Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[Pet Jeden]

6 hours ago, git-intae-thum said:

This is laughable pish.

The two "unions" are very different in nature.

Set aside the Crown - which SNP claimed was going to remain largely unaffected. Then take into account that the EU’s direction of travel is from the simple 6 nation 1952 European Coal and Steel Community, towards a unified EU superstate with less and less ability to veto - and I accept that is a perfectly valid case for such a superstate - then, no, the two unions are not very different. Except that tiny Scotland’s ability to influence becomes even tinier.

[Pet Jeden]

1 hour ago, dirty dingus said:

What is to be honoured? A throwing the baby out with the bathwater hard Brexit or a free movement customs union type Brexit? That is the problem with trying to deliver on the Brexit referendum. The Scottish referendum was a straight Yes/No, no ambiguity.

 

 

 

What IS the EU? It is ...

1. The Single Market 

2. Customs Union 

3. Freedom of Movement

4. Brussels/Strasbourg/ECJ control

Those that argue for a “jobs first” Brexit which keeps 1 and 2 and bits of 4 via the WA are really arguing for not Brexiting.

 

[ICTJohnboy]

7 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Set aside the Crown - which SNP claimed was going to remain largely unaffected. Then take into account that the EU’s direction of travel is from the simple 6 nation 1952 European Coal and Steel Community, towards a unified EU superstate with less and less ability to veto - and I accept that is a perfectly valid case for such a superstate - then, no, the two unions are not very different. Except that tiny Scotland’s ability to influence becomes even tinier.

 

Tiny Ireland don't appear to be in any great hurry to leave the EU.

Scotland's vastly superior natural resources would ensure she would do even better.

[Pet Jeden]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

A supranational Union of multiple independent nation-states being the exact same thing as a Union with other regions to form one nation-state, obviously.

You consider Scotland a mere region? f**k off.

[ICTJohnboy]

4 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

You consider Scotland a mere region? f**k off.

 

It sounds like you do.

Try and get your head round this :

http://www.businessforscotland.com/5-reasons-why-an-independent-scotland-will-be-one-of-the-worlds-wealthiest-nations/

[Pet Jeden]

5 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Tiny Ireland don't appear to be in any great hurry to leave the EU.

Scotland's vastly superior natural resources would ensure she would do even better.

So what? 

[ICTJohnboy]

Just now, Pet Jeden said:

So what? 

 

Assuming the UK is leaving the EU, more than likely with No Deal, it would make perfect sense for Scotland to remain within the EU.

[Pet Jeden]

4 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

It sounds like you do.

Try and get your head round this :

http://www.businessforscotland.com/5-reasons-why-an-independent-scotland-will-be-one-of-the-worlds-wealthiest-nations/

What? Please re-read the posts and stop havering.

I agree with most of the link.

[Dunning1874]

15 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

You consider Scotland a mere region? f**k off.

No, but in terms of our actual status with regards to statehood, we are just a region of a nation-state which happens to have some power devolved to it regionally within that state, with no official inter/supranational status of our own.

This wouldn't be the case if we were independent of the UK but part of the EU, which is why your point about supporting one Union but not the other being hypocritical is utterly baseless.

[Chapelhall chap]

11 hours ago, Pet Jeden said:

That is undoubtedly contradictory. As are Scottish Nationalists being against a union with England but for a Union with the EU.

It all depends on what you mean by "union" and your other use of "Union" ( I assume the capital letter might just be a typing error) . The UK is an independent state and agreed to become a member of the EEC in the 70s. Every UK government since has shared aspects of it's sovereignty inside the EEC and then the EU ; the UK still remained an independent state in the U.N. and NATO whilst sharing aspects of its sovereignty.  The decision to ask the voters about leaving the EU was the act of an independent state ( and IMO it ought to be implemented in a soft way) and the EU had a set of legal methods for leaving . The EU did not have to agree to the referendum and had no power to decide who had the franchise : that was in the power of Westminster, 

Membership would end if the  UK Parliament legislated for it and it was then up to the UK to negotiate a new relationship.

The constitutional position of Scotland is that it is not a member state  of the UK. It is indeed as David Mundell made clear a "part" of the UK and not a partner. When Boris Johnson talks of negotiating with "our friends and partners" that tells me that the UK is in a different constitutional relationship in the EU than Scotland is in the UK.  Indeed I take the Tam Dalyelll position:

" Power devolved is power retained" , and the Supreme Court has also ruled that the Sewell convention where Westminster will not normally legislate on devolved matters. It is merely a convention and has no legal status. 

Scotland 's rulers gave up  its national sovereignty in 1707 and does not therefore have shared sovereignty inside the UK. It cannot end it's "part" status inside the UK unless the "English" ( your word) state agrees to it. This was an incorporation not a club of members as is the  EU so we are not leaving a "union" Should we then decide to apply for EU as a member state that would be a matter for the Scottish people..

I wonder also if you would describe as contradictory the Baltic States who left the "Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics" and then joined the European Union?

 

[Pet Jeden]

33 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

No, but in terms of our actual status with regards to statehood, we are just a region of a nation-state which happens to have some power devolved to it regionally within that state, with no official inter/supranational status of our own.

This wouldn't be the case if we were independent of the UK but part of the EU, which is why your point about supporting one Union but not the other being hypocritical is utterly baseless.

But what is it about the bigger EU union that you fundamentally prefer to the smaller UK union? Don't say their current centre left politics - they're transient and can change quickly. In 3 months the UK could have a Corbyn Labour government. In 5-10 years the EU, propelled by real far right movements in Germany,France and Italy that could make UKIP look pleasant, might be a very different beast. And the UK's ability - let alone Scotland's - to influence the juggernaut is not great. Don't think vetoes realistically can last much longer in a union of 27.

I get the logic of internationalists who want to be part of a union with UK and a union with the EU and no doubt in time a worldwide government. I don't get the logic of those that want to jump over a union with our nearest, culturally closest, neighbours and biggest market but do want to be part of the same with an EU superstate? Unless it's motivated by a petty anti-Englishness

[Paco]

Can we leave the done-to-death indyref stuff to the relevant thread, lads?

Phillip Hammond outright accusing Johnson of pursuing No Deal to prevent his friends and backers from losing billions. It’ll be roundly ignored.

[Chapelhall chap]

11 hours ago, Pet Jeden said:

Nobody should be encouraging disorder. But, to be consistent, are you equally uncomfortable with Irish politicians and the UK remain establishment constantly suggesting that IRA terrorism is the inevitable result of Brexit? And the Civil Service suggesting that there will be shortages that could lead to civil disorder?

I agree that no one should be encouraging disorder but Brendan did. I am consistent in saying the same to any of the two groups you mention above if they say disorder "should" take place. I would remove the word "will" from their predictions as no one can predict the future . It is possible however to speculate on what may be likely in the event of a No deal-the UK government produced these reports. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

What IS the EU? It is ...
1. The Single Market 
2. Customs Union 
3. Freedom of Movement
4. Brussels/Strasbourg/ECJ control
Those that argue for a “jobs first” Brexit which keeps 1 and 2 and bits of 4 via the WA are really arguing for not Brexiting.
 

By your logic Norway and Switzerland are really members of the EU.

[Pet Jeden]

9 minutes ago, Chapelhall chap said:

It all depends on what you mean by "union" and your other use of "Union" ( I assume the capital letter might just be a typing error) . The UK is an independent state and agreed to become a member of the EEC in the 70s. Every UK government since has shared aspects of it's sovereignty inside the EEC and then the EU ; the UK still remained an independent state in the U.N. and NATO whilst sharing aspects of its sovereignty.  The decision to ask the voters about leaving the EU was the act of an independent state ( and IMO it ought to be implemented in a soft way) and the EU had a set of legal methods for leaving . The EU did not have to agree to the referendum and had no power to decide who had the franchise : that was in the power of Westminster, 

Membership would end if the  UK Parliament legislated for it and it was then up to the UK to negotiate a new relationship.

The constitutional position of Scotland is that it is not a member state  of the UK. It is indeed as David Mundell made clear a "part" of the UK and not a partner. When Boris Johnson talks of negotiating with "our friends and partners" that tells me that the UK is in a different constitutional relationship in the EU than Scotland is in the UK.  Indeed I take the Tam Dalyelll position:

" Power devolved is power retained" , and the Supreme Court has also ruled that the Sewell convention where Westminster will not normally legislate on devolved matters. It is merely a convention and has no legal status. 

Scotland 's rulers gave up  its national sovereignty in 1707 and does not therefore have shared sovereignty inside the UK. It cannot end it's "part" status inside the UK unless the "English" ( your word) state agrees to it. This was an incorporation not a club of members as is the  EU so we are not leaving a "union" Should we then decide to apply for EU as a member state that would be a matter for the Scottish people..

I wonder also if you would describe as contradictory the Baltic States who left the "Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics" and then joined the European Union?

 

Jeezo, Prof.  I'll need to study that and reflect. But your last sentence - that's a bit disingenuous. I hope you're not equating Westminster's treatment of Scotland with the USSR's  post WW2 treatment of the Baltic states?

[Pet Jeden]

5 minutes ago, Chapelhall chap said:

I agree that no one should be encouraging disorder but Brendan did. I am consistent in saying the same to any of the two groups you mention above if they say disorder "should" take place. I would remove the word "will" from their predictions as no one can predict the future . It is possible however to speculate on what may be likely in the event of a No deal-the UK government produced these reports. 

I did notice your use of the word "should". But that's semantics. The effect of repeatedly saying there will be trouble (e.g. around the Irish border) is to make it more likely, not less

[Chapelhall chap]

3 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

Jeezo, Prof.  I'll need to study that and reflect. But your last sentence - that's a bit disingenuous. I hope you're not equating Westminster's treatment of Scotland with the USSR's  post WW2 treatment of the Baltic states?

No I am not equating but merely giving another example of the various meanings of the word "union". Further study is always good . I have enjoyed reading some of your posts and you do make a good case for your argument-it's just that my view is different.

[Chapelhall chap]

3 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

I did notice your use of the word "should". But that's semantics. The effect of repeatedly saying there will be trouble (e.g. around the Irish border) is to make it more likely, not less

You might well be right on that trend . I am now off to see if Airdrie can get a win. I think they should but my predictions are normally duff.

[welshbairn]

20 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

I did notice your use of the word "should". But that's semantics. The effect of repeatedly saying there will be trouble (e.g. around the Irish border) is to make it more likely, not less

As is saying there will (should) be riots on the mainland if we don't leave with no deal.

[German Jag]

Today's Brexit update from gov.uk

"Chancellor announces support for post-Brexit future

The Chancellor will announce a package of measures to support the next generation, promote economic growth, and prepare for a post-Brexit future.

Published 28 September 2019

From:

HM Treasury and The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP

A package of measures to support the next generation, promote economic growth, and prepare for a post-Brexit future, will be announced by the Chancellor Sajid Javid over the coming days.

Post-Brexit Funding

If the UK leaves the EU without a deal and should the EU cease to fund UK organisations after Brexit, the government has guaranteed funding to organisations in receipt of certain EU programme funding (such as the European Regional Development Fund and Horizon 2020).

Today (28 September) the Chancellor confirmed that the total amount covered by the guarantee would be £4.3bn in 2019/20 and £16.6bn over its lifetime - providing reassurance to charities, businesses and universities amongst others."

 

Why would the EU even consider funding UK organistaions after a no deal Brexit?

Also the magic money tree seems to be sprouting well.