scotland abandoned its nuclear deterrent and Putin decided to try his luck a sizeable one I imagine otherwise the Scots would have to rely on the English still having Trident and offering to use it to protect Scotland as well assuming Scotland remained in NATO and England was obliged to defend it

Putin already has Norilsk and therefore has no interest in Scotland.

You can never be 100% sure of that

Russia is not going to invade Scotland. Russia might increase the number of times it probes Scottish air space, which might mean, ironically, that Scotland comes to depend on the English & Welsh RAF to see off the MIGs.

Though I expect Scotland will charge enough for the rent of Scottish air bases that Nicola comes out on top again.

Why should the English and Welsh RAF fly to protect Scotland from Russian MIGs without significant fees in return if Scotland left NATO and could not be bothered to form its own air force?

Don’t we currently cover Irish airspace?

We are not obliged to as Ireland is not in NATO

But we do anyway.

algarkirk said:

kjh said:

algarkirk said:

kjh said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

blutherup said:

This piece by Vernon Bogdanor
"... were an anti no-deal majority or Remain majority returned in November, a sovereign parliament could legislate retrospectively, with the agreement of the EU, so as to extend the Brexit date and deem Britain not to have left the EU on October 31. Parliament has legislated retrospectively in the past, most notably in the War Crimes Act 1991."

In other words, Johnson & Cummings should know that if they set an election date after the October 31st Brexit date, a new government could press the rewind button if so minded.z

Yes, that's been mentioned here before. Not sure I buy it.

Yep, by me. I was shot down in flames by several on here. I had raised it several times before and so when the Prof raised yesterday I posted again. He should know what he is talking about and it seems only to reasonable to me, but the counter arguments on here were consistent.

There is no question that the UK parliament has power to make retrospective legislation, in the same way that it has the power to pass an act declaring that the moon is made of green cheese, and that this became true only at a date which has already passed. The trickier question is: Does the EU have the power retrospectively to extend the date and do the necessary deeming? Unless it has it is no use.

Hi algarkirk,

2 points:

a) Did you see my earlier post to you re 'speculation' on my part. Firstly apologies. I can't count so I thought you were referring to a different paragraph of mine. Secondly just to clarify I wasn't speculating. I was commenting upon the suggestion in David's article -see last paragraph. I agree (and hope) a PM would not stay on if failed in a VONC and a viable alternative was apparent, but I was referring to the suggesting being made that he might.

b) Re above - Everyone agreed we could do as you say. The other posters on here thought the EU could not 'stop the clock' as you rightly question. Vernon Bogdanor interestingly only seem to cover the Uk side of things. The assumption being, I assume, that the EU side was not an issue. As you say if they can't what is the point in him raising it. The posters on here seem confident they can not do it.

Thanks. All clarified.
Bogdanor needs to think further.
Much more elegant is to leave with long transition and then rejoin. Seamless and no legal fictions - and discharges the mandate. Until that is done we can't move on.

I must admit I was on the side of the EU just stopping the clock, but people kept inconveniently quoting EU procedures and laws to me. I still believe that if they want to (and I'm sure they do) they will find it possible.

Zephyr said:

Zephyr said:

Cyclefree said:

Beibheirli_C said:

rottenborough said:

SouthamObserver said:

The public inquiry into this collective clusterf*ck is going to be fascinating.

I seem to recall that we are meant to be £350m a week better off.

You and your inconvenient facts ......

In 2014-15 UK public spending was £735bn. The total EU public expenditure in the same year was only around £118bn The £18.8b leave used is a little bit under the highest we have paid and put another way represents about 0.6 per cent of our national income.

The figure of £350m a week was based on official Treasury figures for Britain’s gross contribution to the EU budget for 2014. The figure is £18.8bn, so the bus was wrong it should have said £360m a week.
However that £18.8b = £360M a week is a gross figure. Concentrating on gross figure ignores the fact that a good deal of this money flows back to Britain in various ways, to produce a net figure. To start with there is still some of the 1984 rebate not given up yet, this reduces Britain’s 2014 contribution from £18.8bn to £14.4bn. There are further billions that flow straight back directly to Britain mostly spent on payments to farmers, landowners, and some of the poorest regions of the UK also benefit from EU funds reducing Britain’s 2014 contribution down to about £9.8bn. Leave can certainly argue why hand it to EU only for them to hand it back, and honour that current subsidy to British agriculture and land management and also the money to the poorest regions for infrastructure and lifelong reskilling and education (vital for fight against deindustrialization and globalisation), but that means they can’t add that to the side of the bus as spare money and in play.
£9B a year is a more accurate figure to talk about Britain annual NET contribution to the EU, as this on average is what our regular NET contribution has been for a while. But even this does not take into account much adhoc funding on which Non-governmental bodies like universities and businesses receive the EU money too. Most of this comes via research grants and in 2014 this further reduced Britain’s contribution to £5.7bn NET. Even the £5.7bn contains some further spending that will actually remain, The governments white paper stated we will still make "appropriate" contributions for "European programmes in which we might want to participate." These "appropriate" contributions include everything from our membership of the cross-border policing organisation Europol to wider European security arrangements as well as joint scientific and research bodies, such as European space agency, we could remain in.