/ No vote for MP's

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Indy - on 10 Oct 2016

MP's won't get to vote on brexit..... bit of a shocker really.
Post edited at 14:05
3
Trangia - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

Yes.

If judgement in a Court of Law can be overturned on the basis of incorrect/misleading evidence having been relied on, I wonder why the same principle cannot be applied to a referendum result?
4
RyanOsborne - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

So much for sovereignty eh!
3
davidbeynon on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

Queen Theresa is our new Sovereign.
2
paulcarey - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

Damn the royal prerorgative...
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:
> MP's won't get to vote on brexit..... bit of a shocker really.

Theresa May says MP's won't get a vote on Brexit is not the same thing as MP's wont get a vote on Brexit - if Corbyn does his job.
Post edited at 14:37
4
krikoman - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

Are the people asking for a vote just hoping for a turn around of the Brexit referendum?

Are there any Pro-Brexiteers, calling for a vote?

I've not been following this, but isn't it a way for us not to leave the EU?

While I was a remainer, I'm also all for democracy, and while I also realise the population was duped into voting leave, the only option that can give any credibility to Parliament is for another referendum. Otherwise, won't it just reinforce the concept of a non-representative Parliament for a large section of a disenfranchised population.
1
paulcarey - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to krikoman:

It's not clear who has the power to invoke article 50. The referendum act as far as I no didn't set anything out on this (thanks Dave for the mess you've left behind... ) So the Government just does it without a vote on the basis of the royal prerogative - doesn't that undermine parliamentary sovereignty?
I think Parliament has to vote on it. I don't think MP's will vote down the referendum result against - there just might be more abstentions than usual.
1
davidbeynon on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to paulcarey:

If this flies then the implication is that any government could have pulled us out of the EU without a vote at any time in the last 40 years.
1
paulcarey - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to davidbeynon:

Possibly. Just makes us look a bit like a banana republic.

Govt invokes treaty provision based on an advisory referendum without going through parliament.
2
LastBoyScout on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to paulcarey:

> Govt invokes treaty provision based on an advisory referendum without going through parliament.

This is the bit that everyone seems to keep forgetting, conveniently or otherwise.

There was no mandate whatsoever for the government to actually act on the result, so any action towards brexit without a vote is surely wrong?
7
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to paulcarey:

> Possibly. Just makes us look a bit like a banana republic.

Or population vote to exit, MPs over rule and vote to stay. A great example as a supposedly standard setter of democracy. That is the kind of democracy the eu likes though.
8
andyfallsoff - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

You're assuming they would vote against it, though. Most MPs just want the point to be debated so that they can all have a say in the most important decision facing our country in years.

Do you really think it is better that this whole process is decided by the executive, who is already acting in direct contravention of the mandate that her political party was elected in on ("protect the single market")?
1
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Debated, there wasn't a day between dec and June when it wasn't a feature. The entire UK population over 18 had a chance to have their say.

Now people think that 600MPs should have a say? Why bother with the referendum at all? Perhaps government should just scrap the elections and let MPs tell us what is best for us?
13
davidbeynon on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

Because the actual details matter.
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to davidbeynon:
> Because the actual details matter.

I would agree, but they had their chance. Instead they all spouted a lot of c*ap for 6mths, but that's their fault. Should have used their position and time better. Says more about the calibre of MP than anything else.

Edit. I will add I think ALL MPs should now work together to move the electorates decision forward. More fighting and debating isn't going to help anyone.
Post edited at 16:00
19
KevinD - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

> bit of a shocker really.

who would have thought someone with serious authoritarian tendencies would do such a thing.
2
Andy Hardy on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

What the MPs are asking for (as I understand it) is some input on the nature of Brexit, not on whether or not Brexit occurs. Cruella de Ville isn't too keen on this idea, for reasons which are not at all clear. I would have thought that a debate / many debates and a vote would actually be beneficial to the Brexit camp in that it would underline their commitment to parliamentary sovereignty and they might actually be able to bring some evidence of the purported benefits of Brexit to the attention of the Remain voters.
andyfallsoff - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:
As has been said above - because the details matter.

How can you say they "had their chance" - whenever anyone asked what leave would look like, the leave campaign refused to say what out would look like, and said "yes, we have to leave then we can decide between all of these options". So why can't we use parliament now, to decide what "out" should look like?

You can't really think that the best way to deal with this is to say that the debate during the campaign (which you accept was shocking) is as far as we get - then leave one person to decide how they interpreted that?
Post edited at 16:10
tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> Debated, there wasn't a day between dec and June when it wasn't a feature. The entire UK population over 18 had a chance to have their say.

The Tory manifesto said they'd have a referendum about leaving the EU but their policy was to stay in the single market.

Many of the voices in the Leave campaign were promoting a soft exit into the EEA or claiming that Britain could stay in the single market while controlling immigration. The referendum is not a mandate for a hard Brexit.

May doesn't want any scrutiny because the only kind of Brexit she could get past parliament or a second referendum is a very soft Brexit and that wouldn't help her with her own party.

jonnie3430 - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> Debated, there wasn't a day between dec and June when it wasn't a feature. The entire UK population over 18 had a chance to have their say.

> Now people think that 600MPs should have a say? Why bother with the referendum at all? Perhaps government should just scrap the elections and let MPs tell us what is best for us?

People didn't know what the effect of brexit would be. I think the picture is getting clearer now, as is the calibre of the politicians promoting it. I think there would be a different result for a second referendum based on this experience, do you?
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> You can't really think that the best way to deal with this is to say that the debate during the campaign (which you accept was shocking) is as far as we get - then leave one person to decide how they interpreted that?

debate yes, there will be some it is needed. But an MP's vote is what I don't think is necessary and could go against the referendum vote? What if the SNP majority SMP's decide they want to go against the Scottish referendum result and break away from the UK, is that acceptable too?
2
rj_townsend on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

MPs are in post solely to represent to views of their constituents. These views were made absolutely clear in June, so MPs have been given their instructions.

5
RyanOsborne - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

It's not about voting for or against the referendum result, it's about the nature of our exit, hard or soft etc (but preferably obviously far more detailed than that).
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> I think there would be a different result for a second referendum based on this experience, do you?

probably a greater majority for brexit, now we know the world hasn't ended or WW3 broke out. ;)

Plus if people knew in advance that a brexit win would remove Cameron and Osbourne from office, that must be worth a few percent alone? In a new referendum would they get their old jobs back if 'in' won?
9
galpinos on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I would imagine the other reason is the only Brexit Europe will give us is probably a hard Brexit so if she says that's what she wants, she looks like she's won.
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> It's not about voting for or against the referendum result, it's about the nature of our exit, hard or soft etc (but preferably obviously far more detailed than that).

but how do MPs vote? On an R4 programme there was a business guy who had his options pre-june all mapped out for his company. A law firm I think. They planned out 14 different flavours of exit that could possibly happen. It's not even a simple Hard or Soft exit, there are literally 100s of details, does every element require a vote? CAP, Fisheries etc..
3
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The Tory manifesto said they'd have a referendum about leaving the EU but their policy was to stay in the single market.

but if after that election, there is referendum where the whole population can vote, and it's brexit, that must carry more weight that the votes for one political party? Both in terms of currency being most recent and size as it polls all voters, not just tory supporters?
3
andyfallsoff - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

What is the point of a debate where the MPs don't have a say? As has been commented below, what we want is a parliamentary vote giving some democratic input into what form of Brexit we have. You are only objecting to that based on a straw man argument (that they will vote down Brexit altogether). No one here is saying that is an option.

Your SNP point is a nonsense and has nothing to do with the question.
1
RyanOsborne - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

Easy. Government publishes a paper on what its objectives are, and parliament passes it or doesn't.
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> Easy. Government publishes a paper on what its objectives are, and parliament passes it or doesn't.

what if the MPs vote it out, but the 52% are or would have been happy with it. Is that democracy?
3
RyanOsborne - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

Then the government comes back with a different proposal, taking on board MP's concerns and it gets voted through. And yes, that's exactly democracy.
jonnie3430 - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

No, the world didn't end, and ww3 hasn't broke out yet. Everybody's foreign holidays are now more expensive, as are iPhones, Samsungs, BMWs and Audi's, what do you think they care about more?
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:

> Then the government comes back with a different proposal, taking on board MP's concerns and it gets voted through. And yes, that's exactly democracy.

and exactly how many decades would that take?
1
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> foreign holidays iPhones, Samsungs, BMWs and Audi's, .....

life essentials? ;) Maybe a lot of people who voted out, can't afford any of those?
5
kestrelspl on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

Also no one can know whether the beatified 52% would have been happy with a particular proposition without asking them. That means we have to either seek input from their elected representatives or ask them directly again. i.e. Discussion and vote in parliament or a second referendum on the final settlement.

As has been said above this is precisely how democracy works. Also in response to a previous answer which in effect said "but there are hundreds of things to decide, surely parliament can't need to discuss and vote on all of them" if you don't want parliament to discuss and vote on all the changes to legislation what do you think it is for?
andyfallsoff - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

If it is a matter of vital national importance, as this is, then I imagine it would get lots of parliamentary time so could be done relatively quickly.

Even if that does mean a slight delay, do you not think it is more important to get a deal that is right for this country, rather than just a deal that is struck as fast as possible?
jonnie3430 - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

They seem to be the symbols that the majority of the UK judge people on.
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:


> Even if that does mean a slight delay, do you not think it is more important to get a deal that is right for this country, rather than just a deal that is struck as fast as possible?

debate, or pick your cards to head off to the EU with yes. But not MPs voting on which flavour Brexit they personally want, that's not the same thing.

Personally, I think all this talk of hard brexit is just show, just like various EU leaders making their stance. Everyone knows that a deal which is mutually beneficial is best for everyone and that is what both side will work towards. A bit of poker face for their electorate and then the real negotiations will begin behind closed doors. A hard brexit, clean break would be as bad for many Euro nations as it would be for UK trading, so I don't think any side really wants that. May if anything is just taking the wind out of Boris and Goves sails.
3
summo on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Your SNP point is a nonsense and has nothing to do with the question.

it's actually pretty similar, would that be the Scots who voted for a clean break, or to let the UK treasury maintain control of the UK pound they wished to keep, would that be Scotland out of the EU or still in and with a Euro currency, armed forces and all funded assets or contracts out of Scotland, Scotland share of national debt, UK public sector offices withdrawl... there were many intricacies which were glossed over by both sides, just like with the EU referendum. But you think if the SNP won, they would pause for thought in breaking away from London.

3
andyfallsoff - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:
> it's actually pretty similar, would that be the Scots who voted for a clean break, or to let the UK treasury maintain control of the UK pound they wished to keep, would that be Scotland out of the EU or still in and with a Euro currency, armed forces and all funded assets or contracts out of Scotland, Scotland share of national debt, UK public sector offices withdrawl... there were many intricacies which were glossed over by both sides, just like with the EU referendum. But you think if the SNP won, they would pause for thought in breaking away from London.

I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say. Scotland voted against independence, but then voted in the SNP at GE. The SNP remain at this stage committed to seeking independence as a long term goal but they haven't (as far as I can see) declared themselves independent.

How this is relevant to the question on the EU is a mystery to me.
Post edited at 18:45
andyfallsoff - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> debate, or pick your cards to head off to the EU with yes. But not MPs voting on which flavour Brexit they personally want, that's not the same thing.

?? Why can't we have a parliamentary debate on which type of Brexit? I'll say this again - this is the single biggest political decision of our lifetime, and so far we have one piece of information - that we have to leave the EU. That is a huge range of options, and we don't know which is most popular, or the best idea. We should absolutely have a democratic vote to decide how this goes! How can you possibly think a better idea is to allow one person to choose the future of our country?

> Personally, I think all this talk of hard brexit is just show, just like various EU leaders making their stance. Everyone knows that a deal which is mutually beneficial is best for everyone and that is what both side will work towards.

The EU really doesn't know that, because we keep saying we want a hard Brexit.

A bit of poker face for their electorate and then the real negotiations will begin behind closed doors. A hard brexit, clean break would be as bad for many Euro nations as it would be for UK trading, so I don't think any side really wants that. May if anything is just taking the wind out of Boris and Goves sails.

Can we stop with this "we'll get what we want because it is best for everyone" line? It is possible we might get that. But alternatively, because you'd rather we let one person (!) make the decision, we might end up with a system that says that immigration control is the most important thing an so end up outside the single market. Just like we are currently saying we want.
davidbeynon on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

The UK is nowhere near self sufficient when it comes to food, so that's going up pretty soon.

The cost of food can go up 50% and I will be OK so long as I can hang on to my job. Lots of other people will be screwed.
RyanOsborne - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

Probably about 0.025, enough time to get it right possibly, which in my view is at least as important as doing it quickly.
wercat on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to davidbeynon:
I thought we imported about 60% of our energy so probably as food goes up more people will simultaneously go into fuel poverty and either the benefits bill will go up dramatically or they will be left to choose between food and keeping warm


btw with all of the uncertainty we have now the pound will be wide open to 1992 style attacks by currency dealers which might be interesting for us. That's assuming also that our new warm relations with the Russian government don't involve any kind of financial skullduggery.
Post edited at 20:34
davidbeynon on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to wercat:

All just as we head into winter. What fun!
RomTheBear on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

> MP's won't get to vote on brexit..... bit of a shocker really.

That doesn't' bother me, because after all the referendum result give them a mandate to leave the EU, and the referendum bill was passed by parliament.

What is totally unacceptable though is the government using the royal prerogative to take us out of the Single Market.
This was not on the ballot paper, there is no indication whatsoever that this is what a majority of the British people want, and the Tory manifesto they were elected on was clearly in favour of the single market.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:
> it's actually pretty similar, would that be the Scots who voted for a clean break, or to let the UK treasury maintain control of the UK pound they wished to keep,

The Independence referendum was done properly. The electorate was asked to vote on a policy the government wished to introduce and the government created an official document describing its vision and its goals in the subsequent negotiation. Of course, there was still uncertainty about whether those goals could be achieved but it was clear who was going to carry out the negotiation and what their goals were.

There shouldn't have been a Brexit referendum unless the government was in favour of leaving and set out its vision of what Brexit meant.
Post edited at 22:31
1
summo on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> > Can we stop with this "we'll get what we want because it is best for everyone" line? It is possible we might get that. But alternatively, because you'd rather we let one person (!) make the decision,

there is one front person, the whole negotiations and decisions aren't going be done or decide my May herself.
1
summo on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to davidbeynon:

> The UK is nowhere near self sufficient when it comes to food, so that's going up pretty soon.
> The cost of food can go up 50%

in part because you've been subsidising the cost of your food shopping through the tax you pay for the past 20 years, that then go to the EU, then to CAP etc... Food security is something most countries have paid little attention to for many years. The UK has become a want it now food consumer, salad in winter etc.. if people switch back to eating a little more seasonally, I'm sure the UK can develop to produce more of it's own food.
2
ads.ukclimbing.com
summo on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> There shouldn't have been a Brexit referendum unless the government was in favour of leaving and set out its vision of what Brexit meant.

I will agree there, the government (as in all MPs) should have set out the facts and left the public to vote. Much less side taking.
George Ormerod - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> Are there any Pro-Brexiteers, calling for a vote?

Yes, a number of them are.

> I've not been following this, but isn't it a way for us not to leave the EU?

No, it's not about that; it's about the democratic scrutiny of one of the most important decisions for several generations that will affect us for decades to come. More so that any general election. It's astounding that parliament will not be allowed a vote on the say so of an un-elected PM, particularly as there is no clear idea of what Brexit means. Whilst there was a narrow vote to leave the EU, there's almost certainly no mandate not to explore the option of remaining in the EEA.
andyfallsoff - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

Have you been reading the news? The one thing that seems to be apparent is that TM is tending to micro-manage and retain the final say. Witness her overruling statements made by each of Boris, Davis and Fox. It seems fairly clear that she is retaining the last say.
BnB - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Have you been reading the news? The one thing that seems to be apparent is that TM is tending to micro-manage and retain the final say. Witness her overruling statements made by each of Boris, Davis and Fox. It seems fairly clear that she is retaining the last say.

To be fair, isn't that the job of the PM? And shouldn't you be happy that someone more to the left than those three is willing to do so.
1
summo on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> Have you been reading the news? The one thing that seems to be apparent is that TM is tending to micro-manage and retain the final say. Witness her overruling statements made by each of Boris, Davis and Fox. It seems fairly clear that she is retaining the last say.

I wasn't referring to them three, was thinking more of the myriad of advisers and permanent staff etc.. that lurk in the back ground, who have the actual knowledge or expertise. Perhaps not quite like Yes Prime Minister, although at times it appears startling accurate.

As PM the buck stops with her, but that doesn't mean she doesn't or can't talk advice from others.
Post edited at 07:26
1
summo on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to George Ormerod:

> Whilst there was a narrow vote to leave the EU, there's almost certainly no mandate not to explore the option of remaining in the EEA.

I just think it's all politics, she presents the harshest option to the UK people, the MPs(perhaps even the opposition) and press highlight how 'potentially' bad this could be with WW3, plagues, food prices quadruple, perhaps rationing will return etc... then negotiations start and she says I can keep us in the EEA (or similar) so trade will prosper, but I've had to give in a little on that minor topic of migration. But don't worry she says, the benefits of being in the EEA will more than offset the extra workers coming from the EU, all is well and everyone then feels they got something they liked. The end. It's a little show.
2
barrow_matt on 11 Oct 2016
If MPs overturned the vote somehow I really hope Nigel Farage becomes the next PM. An MPs job should be to represent their constituents not themselves, if they vote in line with their constituents wishes it is a clear yes to Brexit.

The main reason people voted remain was fear of change, if anything the result has probably swayed further to the leave side when we all woke up and nothing had changed.
3
wercat on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to barrow_matt:

surely we'd be better off with Trump or Putin, a real organ grinder rather than a monkey
RyanOsborne - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to barrow_matt:

> If MPs overturned the vote somehow I really hope Nigel Farage becomes the next PM. An MPs job should be to represent their constituents not themselves, if they vote in line with their constituents wishes it is a clear yes to Brexit.

> The main reason people voted remain was fear of change, if anything the result has probably swayed further to the leave side when we all woke up and nothing had changed.

Firstly, we haven't actually left yet, and secondly a lot has already changed! The pound is weaker than it was after the Lehman collapse.
andyfallsoff - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> I wasn't referring to them three, was thinking more of the myriad of advisers and permanent staff etc.. that lurk in the back ground, who have the actual knowledge or expertise. Perhaps not quite like Yes Prime Minister, although at times it appears startling accurate.

> As PM the buck stops with her, but that doesn't mean she doesn't or can't talk advice from others.

OK. So we basically agree, she is reserving the right to decide the future of our country - you just think that's OK because she has civil servants. Whereas I think that a monumental decision such as "what now" needs as broad input as possible from democratic means. Remind me again - wasn't the EU's "undemocratic" nature one of the biggest reasons cited for people voting out?
andyfallsoff - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to barrow_matt:

> The main reason people voted remain was fear of change, if anything the result has probably swayed further to the leave side when we all woke up and nothing had changed.

Speak for yourself, some of us voted remain because we believe in being part of a broader network of interconnected countries and economies working together.
1
wercat on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to RyanOsborne:
With reports of people having to pay more than £1 per euro at airports yesterday Brexit's a real win-win




for someone ....


come to think of it - this French power station deal - are we to pay in or euros? The cost for all of us will have gone up a fair bit
Post edited at 08:59
RyanOsborne - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to wercat:

Don't worry, we've got control of our country back.
summo on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> needs as broad input as possible from democratic means.

isn't there still going to be some cross party Brexit executive?
2
andyfallsoff - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

??? The executive is solely the government in power on any given date. So no, cross party executive isn't a thing (unless there is a coalition).
davidbeynon on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

And these magic farms will make the UK self sufficient and able to produce cheap food for everyone when exactly?

Clearly we need more Juche spirit.
RyanOsborne - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> I just think it's all politics, she presents the harshest option to the UK people, the MPs(perhaps even the opposition) and press highlight how 'potentially' bad this could be with WW3, plagues, food prices quadruple, perhaps rationing will return etc... then negotiations start and she says I can keep us in the EEA (or similar) so trade will prosper, but I've had to give in a little on that minor topic of migration. But don't worry she says, the benefits of being in the EEA will more than offset the extra workers coming from the EU, all is well and everyone then feels they got something they liked. The end. It's a little show.

Is that what you were hoping for when you voted to leave? Given May's stance on migration I'd be very surprised (but quite happy) if it played out like that.

Still, same old tories, playing a political game which could just ruin everyone's life.
Matt Rees - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to davidbeynon:

That's what I thought too. We get a riverford box. He says he once tried a uk only option but it was pretty dire in the winter (coming from a sustainable farming fanatic, it must be true), so they have farms in France and Spain.

Maybe these farms would just be huge hot house affairs, which would be an environmental disaster and horribly expensive given the increased costs of energy import..
Lemony - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Matt Rees:

> He says he once tried a uk only option but it was pretty dire in the winter

That depends how much you like swede...

davidbeynon on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Lemony:

I'm quite keen on swede but I find that a root vegetable only diet loses it's lustre somewhere in the third month.
Matt Rees - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to davidbeynon:

Methane production may solve the energy crisis, if we can just figure out how to capture it.
Jim C - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to davidbeynon:

> Queen Theresa is our new Sovereign.

She IS a Remainer, right ?

As PM she will be looking after the concerns of all MPs, remainers or otherwise.
3
Jim C - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Matt Rees:
> Methane production may solve the energy crisis, if we can just figure out how to capture it.

Keep all animals indoors an a contained environment and capture it;)
Cow sheds would be a good start.
Post edited at 12:12
Lemony - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to davidbeynon:

I made Swede Cake just to get rid of it. That wasn't a good day.
Jim C - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> While I was a remainer, I'm also all for democracy, and while I also realise the population was duped into voting leave, the only option that can give any credibility to Parliament is for another referendum. Otherwise, won't it just reinforce the concept of a non-representative Parliament for a large section of a disenfranchised population.

Paraphrase :- all Brexiters are stupid and easily duped, so we will give them another chance to get the right answer.

Why did you not just say that ?
Post edited at 12:39
2
barrow_matt on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> She IS a Remainer, right ?

The only major party leader past/present surrounding all of this who isn't a keen remainer is Jeremy Corbyn!

But don't let that get in the way of it being the tories fault.

4
RyanOsborne - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to barrow_matt:

What makes you say she was a more keen remainer than JC? She was widely criticised for not campaigning strongly for remain, and she made it clear beforehand that she was quite anti EU?
1
alastairmac - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

Let's remember that Britain didn't vote for Brexit. England and English voters voted for Brexit and all that goes with it. Scotland as a nation voted emphatically to stay in the EU and Scots voted to remain as EU citizens. Theresa May and her increasingly right wing/xenophobic party have no mandate at all in Scotland for any form of brexit. Particularly the chaotic brexit that the Tory party seem likely to provoke. And for all those Scots that voted to stay in a UK union on the basis of maintaining membership of the EU......well many of them may now feel quite differently.
1
fred99 - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

Alastair,
Over my many years I have observed numerous Labour governments that had a majority in Britain, whilst the Conservatives had a majority in England. The Labour majority came from Scotland and Wales (who incidentally had much smaller constituencies - 30 to 40% - than English ones).
However being believers in democracy, the English did not demand a separation every time they lost out in this way.
Later on, when separate Parliaments existed in Wales/N Ireland/Scotland, the MP's from these areas STILL voted on matters which are now devolved, and for which these MP's have no interest other than troublemaking.

I am sure that I am not alone in being fed up to the back teeth with people who are quite happy with votes when it goes their way, yet suddenly cry foul whenever they don't get their way.

Did I hear the Scots refusing money to have THEIR bank baled out with overwhelmingly English money ?
Do we hear the Scots complaining about the enhanced finances their councils get compared to the rest of Britain ?

The answer to both is NO.

Too many Scots who voted to leave the Union (and were outvoted by their brethren) are now moaning about anything that they don't personally agree with, as if it's some English conspiracy.
One question I would like to have put to the electorate - the ENGLISH electorate, is whether or not we should expel Scotland from the Union.
With government income/expenditure each way taken into account so that whoever has gained over the period pays the other side - index-linked of course. This means ALL payments, to councils, road works, military, and to the banks.
And along with that would go a dirty great wall and the expulsion of all Scots from England to ensure they don't sponge off the English when their dream goes sour.
10
fred99 - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

They will get to vote in the end, but do you really expect 600 people to all be involved in the negotiations ?
GrahamD - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

> Let's remember that Britain didn't vote for Brexit. England and English voters voted for Brexit

No they didn't. If you are getting all regional about it Cambridge didn't. Problem is - overall Britain (including Scotland) did vote the way it did.
RomTheBear on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to fred99:
> They will get to vote in the end, but do you really expect 600 people to all be involved in the negotiations ?

The problem is that even if they get to vote on approving the deal, they won't have a real choice.

Let's say the government negotiates a crap deal or a hard brexit that the parliament doesn't want, and puts it to a vote at the end of the two year process, if they vote against it there is no deal, and we're out of the EU anyway with no deal, i.e ultra hard brexit.

Of course 600 MPs couldn't negotiate everything, but it would make sense that a vote takes place to define the outline of what kind of brexit the government should try to negotiate.
Post edited at 13:45
alastairmac - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to fred99: Hi Fred. I'm glad you agree that we're not "better together". Although I think that's about all we'll agree on. Your vision of an England hiding behind a big wall from which you "expel" Scottish "spongers" might make quite a few people living in England feel like heading North. And they'll all be welcome! Why you get so upset about a small nation like Scotland regaining its independence is puzzling?
1
alastairmac - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
Graham, I'm sure you know Scotland is a 1,000 year old nation not a region. Cambridge is a City. Scotland as a nation voted to stay in the EU. And previously voted for Scotland to stay as as part of a UK union that was in turn part of the EU. That's all changed now of course.
Post edited at 14:44
1
Pete Pozman - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to rj_townsend:

> MPs are in post solely to represent to views of their constituents. These views were made absolutely clear in June, so MPs have been given their instructions.

Absolute clarity is the one thing we've never had. Don't you remember Remainers arguing that if we became like Norway we'd lose our influence and still have to contribute as much financially? I can't recall a resounding assertion that Brexit would place us outside the single market. Just a lot of vague stuff about them needing us more than we needed them. Brexit just means not a member of the EU. That's all. The rest is all to play for. Get over it...
GrahamD - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

I'm sure your aware that as far as UK decisions are concerned, your vote and my vote mean exactly the same thing irrespective of where we live in the UK.
alastairmac - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

My point is simply that when Scotland as a nation votes decisively to stay as EU citizens it's undemocratic to ignore that. Particularly when those engineering that departure have one solitary MP in Scotland out of fifty eight seats. That's just not sustainable.
2
GrahamD - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

The EU vote was a UK vote, not a national vote. The fact that there are hot and cold Brexit patches across the UK is therefore irrelevent.
5
alastairmac - on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

Technically of course you're right. It was operated as a UK vote and the Conservative Party will maintain that line. But it doesn't change the fact that in Scotland the Conservative Party has no mandate generally and no mandate specifically to crash the economy and destroy jobs by dragging Scotland out of the EU against its will. And any attempt to do so will just hasten the breakup of a very polarised UK. But I guess it comes down to your view about Scotland, nationhood and democracy. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree?
3
RomTheBear on 11 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> The EU vote was a UK vote, not a national vote. The fact that there are hot and cold Brexit patches across the UK is therefore irrelevent.

Tyranny of the majority is not exactly the most democratic way to run an union of countries.
3
Trevers - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

The 2015 Conservative manifesto more or less pledged the UK's continued membership to the Single Market. Any action to remove it via a hard Brexit, without the approval of parliament or a General Election, would be an extreme subversion of democracy.

https://issuu.com/conservativeparty/docs/ge_manifesto_low_res_bdecb3a47a0faf?e=16696947%2F12362115
Pages 72-73
summo on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to davidbeynon:

> And these magic farms will make the UK self sufficient and able to produce cheap food for everyone when exactly?

nope, but it would be head start. Perhaps a little more effort to eliminate food waste, the UK population isn't the slimmest either so someone is eating too many pies. Next we can look at national parks land use policy. If UK fisheries then they can be managed specifically to UK interests. Plenty allotments have fought battles in recent years to stop land being sold off etc.. There are no end of little projects that could move things in the right direction.

The UK won't every be truly self sufficient, but it does need to be so reliant on Spanish glass cities, gas heated green house in Holland or taking valuable ground water in countries like Egypt or Ethiopia... not to mention transportation fuel, when things like green beans are often flown as they don't do well on long transits.

5
DaveN - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

Estimated 5p on fuel at the end of the week, that will feed on in to everything, not just luxuries. Maybe a lot of people who voted out are going to struggle more, but that's not what Boris told them.



> life essentials? ;) Maybe a lot of people who voted out, can't afford any of those?

summo on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to DaveN:

> Estimated 5p on fuel at the end of the week, that will feed on in to everything, not just luxuries. Maybe a lot of people who voted out are going to struggle more,

never said fuel was a luxury, or are you just trying to miss quote me. The new audis or BMWs from Germany are though, and that is what I referred to.

If the UK had better public transport, cycle networks etc.. then fuel would have less impact on some. Although even when it was around 1.40 it wasn't an incentive to improve things, so doubt it will be now. Although as fuel cost rise, perhaps that's another incentive to shop more locally?
5
MG - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to summo: So, in summary, every effect of Brexit is a marvellous thing and all for our own good. No matter that you spent the six months leading up to the vote claiming those who predicted the effects were misguided, credulous fools. And you live in Sweden.

summo on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> So, in summary, every effect of Brexit is a marvellous thing

no, of course not. But it's happened, it's done. You can't change the result. You can swap your half empty glass for a half full one and get on with things positively. Serial moaners and complainers are rarely successful people in life, and the same probably applies to a population collectively.

No one knows the 'real' brexit effect, better to judge the impact over 5 or 10 years, rather than 3 or 4 months. I will agree that this current planless phase is adding to instability and those in power need to get a move on and present some details for the benefit of the UK, but not to keep the EU happy.
15
Scotch Bingington - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> life essentials? ;) Maybe a lot of people who voted out, can't afford any of those?

They're never likely to now.
krikoman - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Paraphrase :- all Brexiters are stupid and easily duped, so we will give them another chance to get the right answer.

> Why did you not just say that ?

Because it's not true, surely "we - the duped" shold have been given some facts to vote on, rather than pie-in-the-sky 350m a week for the NHS or WW III. Unless you think it's OK to make a decision of this magnitude based on lies.

I'm sure you'll agree we had all the facts, presented in an honest and logical manner, so it was easy to chose which way to vote wasn't it?
krikoman - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> never said fuel was a luxury, or are you just trying to miss quote me. The new audis or BMWs from Germany are though, and that is what I referred to.

It's not the luxuries that damage the poor though is it?

It's the price of food and energy
drunken monkey - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

Well Said.
ads.ukclimbing.com
GrahamD - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> I'm sure you'll agree we had all the facts, presented in an honest and logical manner, so it was easy to chose which way to vote wasn't it?

There are no 'facts', only projections and people are very good at reading projections anyway they are predisposed to do so. So even if all the experts in the field predicted, say, an unfavourable outcome for the economy or for human rights or for the environment, if you are predisposed to disagree with these predictions you will find a minority dissenting voice or dismiss them as 'fear tactics'.

Basically people are shit at processing the uncertainties surrounding any projection or model: more often than not if they see that there are (innevitable) estimation errors they will dismiss the whole story.

Climate change denial or Cigarettes and Lung cancer are also good examples of how to spin a message in the face of overwhelming evidence.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

> The UK won't every be truly self sufficient, but it does need to be so reliant on Spanish glass cities, gas heated green house in Holland or taking valuable ground water in countries like Egypt or Ethiopia... not to mention transportation fuel, when things like green beans are often flown as they don't do well on long transits.

Except that what the Tories keep talking about is free trade with the whole world. If you sign a free trade treaty with a country with low cost agriculture it means access for them to the UK market for their food as well as access for us to their market for our financial services or whatever. If you sign a free trade agreement with a country that allows GM food they are going to require that you allow GM food into your market.

This is the Brexit fantasy: they refuse to accept that every trade deal involves something that is in the advantage of the other partner and that it isn't a simple two party negotiation trying to find the best outcome for those two parties because each side is already constrained by a complex web of existing trade deals and laws that limit their actions.

There's a division in the Brexit camp between the little England Xenophobes who think Brexit means no immigration and shielded markets and the free-trade anti-europeans who want to replace trading links and immigration from Europe with trade and immigration from Africa, Pakistan and China. At some point the conflict between those positions is going to need to be faced and someone is going to lose.


summo on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> It's not the luxuries that damage the poor though is it?
> It's the price of food and energy

I agree, the post you have misquoted or read, was me replying to a person yesterday who said it was bad that Audis and BMW will now cost more. I would agree with you, that buying a 40k relatively high spec car isn't most pressing concern of most people, but staying warm and eating come first.
summo on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Except that what the Tories keep talking about is free trade with the whole world. If you sign a free trade treaty with a country

so is it a free trade agreement with a country or the whole world? Does any country have a free trade agreement with the whole world? That allows all goods to flow in both directions? or are there clauses?

Or is each agreement, which each nation more unique? You take X from country A, but not B. Then Y from nation B, but not A.

Yes, they are of course a minefield of negotiation that will take years.
1
davidbeynon on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

You still haven't explained how this helps the people who are about to get shafted by a massive spike in food and energy prices this winter.

I doubt the Tories will be minded to increase benefits to compensate.
Jim C - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
There's a division in the Brexit camp between the little England Xenophobes who think Brexit means no immigration and shielded markets and the free-trade anti-europeans who want to replace trading links and immigration from Europe with trade and immigration from Africa, Pakistan and China.

I don't think that how you have portrayed this is not quite the proposal, it is to trade equally with all nations , not to replace the EU, who we would still trade with , but just not on better terms as far as free movement is concerned, than with the rest of the world.
A fair system for everyone no matter where they hail from based on merit is what we need.

I don't think it is helpful (or grown up) to be calling people names just because they don't agree with your point of view. I would have thought that the heat of the moment dissapointment over the result , where you can make allowances for that kind of thing , is long since past.
Post edited at 12:45
1
Jim C - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to krikoman:

IF the 350 Million figure had not been challenged I might have agreed with that, but it was, vigerously, and on balance it may well have been more damaging to the Leave side than the remainers.

I was quite content that I knew that the bill was 350 million (or so) and there was a negotiated rebate on that bill , and that was money that came off that bill , and then there was 'European Money' that came back to Britain.

The deficit to the UK in that, was approx 8.5 Billion, roughly half of what we contributed on a yearly basis as I recall, was the figure that we settled on on as the 'fact' on here at least.

GrahamD - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim C:

What I guess wasn't clear is that 350million, although big sounding, is small beer compared with total government expenditure. Its <0.25% of what we spend on healthcare alone. Membership of the EU was never particularly expensive.
2
Mike00010 - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

They can't give MP's a vote on the terms of Brexit at this stage as that would make the UK's negotiating position clear to both sides of the negotiation. This then means we could only go downwards from there.

If they gave a vote on the terms once the negotiations have been completed then the same problem would occur as the terms would undoubtedly be rejected and a new mandate given to the negotiating team who wouldn't be able to achieve it as the EU's negotiators would have read the results of the MP's vote and would just use the new information to push it even further if they wanted.
Lusk - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> What I guess wasn't clear is that 350million, although big sounding, is small beer compared with total government expenditure. Its <0.25% of what we spend on healthcare alone.

Remind me to never hire you as my accountant.
5
john arran - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Mike00010:

> They can't give MP's a vote on the terms of Brexit at this stage as that would make the UK's negotiating position clear to both sides of the negotiation. This then means we could only go downwards from there.

> If they gave a vote on the terms once the negotiations have been completed then the same problem would occur as the terms would undoubtedly be rejected and a new mandate given to the negotiating team who wouldn't be able to achieve it as the EU's negotiators would have read the results of the MP's vote and would just use the new information to push it even further if they wanted.

Sounds to me like the whole future prosperity of the UK and its people is being threatened by a combination of a small majority vote from a misled electorate and the outcome of a game of poker played by a small minority of politicians who were never elected with any such mandate.
2
GrahamD - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> Remind me to never hire you as my accountant.

I couldn't stand the excitement.
KevinD - on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> I couldn't stand the excitement.

actuary?
damhan-allaidh on 12 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

Unfortunately, that's not the message that's been crammed down the electorate's throat for the past few decades, though, is it?
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Tyranny of the majority is not exactly the most democratic way to run an union of countries.

And neither is tyranny of the minority. Like it or loathe it, in this case the referendum (and the EU) is about the UK not England, Scotland, Wales and NI.
2
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

> Unfortunately, that's not the message that's been crammed down the electorate's throat for the past few decades, though, is it?

No it isn't. Another perspective is to consider that the city of Birmingham's expenditure alone is nearly 10 x our EU contribution.
RX-78 on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to summo:

well, look how Britain coped in WWII for food, there is simply not enough land in the UK to feed its population, also without the EU CAP subsidy will the UK government make up that shortfall in their income (farming being already a low income job), if not they will need to increase the price to stay in business? How will they complete against EU subsidized farmers?

Also we get a seasonal veg delivery, and after weeks and weeks of getting turnip, cabbage etc in winter, a red pepper is highly desirable!
tom_in_edinburgh - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> And neither is tyranny of the minority. Like it or loathe it, in this case the referendum (and the EU) is about the UK not England, Scotland, Wales and NI.

Which is why eventually Scotland will have to leave. Every major economic or political decision which 'is about the UK' gets made according to the needs of the South East of England which are very different from the needs of Scotland. The result is cumulative economic disadvantage to Scotland over decades compensated to an extent by public spending. Scotland doesn't have an EU migration problem, there is no overcrowding or overloading of public services and if anything our population could afford to grow a bit. We are getting economic disruption to 'solve' a problem we don't have.
2
Indy - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Scotland doesn't have an EU migration problem

Coz no fu*ker wants to go there.
8
Indy - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

You obviously don't like what I wrote 'disliker' but it is none the less true.
2
Lusk - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

Haven't you f*cked off to France yet?


Indy - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Lusk:

A bit here a bit there.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

> You obviously don't like what I wrote 'disliker' but it is none the less true.

Ben Nevis

Cuillin Ridge (Traverse)

Pabbay

Buachaille Etive Mor

An Teallach

Liathach

Caisteal Liath (Suilven)

Diabaig

yes, i can't imagine why anyone, especially on a climbing website, would want to go there...







1
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Irrespective of whether the union were dissolved or not, Scotland would still be out of the EU so the EU isn't really relevant to independance.
andyfallsoff - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

An independent Scotland could presumably apply to join, though?
fred99 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

Alastair,
I am not at all upset about Scotland wanting independence - it is up to Scotland what Scotland does.
I am however fed up with those that lost the referendum vote blaming the English for anything they feel like, which probably includes the weather and the midges in some quarters.
I would also like England to have had a voice regarding the "divorce" - especially considering all the bile that some extremists were spouting north of the border on the subject.
It was suggested prior to the referendum vote that it was roughly 55:45 in Scotland to stay, however the same polls showed that if a vote had been taken in England it would have been 60:40 for Scotland to go.

As for England "hiding behind a big wall" - there were a number of people who were interviewed prior to the vote who stated that they were going to vote to leave, but that if it went wrong then they'd just move south and live in England instead.
Talk about two-faced.
1
fred99 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

> My point is simply that when Scotland as a nation votes decisively to stay as EU citizens it's undemocratic to ignore that. Particularly when those engineering that departure have one solitary MP in Scotland out of fifty eight seats. That's just not sustainable.

Alastair,
I voted to remain.
In my street roughly 20% are not British, but EU citizens/immigrants.
By your argument should we have my street in the EU, and other parts out.

Also in the Scottish Referendum Glasgow and Dundee voted leave, everywhere else voted stay - particularly noticeable was the overwhelming vote to stay from both the Shetlands and Orkneys (who have all the oil !!).
Does this mean that Glasgow and Dundee should have left, and everywhere stayed ?
As for nationhood - what is it ?
The Cornish claim to be a nation.
Yorkshire claims to be a nation.
The Highlanders claim to be different to the Lowlanders (or Sassenachs as they would be referred to if using the Gaelic term of abuse for English speaking Scots).
The Scottish Islanders do as well.
Then there's the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, the Catholics in Northern Ireland and God knows how many other groups.

You cannot pick and choose what bits of a vote you want, you either accept the result in its' entirety or admit that you don't want democracy, but prefer instead a dictatorship with yourself in charge.
Indy - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> yes, i can't imagine why anyone, especially on a climbing website, would want to go there...

So, climbing is right up there with economic migrants wondering if they should go to London or Glasgow???? Maybe thats why Scotland doesn't have a migration issue..... which is point I was addressing.
fred99 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> The 2016 Referendum pledged the UK's exit from the Single Market. Any action to stop it with the connivance of parliament, would be an extreme subversion of democracy.

Fixed that for you.
2
RomTheBear on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
> And neither is tyranny of the minority. Like it or loathe it, in this case the referendum (and the EU) is about the UK not England, Scotland, Wales and NI

If England and Wales want to leave the EU they are free to do so, there is no tyranny of the minority here. They just shouldn't force other countries to go with them.
Post edited at 14:32
2
andyfallsoff - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to fred99:
> Fixed that for you.

By making it incorrect? The referendum question said nothing at all about the single market.

So the only way to be consistent with the two democratic mandates would be to leave the EU, but remain in the single market. E.g. the EEA option...

Post edited at 14:32
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

England and Wales aren't currently in the EU. The UK is.
1
Ramblin dave - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

I think you missed the _other_ referendum, where the question was "should we leave the single market if that's necessary to end free movement of people" and the result was a large majority in favour of "yes".

To be fair I missed it too, but people seem to keep talking about it so presumably it must have happened.
RomTheBear on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> England and Wales aren't currently in the EU. The UK is.

?? Now you are arguing that England and Wales are not in the EU. Weird.


2
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

They are not. Take a look at the EU member states. The UK is there. England, Scotland, NI or Wales are not.
RomTheBear on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> They are not. Take a look at the EU member states. The UK is there. England, Scotland, NI or Wales are not.

England is part of the UK, last time I checked. England is therefore in the EU.
1
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Only in the same way that Cleethorpes is in the EU. It doesn't have any rights or representation except through UK representation.
RomTheBear on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
> Only in the same way that Cleethorpes is in the EU. It doesn't have any rights or representation except through UK representation.

Yes, as I said, it's in the EU.

Back to the point, the idea is that running an union of countries by imposing the majority will of the bigger country on the smaller one is neither democratic nor sustainable.
Post edited at 17:25
MG - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

The point, as you well know, is that membership us UK wide. Like it or not the internal UK divisions are irrelevant. In the case of Scotland nthis was emphasised recently by a vote.
RomTheBear on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> The point, as you well know, is that membership us UK wide. Like it or not the internal UK divisions are irrelevant. In the case of Scotland nthis was emphasised recently by a vote.

Yes membership is UK wide, but you would think that a democratic, modern union would seek consensus on these matters instead of dragging its members out.

I don't think the divisions between members if he UK are irrelevant.
Post edited at 17:24
MG - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

It would be very unusual. Can you name any other country that requires regional agreement for treaties? Switzerland possibly?
Yanis Nayu - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

> Coz no fu*ker wants to go there.

I love Scotland, had Scottish grandparents and hope they stay in the U.K., but that really made me laugh.
cb294 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

Belgium. Ratification of the Ceta treaty by the Federal government requires permission of the regional parliaments (which may kill Ceta EU wide tomorrow, whether this is a good thing or not). Similarly, in Germany all treaties that require parliamentary ratification and affect areas of policy that are constitutionally in the remit of the individual states must be ratified by both the Bundestag (the federal parliament) and Bundesrat (the second chamber representing the Laender).

So, actually fairly typical.....

CB
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes, as I said, it's in the EU.

> Back to the point, the idea is that running an union of countries by imposing the majority will of the bigger country on the smaller one is neither democratic nor sustainable.

As far as the EU is concerned there is only one country. Its the UK. Its not Scotland. Its not England. Its not Cleethorpes. The concept of Scotland as a notionally seperate country is irrelevant.
1
MG - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to cb294:

Well that's two. Would EU membership fall under the state category in Germany? Obvious counter examples.are US, Canada and India so I am not sure it is typical.

deepsoup - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> If England and Wales want to leave the EU they are free to do so, there is no tyranny of the minority here.

Yes there is, only 37% of the electorate voted for it. (And on a decision whose effects will reach far into the future, the old overruled the wishes of the young.)
wercat on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

delete "old" insert "reckless". I have spoken to quite a number of my generation on this and no one wanted to leave the EU. Don't make ageist comments
Indy - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I don't say it to offend Scots but enconomic migrants don't want to go to Scotland. If they did want to spread themselves out a bit around the UK then maybe we wouldn't have all these problems with them.
2
alastairmac - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
I hope you accept that whether it's in Brussels or elsewhere Scotland is recognised as a quite distinct nation that forms part of a UK union. If the democratic wishes of the Scottish people is ignored in this matter then quite simply there will be another referendum on Scottish independence. The idea that you can manage a union of nations effectively by letting the size and parliamentary weight of the biggest partner steamroller the wishes of the smaller nations is not sustainable. Ultimately the sovereign will of the Scottish people should determine the outcome for Scotland. England and Wales can make their own decisions.
Post edited at 18:43
1
GrahamD - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

> I hope you accept that whether it's in Brussels or elsewhere Scotland is recognised as a quite distinct nation that forms part of a UK union.

By the Scots it is. But then the Cornish think they are unique too.

3
ads.ukclimbing.com
alastairmac - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to fred99: To compare a distinct 1,000 year old nation possessing its own laws, education system and parliament with English regions is at best not very clever.
1
Postmanpat on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

> To compare a distinct 1,000 year old nation possessing its own laws, education system and parliament with English regions is at best not very clever.
>

You don't know much about Cornwall, do you?
1
cb294 - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

Yes, the Bundesrat had to agree. In the US they would ask the Senate that despite the differences is essentially the federal representation of the individual states (of course senators are directly elected rather than nominated by the states).

So 3:2 (if we count the US on your side), I am happy to revise to call it "not uncommon" instead.

CB
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Why, has it got its own legal and educational systems then?

It didn't seem to in September, I guess things could have changed since then. ..

;-)
RomTheBear on 13 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
> As far as the EU is concerned there is only one country. Its the UK. Its not Scotland. Its not England. Its not Cleethorpes

Yes, but that wasn't the point.
The point is that even though indeed membership of the EU depends on the UK, decisions of importance such as Brexit should be taken by consensus between all the member countries of the UK, that is, if you want it to be sustainable.
Post edited at 23:19
GrahamD - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Yes, but that wasn't the point.

> The point is that even though indeed membership of the EU depends on the UK, decisions of importance such as Brexit should be taken by consensus between all the member countries of the UK, that is, if you want it to be sustainable.

No, it should be taken by the concensus of the population of the UK. No special treatment for anyone.

Of course, we don't have a concensus, we have a slim majority and it sucks but, to quote someone who's name escapes me right now. We really are all in this together. Up to our necks unfortunately.
fred99 - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

The Isle of Man has been around longer.
1
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to fred99:
its not an english region.

and it is not part of the EU.
Post edited at 13:02
MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to cb294:
> Yes, the Bundesrat had to agree. In the US they would ask the Senate that despite the differences is essentially the federal representation of the individual states (of course senators are directly elected rather than nominated by the states).

The Senate might have to approve overall, but Kansas, for instance, couldn't veto arrangements. WIki suggests the same is true of the Bundesrat, so it looks like we are back to just Belgium as an example of one area of a state having a veto on international agreements, and I haven't checked that.
Post edited at 13:05
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
> No, it should be taken by the concensus of the population of the UK. No special treatment for anyone.

There is no consensus. 2 nations voted out, 2 voted remain.
Post edited at 13:20
1
MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well I disagree, it should be taken by consensus of each member of the UK.

Down to what size? Scotland is 6m or so people, smaller than London. Should London have a veto too? What about Bristol that voted to stay?
1
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> Down to what size? Scotland is 6m or so people, smaller than London. Should London have a veto too? What about Bristol that voted to stay?

London is not a country. If they want to become one, they can knock themselves out.
Post edited at 13:23
MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

So? Why should one group of 6m (and less in Wales) have greater say over decisions than others because it has the historical category of country?
1
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> So? Why should one group of 6m (and less in Wales) have greater say over decisions than others because it has the historical category of country?

For the same reason that the UK doesn't need the EU's permission to stay or leave the EU.
If you don't recognise countries then this whole brexit thing is totally irrelevant.
Post edited at 13:28
1
Mike00010 - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

but how do you determine the Scottish people?

Are you going to let people who were born in Scotland but now live in England/Wales/Ireland/Spain/Russia/etc have a vote on this because surely they're Scottish people?

Do people who were born in England but now live in Scotland get a vote?

Or do you have to show 10 years of Scottish ancestory to a highlander who fought at the Battle of Loudoun Hill in 1307? but if you follow that logic do the Irish who also fought with the Scots get a vote on Scottish Independence?
MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

You are not making much sense. The UK is the state, and it makes decisions about its relationships with other states. Internally we have a system that, very roughly and imperfectly, means everyone has a say in those decisions, a system Scotland chose to remain part of two yeas ago. Now you are suggesting the 6m in Scotland (and/or 1m inWales??) should be able to veto such decisions, which is absurd as it would give vastly disproportionate power to very few people making the system we have massively unfair. Scotland could chose to leave of course but what it can't do (as the UK is finding out too) is expect to take what it sees as the good bits from union but not the bad bits
john arran - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:
> If you don't recognise countries then this whole brexit thing is totally irrelevant.

I don't think even the UN recognises Scotland as a country; probably classed as something like a partially autonomous region.

edit: ... for now!
Post edited at 13:31
1
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> You are not making much sense. The UK is the state, and it makes decisions about its relationships with other states.
> Internally we have a system that, very roughly and imperfectly, means everyone has a say in those decisions, a system Scotland chose to remain part of two yeas ago. Now you are suggesting the 6m in Scotland (and/or 1m inWales??) should be able to veto such decisions, which is absurd as it would give vastly disproportionate power to very few people making the system we have massively unfair.

Every nation of the UK should have a veto on anything that alters previously agreed constitutional settlement with the rest of the UK.

I'm perfectly aware that at the moment the UK parliament can force any change they want on the devolution settlement without seeking consensus or agreement.

I am simply arguing that this is wrong, and this is a breach of trust.
Post edited at 14:15
2
Trevers - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to fred99:

> Fixed that for you.

Demonstrably false and utterly idiotic. Slow clap for you....
GrahamD - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> There is no consensus. 2 nations voted out, 2 voted remain.

Nations didn't vote at all. Citizens of the UK voted.
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
> Nations didn't vote at all. Citizens of the UK voted.

You are stating the obvious, this isn't the point.
My point is that such decisions should be taken by consensus between members nations of the UK.
Post edited at 14:31
2
GrahamD - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You are stating the obvious, this isn't the point.

> My point is that such decisions should be taken by consensus between members nations of the UK.

And my point is that the whole of the UK is represented by the UK government.
1
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
> And my point is that the whole of the UK is represented by the UK government.

Again you are stating the obvious, but the brexit decision means altering the devolution settlement between the U.K. and Scotland.
It would be fair, in my view, that any decision such as brexit, that involves changing previously agreed settlement, should be taken based on consensus, or at least with the option to leave the UK.

I know perfectly well that as it stands, Scotland cannot have another legally binding referendum if they want to, and is forced to accept changes to previously agreed devolution settlement. I'm simply arguing that it is not a way to run a sustainable union of countries.
Post edited at 15:06
1
KevinD - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Every nation of the UK should have a veto on anything that alters previously agreed constitutional settlement with the rest of the UK.

So NI, Wales or England could all block Scottish independence?
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> So NI, Wales or England could all block Scottish independence?

They already can. And that's the problem. An union built on threats and coercion can never be democratic or successful.
Post edited at 15:21
1
MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Again you are stating the obvious, but the brexit decision means altering the devolution settlement between the U.K. and Scotland.

No it dosn't
KevinD - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> They already can. And that's the problem. An union built on threats and coercion can never be democratic or successful.

Sorry which union are we talking about here again?
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> No it dosn't

It does. EU law is incorporated directly into the devolution statutes in Scotland.
1
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> Sorry which union are we talking about here again?

The UK.
2
GrahamD - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Another tack: how can Scotland reach a concensus with an England when England doesn't have its own parliament ?
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> Another tack: how can Scotland reach a concensus with an England when England doesn't have its own parliament ?

All their laws are made in the U.K. Parliament so that's a moot point.
1
MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Come on! You are basically saying you want Scotland to independent, which is fine. Pretending you find the arrangements undemocratic is just a cover for this. No sensible system of government gives vetoes to special, small groups.
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> Come on! You are basically saying you want Scotland to independent, which is fine.

But it cannot become indeoe debt without the consent of U.K. Parliament.

> Pretending you find the arrangements undemocratic is just a cover for this.
No sensible system of government gives vetoes to special, small groups.

Would you think it would be democratic if the EU was to change the EU treaties without our consent, and then prevented us from leaving ?
Probably not, and it has never done so.

Well that's exactly what is happening with Scotland, we are being told that the agreement we had with the UK will change, whether we like it or not, and by the way, if you don't like it, too bad, you can never leave.

Post edited at 16:58
1
MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

The devolution arrangements aren't charging beyond the word.EU being removed.
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> The devolution arrangements aren't charging beyond the word.EU being removed.

Which is pretty huge.
The devolution settlement made it clear that EU law and treaties applies in Scotland.
As soon as this is removed, this is replaced by UK law. This completely changes the deal.
Post edited at 17:02
KevinD - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The UK.

Ah sorry I get confused. Particularly since people will use one argument for the UK/Scotland debate and then immediately switch to the reverse for EU/UK.
MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

No it doesn't. All EU law is being added to UK law. Nothing changes.
KevinD - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> As soon as this is removed, this is replaced by UK law. This completely changes the deal.

My modern history isnt too great but I vaguely recall the Great Britain union existed before the EU.
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> My modern history isnt too great but I vaguely recall the Great Britain union existed before the EU.

So what ? The devolution settlement were agreed after that, and made it clear that EU law and treaty would apply in Scotland.
So now of course this settlement has to change - and I find it undemocratic that it can be done without an agreement between the two parties, nor the possibility to leave the UK.
Post edited at 17:16
1
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> No it doesn't. All EU law is being added to UK law. Nothing changes.

Yes it does, because from that point on - EU law ceases to apply in all the area it covers.
Of course not all EU law will be transposed into uk law as is, for example freedom of movement and so on, and what is transposed will inevitably diverge from it over time.

I completely changes the nature of the settlement, in legal terms, and in practice.
Post edited at 17:25
Gordon Stainforth - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

The big test of course is coming up very soon with Gina Miller's "People's Challenge" in the High Court.
KevinD - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> So what ? The devolution settlement were agreed after that, and made it clear that EU law and treaty would apply in Scotland.

As MG has pointed out all the EU law will be lifted and shifted across initially anyway.

> So now of course this settlement has to change - and I find it undemocratic that it can be done without an agreement between the two parties, nor the possibility to leave the UK.

Sorry but I cant see the "of course" bit. I dont recall the Scottish referendum ballot including an option of "Remain in UK unless the UK leaves the EU" option.
RomTheBear on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> As MG has pointed out all the EU law will be lifted and shifted across initially anyway.

It won't be all of it, of course provisions around freedom of movement will cease to apply and rights of individuals derived from the EU treaties will cease to apply. Anyway it's irrelevant as once the link between EU law is broken UK law will inevitable diverge from it (what would be the point otherwise).



> Sorry but I cant see the "of course" bit. I dont recall the Scottish referendum ballot including an option of "Remain in UK unless the UK leaves the EU" option.

Of course not, nobody suggested that.
But it didn't include anything about changing the devolution settlement between the UK and Scotland.

When this devolution settlement was agreed between the Uk and Scotland, it was quite clear that EU treaties and EU law would apply in Scotland. If the UK wants to leave the EU they are going to have to change this settlement to remove all reference to EU law, most likely without the consent of the Scottish parliament.

David Mundell made it clear :

"It's self-evident that, because the devolution settlements within the United Kingdom are predicated on the basis that the United Kingdom was a member of the European Union, then those devolution settlements will be changed by the United Kingdom leaving the EU and those will be matters which will be subject to debate and discussion"
Post edited at 18:29
tom_in_edinburgh - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> No it doesn't. All EU law is being added to UK law. Nothing changes.

Nothing changes for 10 minutes, after which the Tories start repealing all the bits they don't like.
1
deepsoup - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:
> No it doesn't. All EU law is being added to UK law. Nothing changes.

Something rather important changes in Northern Ireland, as the peace process is built on the UK and RoI both being members of the EU. If the fences and checkpoints go back up on the border there is the potential for the shit to hit the fan in the worst possible way.

Still, I'm sure we don't need to worry about something as immensely difficult and sensitive as that being disasterously mishandled with Boris as foreign secretary eh?
MG - on 14 Oct 2016
In reply to deepsoup:
That is a bit different, I agree

But as you say, I am sure Boris is just the man for the job...
KevinD - on 15 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Anyway it's irrelevant as once the link between EU law is broken UK law will inevitable diverge from it (what would be the point otherwise).

and EU law could, of course, change. So I am really not sure what point you are trying to make. Aside from using it as a dishonest argument. I do find it fascinating looking at the arguments for Scottish independence vs UK independence and how people effortlessly flip their arguments depending on the context.

> When this devolution settlement was agreed between the Uk and Scotland, it was quite clear that EU treaties and EU law would apply in Scotland.

Evidence for this claim.

> David Mundell made it clear :

I always find "self-evident" a useful term to look out for. Since it generally means the person doesnt actually have supporting evidence.
KevinD - on 15 Oct 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

> Something rather important changes in Northern Ireland, as the peace process is built on the UK and RoI both being members of the EU.

Not really. The CTA sits outside of the EU. Its why Ireland isnt in the Schengen group.

jess13 - on 15 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:

As some seem to think that a referendum is the best and unchallengeable form of democracy.
Perhaps a referendum on whether we want a Hard Brexit or a Soft Brexit could be suggested (no chance). I bet we could predict the result of that especially now its hitting people's pockets - remember most elections are decided on what people perceive is to their financial benefit.
However am I the only one that thinks we've been rolled over by the Tories. The quick resignations and the smooth takeover by the current crew and now they don't want parliament to be involved in any Brexit decisions. Smells like they think we are already a single party state and they can do what they please and that Brexit was always the agenda.
1
Jim C - on 16 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Nothing changes for 10 minutes, after which the Tories start repealing all the bits they don't like.

Nothing changes, until the Government put forward an amendment to whatever law it is that they don't like, and it then gets debated and voted on, and , I would like to think, if it is a good amendment the opposition parties should support it, and not just vote against it because they lost the referendum.
( unless you are saying that every bit of EU legislation that has applied to our particular British circumstances, is practically perfect in every way , and cannot be bettered ?)
1
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jim C - on 16 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> What I guess wasn't clear is that 350million, although big sounding, is small beer compared with total government expenditure. Its <0.25% of what we spend on healthcare alone. Membership of the EU was never particularly expensive.

That is why there was much more to the vote to leave than just finances.
RomTheBear on 16 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> Nothing changes, until the Government put forward an amendment to whatever law it is that they don't like, and it then gets debated and voted on, and , I would like to think, if it is a good amendment the opposition parties should support it, and not just vote against it because they lost the referendum.

You are deluded if you think parliament will get to review every EU law. There is no way parliament can do that in a 100 years.
The repeal bill will necessarily include a massive transfer of power to the executive and they'll be the one passing all the legislations necessary to implement changes of our relationship with Europe in U.K. Law, without parliament.

Post edited at 10:26
1
RomTheBear on 16 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:
l

> and EU law could, of course, change. So I am really not sure what point you are trying to make. Aside from using it as a dishonest argument.

Why is that ? Of course any EU law can change, not sure what this has to do with it.

> Evidence for this claim.

Just read the Scotland act.
It very clearly constrains the powers of the Parliament by preventing it from acting in a manner incompatible with EU law.

> I always find "self-evident" a useful term to look out for. Since it generally means the person doesnt actually have supporting evidence.

As above.
Post edited at 10:40
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 16 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim C:
> ( unless you are saying that every bit of EU legislation that has applied to our particular British circumstances, is practically perfect in every way , and cannot be bettered ?)

No, I'm saying that the EU provided a useful moderator to the power of Westminster. A Tory government with a parliamentary majority which is in the pocket of the right wing of the Tory party is a dangerous thing. Just look at Thatcher. They have already said they will get out of European human rights law and the jurisdiction of the European court so they can basically do whatever they like. The first sufficiently nasty terrorist attack or murder to serve as a pretext and they'll start talking about bringing back hanging.
Post edited at 10:56
3
andyfallsoff - on 16 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim C:

> Nothing changes, until the Government put forward an amendment to whatever law it is that they don't like, and it then gets debated and voted on, and , I would like to think, if it is a good amendment the opposition parties should support it, and not just vote against it because they lost the referendum.

That isn't what they have proposed, tbough - the act gives the executive power to repeal legislation by making statutory orders / regulations, so they get to avoid parliamentary debate. It's quite shocking - yet another case of the govt trying not to involve parliament.
KevinD - on 16 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Why is that ? Of course any EU law can change, not sure what this has to do with it.

Well you seem to think divergence from the original laws is a bad thing. So I was unsure how you make an excuse for EU law changing.

> Just read the Scotland act.

Which one in particular and what section? They are rather lengthy documents and being legalise quite boring.

> It very clearly constrains the powers of the Parliament by preventing it from acting in a manner incompatible with EU law.

It also constrains Parliament by putting it under UK Supreme Court and yet you dont want to be constrained by that.

RomTheBear on 16 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> Well you seem to think divergence from the original laws is a bad thing. So I was unsure how you make an excuse for EU law changing.

Because I'm more worried about changes in UK law, driven by narrow minded politics in an archaic UK parliamentary system, than by changes in EU law in a system that works mostly by consensus and has, in my view, better checks and balances.

> Which one in particular and what section? They are rather lengthy documents and being legalise quite boring.

Scotland act 1998 section 57, amongst other - there are many references throughout.

> It also constrains Parliament by putting it under UK Supreme Court and yet you dont want to be constrained by that.

No, I have no problem with it - as long as UK law is constrained by EU law.
Post edited at 12:17
KevinD - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Because I'm more worried about changes in UK law, driven by narrow minded politics in an archaic UK parliamentary system, than by changes in EU law in a system that works mostly by consensus and has, in my view, better checks and balances.

Have you had a look at the various parties doing rather well in Europe? Or, for that matter, the increasing lack of trust in the EU leadership? The UK system has many problems but so does the EU.

> Scotland act 1998 section 57, amongst other - there are many references throughout.

Looking at section 57 not a problem. There is nothing being discussed now which would stop the Scottish parliament passing laws in line with the EU.
I do love the sudden fake concern for these laws. Its almost like it is an excuse.
3
alastairmac - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to Indy:
Historically, legally, culturally and practically it's clear that Scotland is a nation. To compare its status to a region of England is just insulting. As a distinct nation with our own parliament and government we rejected leaving the EU. Just over two years ago we voted by a much smaller margin to stay as part of the UK. That was a vote based upon being part of a union of equals, where the views and wishes of the Scottish people ( those of us living and voting in Scotland regardless of origin ) would be respected. But it was also based upon a range of assumptions about the values of the UK union and the role it would play in Europe and the wider world. Since then things have changed. It's no longer the UK we voted to remain part of and all the "Better Together" pledges have evaporated. So it seems only fair and reasonable in a liberal democracy that if the Scottish government can no longer secure the best interests of the Scottish people within the UK then we should seek to do it outside of the UK. Scotland is internationalist, polyglot, outward looking, progressive and socially democratic. With a very positive future as an ambitious small European nation. That presently seems at odds with the direction being taken by the rest of the UK.
Post edited at 15:00
4
RomTheBear on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> Have you had a look at the various parties doing rather well in Europe? Or, for that matter, the increasing lack of trust in the EU leadership? The UK system has many problems but so does the EU.

Actually, not really, I think the other big nations in the EU also suffer from archaic constitutions, where people are repeatedly not getting what they want and their concerns ignored. These frustrations have been inevitably blamed on Europe.
But for the most part, the EU is an organisation based on consensus - unlike the UK.

There is a big difference though between the UK and the rest of Europe. For the most part people in Europe are very attached to the European idea, they are just frustrated at the EU not being able to do enough.

In the UK there is a cultural disdain and distrust of everything European and concerns (or rather delusions) around sovereignty that run deep.

> Looking at section 57 not a problem. There is nothing being discussed now which would stop the Scottish parliament passing laws in line with the EU.

Well of course it would. If the uk wants to stop freedom of movement, for example, then that would be in contradiction with EU law.
Another alternative would be to promise Scotland that every time something in UK law diverges from EU law, then that area becomes devolved. Unlikely at this would amount to devo max.

> I do love the sudden fake concern for these laws. Its almost like it is an excuse.

It's not.
Post edited at 15:28
3
neilh - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

A couple of questions.

Why did the Scottish fishermen vote " leave"?

Why did Orkney/Shetland vote over whelmingly to say in the UK?So what are you going to do there?If you are progressive and socially democratic, will you allow them to decide their own future?

Interested to learn.
alastairmac - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to neilh:

In any country you're going to get a diversity of opinions and interests. That's in the nature of a democracy. I've got no evidence to support this assertion........but I suspect at least some of those fishermen and inhabitants of Orkney/Shetland may have changed their views. Brexit (particularly the kind of uncompromising nationalist/isolationist exit that is being promoted by an increasingly right wing Westminster government) UK looks and feels like a much less attractive and Scotland friendly proposition than the "family of nations" promised in 2014.
1
GrahamD - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

> Historically, legally, culturally and practically it's clear that Scotland is a nation. To compare its status to a region of England is just insulting.

Nobody is. Its a region of the UK.

> we rejected leaving the EU. Just over two years ago we voted by a much smaller margin to stay as part of the UK.

Scotland never had an EU referendum.
1
rogerwebb - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> They have already said they will get out of European human rights law and the jurisdiction of the European court so they can basically do whatever they like.

I don't think they have.
They have said that they want to repeal the UK human rights act they have not said that they intend to withdraw from ECHR and thus appeals to the European Court of Human Rights will still be competent.



tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> Scotland never had an EU referendum.

Oh great, was it all a nightmare? It seemed so real.

1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to rogerwebb:

> I don't think they have.

> They have said that they want to repeal the UK human rights act they have not said that they intend to withdraw from ECHR and thus appeals to the European Court of Human Rights will still be competent.

You are right. Theresa May wanted to withdraw from ECHR but backed down during the election for the Tory leadership. They still want to repeal the UK human rights act.

That said, I don't think ECHR membership has much hope of surviving the Brexit process with Theresa May surrounded by an even more right wing cabinet and pushing policies which are bound to result in referrals to ECHR. For example, I could see EU citizens in the UK considering their right to family life was being interfered with if one of them had immigration problems as a result of Brexit.

1
andyfallsoff - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I think there is an issue with the plan to repeal the HRA in any event. What the government is saying is basically yes, we concede we can't actually take your human rights away, but we do want to be able to derogate from them when we see fit and to make it harder for you to invoke them. Quite a scary concept when you think about it.
alastairmac - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

I think you'll find that the Treaty of Union in 1707 was an agreement between nations. Not an agreement between regions. But I sense you are not a man easily persuaded by facts, history, legislation or "experts". As a matter of interest, before countries like Ireland, Malta, Zimbabwe or Kenya finally chose their path to independence, would you have insisted that they too were just regions of "Great Britain"?
2
KevinD - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> But for the most part, the EU is an organisation based on consensus - unlike the UK.

Its an organisation built on feeding various special interest groups. it could be something useful but the level of disdain for the average voter makes the UK approach look positively rosey.

> There is a big difference though between the UK and the rest of Europe. For the most part people in Europe are very attached to the European idea, they are just frustrated at the EU not being able to do enough.

Some are, some arent. There is a general tendency to like the parts of the EU which suits their countries needs and dislike the bits which are against.

> Well of course it would. If the uk wants to stop freedom of movement, for example, then that would be in contradiction with EU law.

What relevance does that have to the restrictions on laws that the Scottish Parliament can enact? I think you are mixing up jurisdictions.
Also, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, the UK stopping freedom of movement will not breach EU law.

> Another alternative would be to promise Scotland that every time something in UK law diverges from EU law, then that area becomes devolved. Unlikely at this would amount to devo max.

Rather interesting you take that line as opposed to the correct problem of "this is unlikely to get agreement from the people of England and Wales and possibly not NI either" Its odd how your belief in democracy is so selective.

2
KevinD - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

> As a matter of interest, before countries like Ireland, Malta, Zimbabwe or Kenya finally chose their path to independence, would you have insisted that they too were just regions of "Great Britain"?

I doubt it since they seem to know some history and hence would know they werent part of Great Britain.
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:

> I doubt it since they seem to know some history and hence would know they werent part of Great Britain.

Ireland was.
KevinD - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Ireland was.

fair point. I missed that looking at the rest of the list.
alastairmac - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:
Well spotted. But they were effectively controlled by Westminster and formed part of a British Empire before they became independent. Thankfully it's a much smaller "Empire" these days. Or is saying that now also treasonous?
1
KevinD - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

> Thankfully it's a much smaller "Empire" these days. Or is saying that now also treasonous?

Its not an empire at all. The control of "westminster" (I do like how the Scot Nats use this in the same way "Brussels" is spat out by some of the UKIP types) was also rather patchy in some cases. There is also an obvious difference in the Scottish and Irish cases as well around representation in Westminster.
alastairmac - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:
Not everybody that thinks Scotland might be better off running its own affairs within the EU is as you put it a "Scot Nat". Are you a "Brit Nat"?
2
KevinD - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

> Not everybody that thinks Scotland might be better off running its own affairs within the EU is as you put it a "Scot Nat".

Leaving aside the fact they wont be running their own affairs.
I never said that. Just like those who want out of the EU have varying reasons, some good and some bad, the same is true for those who want out of the EU.
However, for me, a warning sign is whenever some starts going on about Westminster or Brussels.

> Are you a "Brit Nat"?

odd statement.
1
GrahamD - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

I think you will find that the EU referendum asked whether the UK should leave the EU. Not whether England and / or Scotland should. That is what the English and the Scots voted on.
rogerwebb - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I am more optimistic than you!
I don't think we will withdraw from ECHR it was in large part a UK creation and largely drafted by a conservative mp and ratified by the Churchill government.
It would be a brave conservative government that said Churchill was wrong, ( or a stupid one, maybe slightly less optimistic on that thought!)
rogerwebb - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Ireland was.

No it wasn't!

United Kingdom but not Great Britain

MG - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

The rather obvious distinction is the Empire didn't send MPs to parliament, whereas Scotland does.
krikoman - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

> Well spotted. But they were effectively controlled by Westminster and formed part of a British Empire before they became independent. Thankfully it's a much smaller "Empire" these days. Or is saying that now also treasonous?

Didn't we move away from the Empire some time ago, are Scotland going to pay reparations for their part in building the empire? They benefited from the rape of other countries too.
RomTheBear on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> What relevance does that have to the restrictions on laws that the Scottish Parliament can enact? I think you are mixing up jurisdictions.

> Also, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, the UK stopping freedom of movement will not breach EU law.

?? Are you for real ? I suggest you read the EU treaties, of course it would breach EU law, hence the need for the repeal bill to end the supremacy of EU law, and the need to change the devolution settlement to end the supremacy of EU law in Scotland.

> Rather interesting you take that line as opposed to the correct problem of "this is unlikely to get agreement from the people of England and Wales and possibly not NI either" Its odd how your belief in democracy is so selective.

Sorry but you make no sense. Of course this is unlikely to get agreement hence why I discounted this as a solution.
Post edited at 21:49
2
Lion Bakes on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
> I think you will find that the EU referendum asked whether the UK should leave the EU. Not whether England and / or Scotland should. That is what the English and the Scots voted on.

And the Irish and Welsh
Post edited at 22:21
KevinD - on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> ?? Are you for real ? I suggest you read the EU treaties,

You keep talking about reading treaties but seem to fail to be capable of reading them yourself.
It wont breach the law since you need to be part of the EU or have a separate treaty for it to be required.
Now again. How does it stop the Scottish Parliament keeping its laws still in alignment with the EU laws?

> Sorry but you make no sense. Of course this is unlikely to get agreement hence why I discounted this as a solution.

I was commenting on your lack of regard for democracy. Out of curiosity would you be in favour of the UK having devo-max in the EU?
RomTheBear on 17 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> You keep talking about reading treaties but seem to fail to be capable of reading them yourself.

What I'm telling you is what every article in the legal blogosphere has been reporting, what UK government ministers have been saying, what the parliament has been saying, what the civil service has been telling them, and what the government has publicly said.#

If you still can't accept that the devolution settlement will have to be changed, if you can't be arsed to even read them, there is not much that can be done here.

> It wont breach the law since you need to be part of the EU or have a separate treaty for it to be required.

You're just talking at cross purposes and stating the obvious so it's completely useless.
Of course it breaches the law, even if the UK is not part of the EU.

> Now again. How does it stop the Scottish Parliament keeping its laws still in alignment with the EU laws?

Because they would be incompatible with UK law ffs...

> I was commenting on your lack of regard for democracy.

Unsubstantiated bollocks.

> Out of curiosity would you be in favour of the UK having devo-max in the EU?

I wouldn't be in favour of a Scottish devo max in the context of the UK being out of the EU, it would make no sense whatsoever. In fact it would be so impractical we might as well discount the possibility.
Post edited at 00:04
2
KevinD - on 18 Oct 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> If you still can't accept that the devolution settlement will have to be changed, if you can't be arsed to even read them, there is not much that can be done here.

If you hadnt noticed it had already been changed on multiple occasions. This leaves aside the section you keep trying to quote doesnt support your claims.
Some law making was devolved to Scotland. Others werent.
Those that were had to be compatible with EU law and nonreserved matters.
Therefore nothing stops the minister still keeping in line with those two.
Whilst there might be other sections which support your claims that one doesnt and that you have exaggerated its purpose indicates the rest really dont help much either.

> Of course it breaches the law, even if the UK is not part of the EU.

No it doesnt.

> In fact it would be so impractical we might as well discount the possibility.

That wasnt the question I asked but never mind. Anyone sensible would discounting the possibility in either scenario (both your Scottish one and my alternative).
You are clearly just as irrational as some Brexit types.
RomTheBear on 18 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> If you hadnt noticed it had already been changed on multiple occasions. This leaves aside the section you keep trying to quote doesnt support your claims.

It's pretty clear though what it means, Scottish parliament and the government are prohibited from acting contrary to EU law.

So, as I said repeatedly, the UK parliament will have to change this unless they are willing to let the Scottish parliament control every devolved area that was previously common to the whole of the UK because it was EU competence.
Given that it's unlikely that they would, the references to EU law will have to be removed, and the devolution settlement changed, as the government has clearly stated.

That represents quite a big change in the devolution settlement. As you point out it happened before, but it was always in agreement between the two parties.

This time it looks like it'll have to be forced through - which IMO, is not a way to run a successful union.

> That wasnt the question I asked but never mind. Anyone sensible would discounting the possibility in either scenario (both your Scottish one and my alternative).

Meh, it wasn't clear at all what your question was.

> You are clearly just as irrational as some Brexit types.

All I am doing is quoting the opinion of constitutional lawyers, and the government position. If you think that's irrational, knock yourself out.
Post edited at 11:33
Tam O'Bam - on 25 Oct 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:
People didn't know what the effect of brexit would be. I think the picture is getting clearer now, as is the calibre of the politicians promoting it. I think there would be a different result for a second referendum based on this experience, do you?

Abso-f****ng-lutely!!!!!!
Post edited at 23:43
Tam O'Bam - on 26 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

> Let's remember that Britain didn't vote for Brexit. England and English voters voted for Brexit and all that goes with it. Scotland as a nation voted emphatically to stay in the EU and Scots voted to remain as EU citizens. Theresa May and her increasingly right wing/xenophobic party have no mandate at all in Scotland for any form of brexit. Particularly the chaotic brexit that the Tory party seem likely to provoke. And for all those Scots that voted to stay in a UK union on the basis of maintaining membership of the EU......well many of them may now feel quite differently.

well many of them may now feel quite differently.

Yes.

Tam O'Bam - on 26 Oct 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> I'm sure you'll agree we had all the facts, presented in an honest and logical manner, so it was easy to chose which way to vote wasn't it?

I assume you're being Ironic?
Tam O'Bam - on 26 Oct 2016
In reply to john arran:

> Sounds to me like the whole future prosperity of the UK and its people is being threatened by a combination of a small majority vote from a misled electorate and the outcome of a game of poker played by a small minority of politicians who were never elected with any such mandate.

Well said!
Tam O'Bam - on 26 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> It would be very unusual. Can you name any other country that requires regional agreement for treaties? Switzerland possibly?

Belgium/Walonia.
krikoman - on 26 Oct 2016
In reply to Tam O'Bam:
> I assume you're being Ironic?

Correct


JimC had accused me of calling all remainers idiots.
Post edited at 09:34
Tam O'Bam - on 27 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> And my point is that the whole of the UK is represented by the UK government.

No. It's not.
Tam O'Bam - on 27 Oct 2016
In reply to alastairmac:

> Historically, legally, culturally and practically it's clear that Scotland is a nation. Etc.

SPOT ON!!
GrahamD - on 27 Oct 2016
In reply to Tam O'Bam:

You might not like it. I might not like it. The peoples' republic of Yorkshire might not like it but right here, right now the UK government are our representatives.
1
rogerwebb - on 27 Oct 2016
In reply to Tam O'Bam:

> No. It's not.

Well yes the UK government does represent all of the UK.

We in Scotland by popular vote decided to be part of the UK and to be represented by the UK government.

Doesn't stop us being a nation anymore than membership of the EU would although in those circumstances we would on many occasions find ourselves represented by the European Commission

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.