Clause 28 of the 1998 Act notes at sub-clause 7, in dry terms, with regard to legislative competence that "this section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland." In that single little line is the subordinate nature of devolution. Generally, Westminster will let the Scottish Parliament get on with devolved legislation. Carry on governing. But it is also made clear that Westminster's ultimate sovereignty over the UK, the entire UK, is unaffected.
So in other words, no. The UK Parliament is sovereign over the Scottish one, although by convention they do not usually override it.
Correct. My view is that Scotland CAN veto, but Westminster can override that veto. It creates a brilliant scenario for Scottish politicians, particularly those who seek independence; by vetoing they gain the support of their constituents while kicking the toxic can down the road to Westminster politicians, who should respect the results of the referendum, creating louder calls for a second Scottish referendum.
They can only veto it if the legislation comes before the Scottish parliament for review, and it won't. What they can do is pass resolutions in Scottish law incompatible with Brexit that Westminster will have to repeal or get struck down in the courts.
> What they can do is pass resolutions in Scottish law incompatible with Brexit that Westminster will have to repeal or get struck down in the courts.
Acts of Parliament cannot be struck down in the courts, in general. This is one of the cornerstones of Parliamentary Supremacy. I believe the only case where they can be is where they are found in contradiction to obligations of the EU treaties.
You're right, but I think they could make it very difficult for Westminster if they wanted to. It's not a fight they can legally win, but it could still be in their interests to fight it anyway.
There's a joke going around here in London that we should devolve with them forming Scotlondon and set up immigration controls at M25 junctions. It's becoming pretty clear that a lot of exit voters never imagined it could actually happen and are suffering buyer's remorse.
> Is it just London that wanted to remain? What about the other cities?
Despite much of the media describing this as the north voting to leave, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle upon Tyne, Harrogate and York all voted to remain. Further south there's also Bristol, Cardiff, Cambridge, Oxford.
There are cities and urban areas that voted to leave, but generally speaking it does seem to be that the areas with lower population density voted to leave. I'd be interested to see a visualisation which examined this correlation.
As always with these things it’s a mixed bag. How close some of these results were matters. Many of the other cities went remain by 50%-60%. London was a full 75% for remain though. Totally overwhelming.
There was an interview with people at a market on the BBC yesterday and a stall holder was selling Spanish cherries. He voted brexit, but had a haunted look on his face and said he never believed it would happen. The journalist asked if he regretted it, he said something like "No..... but I wonder whether I made the right decision.". So that would be yes, then.
I think this is a rather bad headline because it is effectively a clickbait, i.e. you won't know the answer until you click on the title and read the article.
Headline should summarize the main points in the news article as a statement, rather than posing a question to the reader.
I think the position is: technically no, practically almost certainly no, but politically it might be a sensible move for the SNP to strengthen support from Scottish voters.
The UK has a mandate from the people to leave the EU. Attempting to block the brexit over technicalities in Unionist agreements is a weak position for any politician to take. If the SNP believes they can successfully build a new mandate from the Scottish people to leave the UK, that would be a position of strength and they should work with that.
The referendum was non-binding. While a majority of those who voted said leave, the role of the government is to do what's best for their country and their people, and that's not always going to correspond to what a majority says should be done.
> The UK has a mandate from the people to leave the EU.
The question no one seems to have thought to answer until now, is whether Boris or any other politician has a mandate to dissolve the UK in order to do so. Does anyone believe that if the vote had been "Should England leave the UK and the EU" it would have won majority?
The First Minister also has a mandate to represent the Scottish people, who voted to stay in the EU, and most whose elected officials are pro-EU. Not to say I disagree with you, but Nicola Sturgeon (her own political goals aside) is only being competent by exploring these possibilities. Views aside it's nice to see there's at least one British political leader that actually has plans and is publicly engaging in a conversation on what should be next.
Agree it's a mandate and we have to respect it - however I'm still shocked it was a decision made on a direct majority as opposed to some level of supermajority for such a potential dramatic change.
Scotland is effectively a one party system, which is quite dangerous, never mind that the common man/woman do not see this.
The consequences for leaving the UK are well known. Companies aren't going to stay in because of Europe. They are going to move over the border.
Also. The UK rescued the Scottish banks. Scotland will have to take on half this debt. Will the EU bail out Scotland? Will there be Greece style terms?
So with the debt, companies leaving, not getting much tax receipts. How will Scotland pay for the FREE tuition, FREE healthcare, FREE this and FREE that, they like to promise? Is the EU going to be sending them FREE monies?
Finally and this is where I tend to laugh the most. Once Scotland joins Europe and the Euro. How is Scotland an independent state in Europe? How have Scottish people not realised this? Go look at Greece!
Scotland won't be able to control her economy. The EU bureaucrats will not do what's in her best interests. They'll do what's in THEIR best interests!
So what happens when Scotland no longer has control of her finances, can't pay for the FREE stuff. Oh and then slips into recession and the UK is doing better off? Yeah, that's the joke.
Oh and the UK won't let Scotland use the pound. I can tell you that now!
There does remain the question of whether Scotland, which has no proven history of having any sort of independent economy, would come anywhere close to being an acfeptabke risk for the EU and eurozone to take on.
I'm not claiming to have an answer one way or another there, but it seems a bit of a risk to just assume that.
Although I have no reason to believe that the EU wouldn't accept Scotland on this basis, a fresh accession might require the agreement of 27 countries.
There was a question last time about whether Scotland would automatically inherit EU membership or would have to apply for accession. IIRC, the EU wouldn't answer the question directly because Westminster refused to ask them. I'm guessing Nicola Sturgeon might be keen for this question to be cleared up.
Certainly, I listened to Nicola Sturgeon's post-result address and it sounded like she was out talking to all the leaders she could.
If the question of post-Independence EU membership is resolved on the EU side I'd love to know, during the last referendum the EU was pretty clear there would be no automatic entry for Scotland. But whether that was true or politically driven... guess we'll find out.
The consequences for leaving the UK are well known.
The consequences for leaving the EU were well-known and kicked in within hours of the votes being tallied last week, but didn't stop the English from voting to do it anyway. And if we're going to allow the English to be that reckless on the basis of a single simple-majority vote, I don't see why we oughtn't let the Scots do the same.
The consequences for Scotland leaving the UK are an order of magnitude worse, and that is if they were guaranteed admission to the EU on a roughly similar basis to to the UK's current status. In reality they would probably have to adopt the Euro and thus have even less control over fiscal policy which would mean dealing with the 9% budget deficit, higher than Greece's which would be political suicide.
The notion that Scottish companies would move to England is absurd. Surely you must realize the difference (especially in size) between the EU and English marketplace.
You are spreading many inaccuracies here, but we should take them one-by-one.
No. Sturgeon is just playing up to her base.
I suspect it's even more simple – Sturgeon thinks that Scotland should be part of the EU, is backed by a clear majority of voters, and will take all steps possible to try and keep the country in the EU.
Scotland is effectively a one party system, which is quite dangerous, never mind that the common man/woman do not see this.
Scotland currently has a parliament in which no single party has a majority. That's essentially as far from a one-party state as it's possible to get.
You might call it a one-party state in the sense of representation as Westminster, but that's down to an outdated electoral system more than anything else.
The consequences for leaving the UK are well known.
That might have been the case (though I don't think it was) but it's clear that those consequences are likely to be substantially different now. The UK that existed at the time of the last referendum will no longer exist.
Companies aren't going to stay in because of Europe. They are going to move over the border.
I'm not sure there is any evidence of that at this point. Few companies said they would do that at the time of the last referendum, so it's difficult to see why this would have changed.
Also. The UK rescued the Scottish banks. Scotland will have to take on half this debt. Will the EU bail out Scotland? Will there be Greece style terms?
The UK rescued the UK's banks – not 'Scottish banks'. These were banks that were Scottish in origin, but with most work conducted in the City of London, and which paid taxes to the UK treasury. It would be obviously preposterous to expect Scotland to bail out London-based banks, given that it does not receive the associated tax revenue.
So with the debt, companies leaving, not getting much tax receipts. How will Scotland pay for the FREE tuition, FREE healthcare, FREE this and FREE that, they like to promise? Is the EU going to be sending them FREE monies?
Your argument seems to presuppose that the Scottish economy will collapse, which seems unlikely. Maybe it will result in a tightening of budgets such that some things which are currently free at point of use will no longer be so.
Finally and this is where I tend to laugh the most. Once Scotland joins Europe and the Euro. How is Scotland an independent state in Europe? How have Scottish people not realised this? Go look at Greece!
People in Scotland are well aware of that. There is a trade-off of sovereignty for stability and economics; Scotland might be subject to EU law, but in exchange it gains access to the single market. It's possible to be both an independent state and agree to international treaties.
Oh and the UK won't let Scotland use the pound. I can tell you that now!
"The UK rescued the Scottish banks. Scotland will have to take on half this debt."
That's an extremely common fallacy. The banks were bailed out not by the countries they were based in but by the proportion of their wealth that belonged to citizens of each countries (roughly, it is slightly more complicated than that). Only a small proportion of the "Scottish Banks" wealth was actually that of Scottish citizens. The majority of it was English wealth along with a few other countries, therefore England would have had to bail out a sizeable chunk to avoid the economic ramifications of these "Scottish Banks" collapsing.
"The UK rescued the Scottish banks. Scotland will have to take on half this debt."
That's an extremely common fallacy. The banks were bailed out not by the countries they were based in but by the proportion of their wealth that belonged to citizens of each countries (roughly, it is slightly more complicated than that). Only a small proportion of the "Scottish Banks" wealth was actually that of Scottish citizens. The majority of it was English wealth along with a few other countries, therefore England would have had to bail out a sizeable chunk to avoid the economic ramifications of these "Scottish Banks" collapsing.
About the only thing that might stop the UK leaving now would be for the new conservative leader to call a snap general election, thinking that labour are in serious disarray. Then labour campaign on not leaving the EU, and together with the SNP, win. The new labour/SNP government would be able to claim a mandate from the electorate to not leave.
I believe democracy is about following the will of the people.
As such, there are several levels I object to this comment, in particular that we have fair reason to believe the will of the people might have changed in recent days.
Stubbornly following the result of a majority vote is majoritarianism, not democracy.
The public isn't ever asked to vote on wars, trade deals, etc. When it is asked to shoot itself in the foot with a non-binding referendum, overturning it would be no different.
In a representative democracy, all you vote for is your representative. The rest is politics.
You may want to lower your voice. If there's one thing this referendum has (re)demonstrated it's that things can go from wingnut to oh-my-god-its-happening frighteningly quickly.
How to get out of this mess: quit with this government, call for new elections. Then you make it an election subject: will we follow the referendum or not?! The referendum is advisory, not legally binding. So they can ignore it. If the new elections are clear and people vote 55% to stay in - it's a clear cut case.
It was one of the main election subjects back in May 2015 to whether to hold the referendum or not. Making whether to follow through another election subject would be wasteful considering leave has the majority.
As things stand, Cameron will be replaced by a new Conservative leader in October who will be under pressure to call a general election more or less immediately (without the present mess we were not due another one until 2020). The Liberal Democrats, our third largest party, have pledged to run an election campaign based on nullifying the Brexit vote. So it seems what you propose is going to happen, but unfortunately the "Illiberal Undemocrats" are an unpopular choice for a wide variety of reasons...
The PM can't call for a general election anymore due to the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011. Only a vote of no confidence in the Government by MPs or a unilateral decision by two thirds of MPs can break the five year parliament and result in a general election.
The way our election system works, nothing is clear cut, it's partly why so many don't vote in general elections and why so many did vote in the referendum. (66% vs 72% turnout).
How would the conservatives pledge? Half of them want out and spent the last few months campaigning for it.
Many Labour areas of the country voted to leave, calling an election would just provide more confusion.
I also don't think it's a good idea to just vote in a government based on 1 aspect
It seems crazy to me that such a thing can be decided with a simple majority vote. Such a big decision and almost half (or more than half?) of people very much against it. Certainly more than half of the money & influence against it. It's the sort of thing that would cause serious infighting.
I'd say 2/3, or some requirement for a certain % of the total population.
Then you make it an election subject: will we follow
the referendum or not?!
If we had AV or STV this might work - you could have "Conservative, exit", "Conservative, remain", "Labour, exit" and "Labour, remain" so the exit/remain decision was decoupled from the labour/conservative decision. But we don't, we still have the shitty FPTP election system.
I'm sure there's been some buyer's remorse among leave voters - but if remain can't win a remain-vs-leave vote, I doubt they'd fare better with a remain-labour-corbyn-vs-leave-conservative-boris vote.
There's a lot of clutching at straws going on at the moment. People coming out with political or legal theories, trying to interpret David Cameron's failure to immediately declare leaving under article 50 as kicking the whole issue into the long grass etc etc.
This is the latest, like others it's more of an exercise in denial than it is in reality. Many of these things could come to pass, it's true, but each one carries with it the implication that a direct democratic mandate, to leave the EU, is ignored.
If this occurs we can expect politics in the UK to become dangerously divided and unsettled, and the likes of UKIP to become a seriously large party in the next parliament, not to mention civil unrest in various forms.
The people that voted leave already feel left behind and ignored by the state. Explicitly ignoring them and finding a way to work around their democratically expressed opinion is likely to be a really BAD idea.
--edit-- I notice the points attached to this post going up and down. To those downvoting, can you tell me where/why you disagree?
> David Cameron's failure to immediately declare leaving under article 50 as kicking the whole issue into the long grass
Maybe not the long grass, but it's a poison chalice for the next leader for the reasons you say - trigger article 50 and Scotland leaves UK and tries to join EU. Don't leave and the majority voters get angry. (And we really don't need them getting angrier since a small minority are angry enough to spray paint Polish community centres; to print and laminate "no more polish vermin" cards. (EDIT: Both these things have happened post-ref.)
Oh there's political poison all over the place. It's one of the reasons I considered voting leave and am not too pissed off that the way I did vote didn't win - it's rather delightful seeing the turmoil at Westminster.
Around 4 million EU nationals that live in the UK, were not eligible to vote, and they are directly affected by his decision, while they pay taxes and they contribute to the economy as much as the ones who could vote ( if not more... ).
Also, a significant percentage of those who voted "Leave", around 10% at least, now would certainly change their vote since they saw that "scare tactics" was basically people telling them how economy works.
So a false 2% margin is "democracy"? Not really.
And this decision is way to big to rely on that typical and false margin. The circumstances do matter.
Oh, by the way, "The referendum was non-binding, it's advisory".
1. They are not citizens, their lives may be affected but they have no vote. This has no bearing whatsoever on any of my argument above.
2. I voted 'remain'. If this result is ignored for a.second referendum I will vote 'leave' because I believe democratic respect is more important than EU membership.
3. Your 10% figure is pure conjecture.
4. It was a 4% margin.
5. Whether the referendum is legally binding or not has no bearing on its democratic legitimacy, nor on the potential fallout of ignoring the result.
I guess you do not care whether the UK will be (or maybe is) way worse off economically and that xenophobia/racism is now an "every day" thing. Fine, vote "leave", probably suits better that mentality.
I just mentioned the facts after the result. Are they not? And I'm trying to say that they have such a big effect, that defending them is not, in the long-term, good thing for this society.
I'm just sad that a minority is viewed falsely as a majority.
The incidents you mention were awful and are not to be tolerated. We (as a nation) voted to leave the EU, not to allow this kind of hateful violence.
But you know full well that the rhetoric I'm talking about, as exemplified by that post, is the attempt to paint everyone with any 'leave' symapthies as a racist.
The shouting down of dissenting opinions by either directly or indirectly labelling them as racist, rather than taking them seriously or even trying to understand them, is one of the factors that has lead to widespread disillusionment with both Westminster and the EU.
Ok, I got you now and appreciate your answer. But let's be honest.. What's that "taking our country back" all about?
I'm not saying that this is all voters general opinion, but it sure looks like the majority's. I don't hear anyone coming up with plausible arguments and I really wanted to hear them.
Oh I'm not going to claim there aren't racists and xenophobes around. I'm outraged that all leave leanings are characterised that way.
There are many good arguments and many bad ones that don't involve hatred of foreigners. "Take our country back" would, to me, meaning regaining full legislative control. Yes, this includes immigration, and yes I would limit that based on skills and an annual quota.
Well, I do believe that's racism. Why else would you limit someone coming over their skills? And I'm not saying that feeling racist is abnormal. I'd just prefer people to cut the crap.
And I'm actually curious about what would those skills be as I don't believe that's a reasonable approach..
Well, first of all, quota and skill-based immigration is 'leave'. I thought you mentioned you didn't vote to leave..
Anyway, it was your vote, I don't really care.
My idea of racism, it sure is wide.
Who is John to limit people from going wherever they want, while trying to make a living? Does the place where John was born makes him different or special somehow? I consider this racism.
Isn't John going to end up making bricks same way as the migrant?
It just sounds way more rational to let the market decide. If immigrants can't find a job in here I'm sure they will leave and move some place else. If they happen to find a job and contribute to our society, then this should mean they have their place here. They should be able to stay and live.
And I'm sure there will be plenty of jobs, without the need for a specific skill set, that they will be willing to do. Jobs that many people in this country refuses to accept, because 'it's just £7 an hour' or because 'I didn't study for this' or whatever.
I am utterly disgusted and bloody sick of being portrayed as a racist, xenophobic bigot because I wanted to take back democratic control of my country. Race issues had nothing to do with my decision to leave.
How dare you paint me in that light when you know absolutely nothing about me or my motives for wanting to remove my country from the clutches of an undemocratic state. Your narrow-mindedness is part of the reason I want out.
This all reeks of bitterness and toy-throwing by those that voted remain.
It's over. We are out. Accept it or feel free to move to a European country... I don't mind.
Until article 50 is invoked we're not out. And until that happens why should I accept it?
The EU is no less democratic than the UK itself, and talk of "taking back democratic control of my country" is xenophobic even if you don't intend it to be. the EU is not the "other", they don't impose on us because we are part of it.
The EU has problems with democratic accountability.
That we also have them at the UK level is irrelevant to me, we're not having a referendum on that (yet).
Your definition of xenophobic is so wide that it would cover the very existence of nation states within the EU. I don't think all that many people share it.
It annoys me as well, and I was in favor of staying in. Its the same when anyone raises an objection to immigration, they are almost immediately silenced by calls of racism or xenophobia. Thats no way to have a proper debate about anything.
Accusations of xenophobia are hard to avoid when the anti-immigration debate has been led by the National Front ("Go home pakis"); the BNP (Nazi salutes); Britain First (an incoherent but unequivocally fascist ideology).
We've already seen a rise in xenophobic, racist, hate crime.
To use UKIPs line, why aren't moderate anti-immigrationists condemning this violence?
Yes. We need to National Crime Survey to be certain, but police forces are already reporting an increase in reported incidents, and affected groups are reporting an increase in incidents.
"anyone raises an objection to immigration, they are almost immediately silenced by calls of racism or xenophobia"
The probelm is that those who raise objections to immigration never seem to have anything constructive to say after that. So if you're not a racist or xenophbe, how about we have a discussion about allowing freedom of movement but actually SOLVING the problems that have been brought about by it?
The EU are going to demand freedom of movement if we are to stay in the EEA - so what's your answer?
It has to because the EU are going to demand it as a condition of entry to the EEA. Not demanding it will invite any-European movements in other EU countries like Italy and even France to demand out. When it comes to Britain's future economy, the EU holds most of cards.
And even if UK doesn't remain in EEA, immigration will be a fact of life. Hell, half of all immigrants in the UK don't even come from the EU!
Immigration will be a fact of life, and long may it continue. Net immigration on the scale we've seen lately OTOH, not so much.
Other countries may well demand a get-out, if they perceive it's to their advantage. And if it is, I'm not sure why the EU should seek to stop them either.
Democratic control. That was it. I knew that it would have a negative effect on the economy short term but I wanted the control to be in the hands of the people I elected.
It's the argument that was put at the front of the queue during the build-up to the referendum itself and makes for very polarizing headlines but it played almost no part in my decision.
I wanted sovereignty over everything: Border control is just one part of the whole argument.
> Unfortunately the most discussed argument is to have sovereignty over who can come into the country and who cannot. That is racism to me.
I don't, however, agree with your stance that having a say who can and cannot come into the country is racism. How can you say that it's ok to let anyone in but by saying we need checks and balances is racism?
You may call it discrimination but that takes many forms, not all of them bad.
> It's the argument that was put at the front of the queue during the build-up to the referendum itself and makes for very polarizing headlines
Agreed.
> How can you say that it's ok to let anyone in but by saying we need checks and balances is racism?
Discrimination and racism sound like the same to me. I read people saying they would like to choose based on peoples skills, which is a complete nonsense. Why not let the market decide? People would be able to come in as they like, if they wouldn't get a job nor benefits, I'm sure they would go away. Otherwise, it would mean they have a place in here. Wouldn't that be a wiser decision?
Your parent poster said "that xenophobia/racism is now an "every day" thing."
People with pre-existing xenophobic/racist have found vindication & legitimisation with the referendum result.
Many papers today are carrying stories of attacks along these lines, I'm sure the rest will in the following days also.
"It's over. We are out. Accept it or feel free to move to a European country... I don't mind."
The back-pedalling has only just begun. People voted leave for a lot of reasons, and they will have their displeasure at progress heard to differing degrees.
I'd suggest you give it a little while before you take it as read that any side won for the cause they voted for.
Overall it's not particularly diverse. One of the larger towns (Cheltenham, pop about 110,000) is 96% White British in last census. Nearby Gloucester is much more diverse - one street has over 70 different languages spoken as a first language, and the school in the UK (but outside London) with most different languages spoken as a first language is in Gloucester.
So, while I believe the UK is diverse it's a bit more complicated than that.
But that makes your point stronger, no? That even in this small (by population, not geographical) rural county there's still a mix of not much diversity and lots of diversity.
This is part of the problem! The UK has an inequality of attention: everyone looks inwards towards London. It's the places that are ignored that voted to Leave. And there are a lot of them.
I'm reminded of the proposal of "managed decline" for Liverpool in the 80s. Give up rather than fixing the problems. Ironically Liverpool has since prospered enough to vote Remain, although that vote may also be due to the longstanding boycott of the Sun newspaper there.
Cursory looked up some ethnographic statistics the other day, and if wikipedia is to be trusted, UK as a whole certainly does not appear to be very ethnically diverse - although London is.
A simple google search might have informed you. Indeed there is a Wikipedia page on multiple ways of measuring it.
At least 100 countries are more diverse, ethnically, linguistically, racially, you name it. Germany is among them, so is the US. France is about the same level of diversity. A majority of EU countries are more of a melting pot than the UK, in fact.
The UK is 87% white, 95% English speaking, 92% Christian/atheist/agnostic. It doesn't get much less diverse than that.
And of course the places that aren't homogenous (inner London for instance), all voted "remain" by a huge margin.
Thanks for the information. As you can probably guess I wasn't that motivated to find it for myself since I was fairly confident in my original assertion.
Some sharia "courts" operate in the UK, as do Beth Din and Ecclesiastical Courts.
They're mostly for mediation and actual courts feel free to ignore them.
They've all been involved in pretty severe human rights abuses. Christian courts moved abusing priests around the country rather than reporting them to the police; Christian courts did little to prevent the sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children by nuns. Beth Din are currently involved in not giving Jewish women "Gets" - a religious divorce that can only be provided by the husband. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scandal-of-wo...
Sharia Zones, as talked about by US media, don't exist.
Xenophobia isn't the reason intelligent people are pro 'Leave'.
For example, many powerful free-trade Libertarian think-tanks backed Brexit: the Hoover Institution [0], the Cato Institute [1], the Adam Smith Institute [2], etc.
These certainly aren't racist dumb-dumbs or protectionist "little Englanders", and their opinions are well worth a read. While bigots exist and certainly voted 'Leave' that does not mean that there are not good, open, free-market reasons to leave the EU.
You are linking education (specifically having a degree) with intelligence is there anything to correlate this assertion? It comes of as incredible classist, just because plumbers do not have degrees does not mean they are stupider than someone with a degree in interior design.
My point is that it's completely idiotic to characterise highly-prestigious globalist think-tanks as anti-immigration or lacking intellectual capacity. They hold globalist perspectives which are worth reading and understanding; in fact the more divorced they are from establishment positions, the more worthwhile it is to understand them.
You are right that there are lots of people without University educations which backed Brexit. Rather than hating them perhaps you could try to understand their struggles and feelings on how they have been betrayed by the establishment [0]?
Many of the Leave campaigners do actually subscribe to these libertarian views, including the only UKIP MP.
But they clearly believed so strongly, that they didn't think it was wrong to stoke immigration fears to win, and then turn round and explain that actually, free market economics suggests that low wage immigration is actually a good thing. This is playing with fire, and may end tragically.
I'm actually expecting a future government to turn round and refuse to replace the funding that used to come via the EU - as the economy will be in a bad state and we don't have the money anymore and, the main reason, which is pure ideology.
I agree with your principles, but I do think this may be an exception...With all the mis-information peddled by the media pre-vote and given the number of people who have already come out saying they didn't fully understand the implications of voting leave, I personally believe that another referendum wouldn't be the worst thing, especially given that the win was by such a small margin.
What if we were to have a second referendum and the result came out 60/40 in favour of remain- would your opinion remain the same?
I wonder how much of this is the media indulging its own bias, and how significant the 'bregret'* stuff really is.
I really hope we don't find out how a second referendum goes, as I think it would paint the EU and westminster in a worse light, and put UKIP firmly into ascendancy.
The media is working really hard with the bregret thing, the same they worked really hard making sure everybody would vote remain. It's sickening how they want to suppress the will of the majority.
I wouldn't be so sure a re-run would go the way you expect. There was also a large amount of open lying and misinformation from the Remain side. To name just a few:
Cameron saying "I will campaign for in or out depending on whether I get a good deal for Britain". Reality: he got nothing and then claimed leaving the EU would be morally wrong.
Cameron saying "this isn't about me, I'll stay on no matter what". Reality: resigning the very next day, having known full well he'd do that if he lost yet he openly lied to the public about it.
Osborne saying "there'll be a punishment budget". Reality: that has now mysteriously vanished.
But I don't think any of that will really matter in a rerun anyway. The pro-remain side seems to think voters are spreadsheets that weigh up the output of yet more spreadsheets which pretend to represent the real world, and then make their decision based on that.
In reality most Leave voters clocked ages ago that politicians were not trustworthy and made up their minds based on other factors. If the referendum is ignored then expect a lot of Remain voters in the regions to switch to Leave: it will be widely interpreted as the end of democracy itself if they don't.
> Oh, by the way, "The referendum was non-binding, it's advisory".
True - though the gov white paper mentioned that it was, in effect, binding because ignoring its result would irreversibly damage representative democracy.
Even if the UK were somehow to backtrack: they broke any faith and goodwill on EU side (not the entire EU but key members).
Politically, the Tories have to rally Brexit - or they will get killed by UKIP in the next election run.
The box is open. At some point in 10-20 years, a new agreement will probably bring the UK back to most of its EU membership. Until then, there's no way back.
The government can just ignore the vote after reelection. If they say "vote for us an we'll stay in the EU" and win. That's the way it'll be.
In Sweden, several national referendums have been ignored by the government (shutting down nuclear power, switching to right hand traffic, new pension system). It has had no negative effect on either parties or politicians really. People are only angry as long as it stays in the public eye.
The truth is. To carry out politics you need politicians, and the No-side in the EU question is made up of a clique of populists joined by mass media. Without broad support by most politicians in the UK, the actual act of leaving will never actually come to pass.
"Around 4 million EU nationals that live in the UK, were not eligible to vote"
I have spent a significant portion of my life living in countries where I was not a citizen, paid taxes and was unable to vote. Just like there are millions of Europeans paying taxes in the USA and unable to vote. This applies to most countries and does not make them any less democratic.
At the end of the day Democracy is a shit system. A really shitty system, but we keep it around because it is better than the other systems.
Nobody ever offered a say on UK national issues to EU nationals resident here. They cannot vote in elections to the UK parliament.[0]
There have been a number of EU nationals quoted in the media as being aggrieved by this, but in many cases they have lived here more than long enough to become citizens and not chosen to do so.
Irish people can vote in UK elections because of the Good Friday agreement - basically ensured that Republicans originally from Northern Ireland (and therefore had British citizenship) who resided in the Republic of Ireland and Loyalists from the Republic of Ireland who lived in the UK (I don't know how many of these there are) could vote in what they believed was their own country. It's a specific agreement that helped stop The Troubles.
Regarding Commonwealth citizens - I'm not sure of the logic, but it has something to do with Britain occupying them... At any rate, these are legal loopholes and not the standard state of affairs.
> Regarding Commonwealth citizens - I'm not sure of the logic, but it has something to do with Britain occupying them... At any rate, these are legal loopholes and not the standard state of affairs.
I presume it's related to their historic status as British Subjects (which some of them will still hold, though it's been impossible to gain status as such since the 1980s), which would have granted them the right to vote in Westminster elections and referendums.
The whole citizenship process costs around £1.5k, assuming you pass all hurdles at the first attempt, so for many is not a decision you can take lightly; prices increased 10x in the last decade explicitly to keep us Euro-rabble out. EU residents can still vote at local levels so we do get a say in matters directly relevant. I personally thought I'd leave national politics to the "indigenous" mostly as a sign of respect for history and traditions I may not be a part of and might not fully comprehend. That was probably a mistake.
Last year I started citizenship proceedings for me and my wife, aggrieved by the darkening mood, but tbh at this point I think I'll save the money for a visa elsewhere. It's clear I'm not welcome anymore, despite paying more taxes and using less services than most beleavers; and it's clear the country as a whole wants to go back to the bad old days of Thatcher, with all its urban decay, racism, violence and permanent Tory majorities. I think my children might get a better chance elsewhere.
"despite paying more taxes and using less services than most beleavers"
This line of argument leads to a Poll Tax or other arrangement that ties voting rights to personal wealth.
Please don't look for strawmen were none were intended. I just pointed out how contributing to the country more than most people is clearly not enough to be welcomed, these days.
>> I personally thought I'd leave national politics to the "indigenous" mostly as a sign of respect for history and traditions I may not be a part of and might not fully comprehend. That was probably a mistake.
I made the exact same mistake, for the exact same reasons.
That's because the whole point of the EU is for people to be European citizens. The intention of the project is that becoming a citizen doesn't matter, as you're a citizen of Europe and you have all the rights that bestows on you. Some still could, but it seems Boris is still desperate for the EU to basically function exactly as before, so who knows if they even need to worry?
"There have been a number of EU nationals quoted in the media as being aggrieved by this, but in many cases they have lived here more than long enough to become citizens and not chosen to do so."
It costs £1588 [0], which is a lot of money to spend on something which gives no benefits (to an EU citizen) other than being able to vote in general elections (and referenda).
[0] Comprising:
£1236 - citizenship
£72 - passport
£70 - Saturday appointment to check documents (optional)
Interesting to note that the Scottish Indepndence referendum was open to non-Scots living in the country, and it tipped the balance below 50%, but if set up in the same way as the EU vote, they'd have met have had a majority.
I'd need a citation for that being the reason; anecdotal I know, but I have several non-Scottish/British pals who all voted Yes for independence.
It's generally accepted that the reason that Yes lost was that we had the full might of the British state propaganda machine putting the fear of god into people, i.e. British Government, BBC and practically every newspaper (the exception being the Sunday Herald). It was called "Project Fear" [0, 1]
>> [EU citizens] have lived here more than long enough to become citizens and not chosen to do so.
Woa. Hang on a minute. Why do I have to become a UK citizen in order to be able to partake in the decisions that directly affect my life?
I've lived here for over a decade now. I studied here, I work here, I pay taxes, I pay contributions to the NHS. Why does it make any difference whether I'm a UK citizen or not?
In fact, the only difference between myself with British citizenship and myself without, is ... whether I have the British citizenship or not.
And yet that difference determines whether I can vote or not. How does that make any sense? It's exactly as reasonable as granting the right to vote to only men, or only Christians, or something completely unacceptable like that.
I live in this country that wants to call itself democratic. Like, it just made a point of how it loves democracy so much it's willing to jump off a cliff singing God Save the Queen because it didn't think it had enough democracy.
So how is it all so democratic that a few million active, productive people living here don't get to have a say in their own affairs?
I can't recall ever hearing of a campaign for residents, as distinct from citizens, to have the vote in parliamentary elections. You were and still are free to become a citizen or even decline to become one and campaign for voting rights for permanent residents. Political change doesn't normally come from just asking nicely. It took a fight to win the vote for working class men and another fight, not just a war of words but physical violence, to get the franchise extended to women. I'm not saying you should start stockpiling weapons but you could at least do some campaigning.
Disclaimer: I'm not a British citizen, just an expat of another country.
The difference between a citizen and a resident is that a citizen has made a long term commitment to the country. A citizen has decided that they want to be a part of the country, with all of the privileges and responsibilities that entails.
Take a spectrum of immigration statii:
- Temporary resident working on a visa or similar.
- Long term resident working with indefinite leave to stay or permanent residence.
- Citizen
Now imagine what would happen if they can vote:
- Temporary resident: Doesn't necessarily care about long term effects of their vote on the country. Could vote for short term changes that benefit them then leave. Isn't integrated with the culture and could cause discontent.
- Long term resident: Hasn't committed to a long term relationship with the country so is essentially the same as a temporary resident. Has the option to become a citizen __and has chosen not to__.
Why shouldn't you agree to commit to the country long term if you want the privilege of affecting it long term?
All fine points, but generally in democracy, the time to educate the voting public and raise issues like disenfranchisement is before the vote, not after.
Obviously, the losing side of any politcal battle will always want a redo. And obviously the winners will always prefer to keep the results as they are. Letting the losers try again until they win is like a DOS attack.
Btw, I totally agree though that leaving something like succession up to a simple majority is crazy. Seems 2/3 is more appropriate for big things like this, going to war, and what not.
It depends on what you understand by citizenship. As non-Brits they don't have a long-term interest in the future of Britain. For instance, we can assume they will likely have family connections elsewhere. They can leave when they like. They are in the UK for what they can get out of it, as of now. That is not meant pejoratively. It is what I or anyone else would do. If we have the freedom to do so, we plot a life trajectory (including where to locate) with respect to our best interests.
I wonder where do you get the 10% figure; how on earth would you know that in the three days since polling? It's difficult to know what to make of folk who given three months of intense EU/Out/In discussion across the land suddenly discover that they didn't think their vote mattered or that they couldn't make up their minds and tossed a coin. They need a lesson in how democracy works.
It was expected that the pound would fall and markets react negatively in view of the immediate uncertainty. Aside from that, what's happened that would make someone say "I didn't know it would be like this"?
Even Paul Krugman, a would-be remainer says " I’m finding myself less horrified by Brexit than one might have expected – in fact, less than I myself expected. The economic consequences will be bad, but not, I’d argue, as bad as many are claiming. The political consequences might be much more dire; but many of the bad things I fear would probably have happened even if Remain had won."
It depends on what you understand by citizenship. As non-Brits they don't have a long-term interest in the future of Britain. For instance, we can assume they will likely have family connections elsewhere. They can leave when they like. They are in the UK for what they can get out of it, as of now. That is not meant pejoratively. It is what I or anyone else would do. If we have the freedom to do so, we plot a life trajectory (including where to locate) with respect to our best interests.
I wonder where do you get the 10% figure; how on earth would you know that in the three days since polling? It's difficult to know what to make of folk who given three months of intense EU/Out/In discussion across the land suddenly discover that they didn't think their vote mattered or that they couldn't make up their minds and tossed a coin. They need a lesson in how democracy works.
It was expected that the pound would fall and markets react negatively in view of the immediate uncertainty. Aside from that, what's happened that would make someone say "I didn't know it would be like this"?
Even Paul Krugman, a would-be remainer says " I’m finding myself less horrified by Brexit than one might have expected – in fact, less than I myself expected. The economic consequences will be bad, but not, I’d argue, as bad as many are claiming. The political consequences might be much more dire; but many of the bad things I fear would probably have happened even if Remain had won."
Indeed, to complete outcry, and I believe the post has been stripped of its powers since (though could be wrong). It certainly wouldn't fly 4 decades later.
Completely different to the UK situation though - the GG was acting according to the Australian constitution. UK law is obviously different. The Australian constitution only underwent a tiny change in 1977 that doesn't change the GG's role. I think it would indeed "fly".
If the situation was repeated (a PM who cannot pass supply bills and won't follow advice to dissolve), then the GG would absolutely do the same thing again. Why would they not? What has changed?
That's less clear: it depends on how she goes about it. Consider this:
a) She convinces the Leader of the Commons to bring a motion to dismiss parliament (under the 2011 Fixed Term Parliaments Act this requires a 2/3rds majority).
b) She convinces the members of the Privy Council to form a National Coalition, and to stand as such for election on a manifesto centred on EU membership.
Alternatively, she finds someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons across party lines, and gets agreement across party lines (likely through the Privy Council) to support the appointment, and duly appoints them Prime Minister (this is roughly how Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940, with no election held since 1935 and none would be held till 1945). The cross-party Government then formed can then seek a mandate to remain in the EU in a number of ways (such as then falling to an election or a second referendum).
One shouldn't understate the amount of influence the Queen can have, and maintain, if she plays her cards right.
> each one carries with it the implication that a direct democratic mandate, to leave the EU, is ignored.
And there's the problem.
There IS a case to be made that a democratic majority with a margin of merely 4% is something that can, in fact, be ignored. In the United States, we have these lovely Senate filibusters, for instance, which everyone loves to complain about when their party isn't the one doing them. And vetos. And Supreme Court smackdowns.
The UK has at least a couple of these it could theoretically apply (e.g. the fact that Parliament isn't bound by the results, and some long-shot ones like Scottish Parliament or the royal veto that they apparently never use) but when you put something on the ballot like that and make the entire nation vote, it kind of sends a message that this is something that's going to be respected. If there's a whole new Parliament in a few months that may be different? But substantial fallout will remain.
Yep but you can't retrospectively apply a different standard because the result you didn't like happened. Getting such a standard applied in the beginning would also have been tricky given recent precedent (the AV and Scottish referenda) that viewed 50% + 1 as sufficient. Given the Scottish government want a second IndyRef they weren't going to sit by and allow a supermajority clause added to this referendum.
I posted this on Facebook, so i'll paste it verbatim, but i'll acknowledge that whilst it is indeed grasping futilely, it's also the case that even before the referendum took place, I thought it was a stupidly binary and dangerous question to be asking people:
----
Some people voted leave for less immigration, others for more balanced (non EU-biased) immigration, it seems that these goals are fundamentally at odds. This isn't the only example of polarising goals that people have expressed. Until a referendum is put forward that actually allows people to express the end result they're hoping for (leaving the EU just seems to be the first step, not the goal for most people), I strongly believe it's undemocratic to proceed under the false argument that the people have spoken.
For what it's worth, the point i'm making is the same as the argument in favour of alternative vote (or single transferable vote) vs first-past-the-post elections. The way in which people are polled is insufficient for ascertaining what they actually want. A binary choice doesn't work in a world with more than two possible opinions.
Democracy is all about individual power rather than the collective outcome. Of course remain supporters are free to pursue continued membershpip using any legal method open to them. And the Brexit gang are free to try and stop them. IMHO the Brexiteers would almost certainly win the argument so it is not worth pursuing.
On immigration I worry that we will see a crack down on non-EU immigration to allow continued EU immigration. People will argue that they are closer to us culturally, and they would be right. It is hard to see how the government can avoid appeasing ant-immigrant sentiment at this point.
I agree 100% that we need a better voting system. I can't stand UKIP, but I absoutely think they should have more representation in parliment. It would be good to use this as an oppurtunity to reform the house of lords into being fully elected. Give them the authority that the EU held in terms of long term regulation. We need an institution that can take a long term view which we will sorely miss post Brexit.
Several political leaders admitted that they lied during the election, therefore people voted based on lies. Since the majority isn't that big (less than 52%) is would be acceptable to not immediately follow through.
It's as big as a constitutional change and such change usually require more than 50% to be adopted.
Like David Cameron and his promise to invoke article 50 last Friday? Or George Osborne and his punishment budget?
There were dreadful lies on both sides. Personally I treated the entire campaign period as a sideshow we'd have been better off without, the issues and opinions about EU membership are far deeper rooted than the last few weeks of noisy bickering.
Further, the constitutional changes that got us in were not subject to supermajority conditions, in fact no political party that implemented them had an equivalent mandate behind them to either side of the referendum vote.
I disagree. Leave's lies were on a completely different (larger) scale. Most fundamentally, Leave claimed that Brexit would not be an economic disaster, which they cannot possibly have known — especially since they very clearly have no plan at all for what's next.
Did Remain have a lie painted on the side of their bus? A lie printed on huge posters at press conferences? A lie that they rode back from on the morning of the results?
I have not seen anyone admit that they lied - I have seen several point out that what they said when asked about a policy was more nuanced than what was a slogan, but that is not lieing. Can you please reference where you saw a politician actually "admit they lied"?
You've fallen victim to media spin. Farage did not claim this. In case you read the articles differently, Farage wasn't part of the "Leave campaign". He was part of the Leave.EU campaign. The media want to portray Farage as a hypocrite, so they write their articles to make it seem like he is. But understand the distinction between the two different campaigns, read the article carefully, and you'll see that the article doesn't actually say this.
I'm just critically interpreting the facts as presented in articles you linked, which as I pointed out do not support your claim. At least your newest citation allows readers to judge for themselves. I think it's a stretch to claim that it was a campaign promise [from Farage], but that's up to you to decide.
I voted Remain, BTW, and don't support UKIP. But I'm not prepared to grab pitchforks on a tenuous claim of hypocrisy either.
I see what you mean, and I can see how it can be a stretch to blame Farage (although I don't believe Boris will keep that promise either). Farage took the risk by promoting himself towards the same goal and is paying for that.
The problem is that many people voted based on that and many other lies and are feeling betrayed. Now the guilt will vanish as usual... will be no one's fault.. but somehow someone will be able to fulfil their agenda.
this is 100% correct. It is very difficult to envisage a scenario where this rubicon can be uncrossed. From a confidence point of view, for example, the damage is almost certainly already done, because even if Brexit does not happen, the political and stability implications for Britain are bad, deterring investment. It is no wonder that despite all of these scenarios being bandied about, sterling is declining another several points today and British banks are dropping another 10% after 15% already on Friday.
> the implication that a direct democratic mandate, to leave the EU, is ignored
At least insofar it's true that many people just voted to "send a signal" but didn't actually think they'd get a majority, that strikes me as going by the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it, so to speak.
> If this occurs we can expect politics in the UK to become dangerously divided and unsettled, and the likes of UKIP to become a seriously large party in the next parliament, not to mention civil unrest in various forms.
Admittedly, both these points are kind of anecdotal, I don't have an overview or a glass ball either. But still, I don't really get the "it might be a mistake, but you have to go through with it" stuff.
"the likes of UKIP to become a seriously large party in the next parliament, not to mention civil unrest in various forms"
I think UKIP will sit back and let the next Conservative government fail to deliver on some key Leave promises - I think they'll be targeting the 2020 election on a "the Conservatives didn't deliver on what Leave promised but UKIP will" platform.
The next Conservative leader will probably offer Farage a peerage to try and neutralise him but I suspect he is far too clever to fall for such an obvious ploy.
The trouble with that "democratically expressed opinon" was that a) it was a 2% majority b) 36% of eligible voters voted for leaving, and c) some proportion of those may well have either not undertood what they were voting for, or were misled.
That, combined with the fact that things are currently going to hell in a hand basket (look at the FTSE250, comprised of business that make most their money within the UK, as opposed to the FTSE100 which doesn't), makes the out vote at best questonable right now.
Be that as it may, I voted remain, but only beause now was not a good time to leave and nobody seemed to have a plan for exit. But I have faith in Britain - what I hope will happen is that we will accept freedom of movement, and that we will bloody well deal with it properly this time by shutting up the racists and investing in intrastructure, health and housing such that the cause of all the mess that led up to all this doesn't happen again. Fuck austerity this time - spend like there's no tomorrow, because frankly there might not be a tommorrow otherwise. Whethe that actually happens in my lifetime, I doubt, but hey oh.
> c) some proportion of those may well have either not undertood what they were voting for, or were misled.
You could make the same argument about those that voted to remain.
> That, combined with the fact that things are currently going to hell in a hand basket (look at the FTSE250, comprised of business that make most their money within the UK, as opposed to the FTSE100 which doesn't), makes the out vote at best questonable right now.
Not really. It's only natural that there will be some short term downward moves in the markets due to uncertainty about the future. But we don't know what the medium and long term holds.
I think he's referring to Leave's argument that the EU was not in fact acting in the best interests of the people. This is because it is "undemocratic" - undeniable facts such as you can't buy straight bananas, re-cycle a teabag or have the freedom to trawl all the fish you want from British waters were, for example, put forward as proofs.
They have made many dubious claims based on questionable numbers and a large dose of speculation. We were bombarded with remarkably similar scaremongering drivel like this, just as we were during the Scottish referendum.
- "Brexit 'could cause mortgage rises', says Cameron"[1]
- "Every household would be £4,300 a year worse off by 2030"[2]
- "Taxes would go up if we leave the EU"[2]
- "House prices will fall by up to 18 per cent by 2018"[2]
- "Inflation would be 2.3 percentage points higher if we leave"[2]
- "Leaving the EU would wipe £32,000 off the average pensioner’s wealth"[2]
- "Food bills would rise by an average of £220 a year"[2]
Indeed - nobody knows anything about the future so its' a moot point.
And agreed the UK's short-term econonomy is pretty much the least of its problems. But do you have a scenario in which it ends up peachy keen for the UK and Europe by about 2020? I sure as hell can't think of one.
Boris Johnson stated this morning that he didn't think immigration anxiety was why people voted for Brexit.
This may well come as a surprise to many Brexit voters. It certainly sets out his stall for what he hopes to achieve, presumably he'll happily sign up for mass immigration as long as the finance industry gets opt-outs from EU fraud investigations or whatever his backers want to get out of this. Re-invigorating northern England's former industrial heartlands is nowhere on his list, and the anger of the people who live there can in no way harm the Conservative party in the UKs current parliamentary system.
we can expect politics in the UK to become dangerously divided and unsettled
Other way round. UK politics was already divided and unsettled, it's just that an illusion of stability and consensus has been pasted on the front. The cardboard facade has collapsed when asked to bear weight - just look at the leadership chaos!
This referendum and its result is really a result of dozens of problems which have been pushed under the rug. It's all the unexploded bombs of nasty controversies that were never properly defused, just piled up in a corner.
The "immigration" question covers lots of nasty questions, for example. What is the EU doing about refugees? Why has Sangatte festered for so long? What should the right response to radical islamist violence be? What is the economic function of towns whose businesses collapsed in the 70s and have not improved? What's going on in the "crap towns" like Great Yarmouth and Boston, Lincs.? Why are voters struggling to get GP appointments and school places?
What is the UK constitution? Don't say "unwritten", because that's not true; instead it's scattered bits and pieces from Factortame to the Good Friday Agreement. That's why we're having this discussion about Scotland blocking it - it's not clear how any of this works. Is it really a good idea that Parliament can make big constitutional changes by simple majority (e.g. Fixed Term Parliaments Act)? Why do we have so many different voting systems but use the crap one for the important election? Does the House of Lords count as "undemocratic" compared to, say, the EU commission?
What is the proper relationship of the non-English parts of the UK to the Union? Scotland regards Westminster as the distant, unaccountable elite and finds the distant, unnacountable Brussels elite more cordial. Despite the fisheries problem.
What should UK economic and employment policy be? Are we funding the current account deficit by selling houses to foreigners from kleptocratic states and China? Are we too dependent on financial services which are too centralised in London?
Was Greece treated fairly? What about Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain? What about the Polish constitutional crisis? Is Hungary run by Nazis? What if the Austrian election had gone differently?
Did you know the EU has a Trump-style border wall? It's in Bulgaria.
This twitter gives the view from Northern Ireland, which was "dangerously divided and unsettled" for years with malign neglect from the UK government: https://twitter.com/shockproofbeats
I'm sure that you, personally, have answers to all these questions. My point is that there is no broad consensus on all of them, they've nagged at the UK for years, and now they've all been made relevant.
I feel it is usually assumed somewhat nonchalantly that the Scots could split off as an independent nation. One signal of the Brexit vote is that nationalists (or empireists) will be represented stronger in future elections. I can see a (neo-imperialistic) future where it is in the interest of England to not let anyone split off and fight for that with all means. I think the hardline will be Northern Ireland but strategically speaking it would make sense to not allow precedent and keep Scotland in.
Legally, as far as I understand no. But politically? Almost certainly.
If Scotland could remain in the EU (By remaining, not re-joining, which Madrid would oppose) then they almost certainly would. This means that "brexit" would imply the end of the "United" in the UK and I believe that would be enough of a change in circumstances that a) leave politicians could hold off invoking Article 50 without losing face or b) a referendum for the new conditions could be held.
So the Scottish Parliament don't really need to veto Brexit to stop it, they just need to threaten to leave the UK and remain in the EU to d oso.
The new conditions of Brexit (which really were known before but likely not phrased as such) are "Should England and Wales leave the UK and form the United Kingdom of England and Wales, and then leave the EU?". I doubt that's a very popular idea.
NI, despite voting remain, is very unlikely to want to leave the UK.
Scotland 'remaining' in the EU is far from a done deal, we have yet to hear whether the EU would accept it - it has no record of running its own economy to speak of.
It does indeed, and there's going to have to be some careful figuring-stuff-out going on, depending on exactly what path the EU and UK take now. There is precedent for open borders between EU and non-EU countries, Norway and Sweden for instance. But that situation is not exactly analagous and I'm not going to pretend I think there's an easy solution.
As a Brit I find the while thing fascinating too! You can probably tell I have significant leave leanings even though I voted to remain, and that's because I kinda wanted to see all this unfolding!
> There is precedent for open borders between EU and non-EU countries, Norway and Sweden for instance.
That's not a precedent since Norway is an EEA/EFTA member and actually even part of Schengen. However, as provision for joining the EEA/EFTA, Norway agreed on free movement rules, something that the Brexit campaign has been campaigning against. They've been backtracking on that issue, but I'm still curious how they'll square that circle.
Scotland can't leave the UK and remain in the EU. They would have to become independent and then begin the application process, which could take years. There's a real possibility that some EU members will oppose their application.
EDIT:
"UK Government could use Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty to apply for a treaty change which would allow Scotland to become a member when it formally becomes independent in 2016.
The Article 48 route has been dismissed by the UK Government and it would also require unanimous approval of all the other 28 EU members. Instead the more likely route is Article 49 which requires Scotland to apply for membership."
This is just from some light Googling, some more informed people may have more details
I wonder if they could do something crazy and structure Brexit as as England, Wales, and northern Ireland seceding from the UK, without ever actually invoking the exit procedures.
It would probably never happen and would be incredibly silly but it's interesting to think about if it could.
We might not have to leave the uk and rejoin. There's precedence for regions of countries not being in the EU while other are.
Additionally the UK is a union between Scotland and England so we'd technically not be leaving, but choosing to break the union, at which point the UK ceases to exist and becomes Scotland and England (and it's associated region/principalities etc). Since the UK is the member of the EU (not it constituent countries) if the union is broken before the UK leaves the EU then it's a legally grey area as the country that was a member of the EU no longer exists.
England does automatically inherit all treaties that applied to the UK, both countries would need to renegotiate international treaties as two newly separate countries. Though of course England being the bigger country has a lot more weight in these matters. But England would not be RUK, it would be England, and many matters such as EU membership are with UK.
Perhaps, but it would be a different situation from a completely new country joining. The Spanish have back pedalled on their previous threats to do so. Not sure about Germany. I'm not say it would definitely happen, only that it would be an unprecedented situation so we can't rely on assumptions either way.
I agree. At this point all assumptions based on the status quo ante have to be treated with great caution. The Spanish may very well accept that the UK/Scotland situation is now different enough from their own that any contagion is unlikely.
If there's one thing we should all be learning from this it's that the 'respectable' media around the world is controlled by people who have little or nothing in common with large chunks of the population and simply cannot be trusted to reliably report on the matter of the EU. The non-tabloid media in the UK were almost united in the idea that leaving the EU was unthinkable, and even post-vote are now in a state of absolute denial about it.
If you want to know what's really going on then the best tool available is still opinion polling (ideally combined with on-the-street interviews to get additional depth).
Polling in Germany is showing rapidly rising anti-Euro feeling since August 2015, if we take AfD support as a proxy for "we don't want to bail out the feckless deficit countries anymore". AfD polling shifts are on a very smooth upward trajectory when averaged and the AfD is anti-Euro.
Given this trajectory and the grumbling the Greek bailouts caused it would be very difficult to convince the Germans to allow the normal EU rules on deficits in joining countries to be broken: they are already slapping down suggestions from Italy that Brexit means austerity policies must be loosened. Why should Germans pay for the Scots?
Germany and many other EU countries (and also, by the way, most European citizens) want European integration to continue.
If an advanced, liberal, english speaking country like Scotland declares its wish to remain or join the EU, that could be seen as a welcome vote in favor of the European idea.
I think it is in Germany's (and Spain's) interest to woo Scotland and make it as easy as possible for them to remain in the EU or rejoin in a seamless fashion.
Spain wouldn't block Scotland's entry to the EU, it comes down to fishing rights, amongst other things:
"However there is another reason closer to the heart of the Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy that Spain won’t block Scottish accession to the EU. Interestingly, during the last independence referendum Rajoy was asked three times in an interview with El Pais newspaper whether he would veto Scotland, and three times he refused to reply. He refused to reply because he didn’t want to encourage Scottish independence by telling the truth.
Mariano Rajoy comes from Galicia, and represents the city of A Coruña in the Spanish parliament, the Cortes. The mainstay of the local economy is the fishing industry, and big fishing interests are the main funders of Rajoy’s own local party. The Galician fishing fleet depends on its access to Scottish waters in order to feed Spain’s enormous appetite for seafood, and any attempt by Spain to veto Scottish membership of the EU would threaten that access. Rajoy would then find that his local party’s bank balance was as empty as the fish counter in a Spanish supermarket. He’s not going to let that happen."
> Scotland can't leave the UK and remain in the EU. They would have to become independent and then begin the application process, which could take years.
There is precedence for the opposite. That said, Scotland on its own would have to demonstrate that it can be a member, but it's far from clear that they would have to reapply. Repplying would almost certainly fail because Madrid would block it.
There is a link on the wiki page for the Auld Alliance [1] that suggests that it is still in effect, it wasn't revoked by the Act of Union with England and Wales.
Maybe the Scots can just declare themselves to be French and stay in the EU that way.
Just thinking out loud - probably wandering into OT territory here, but ...
If Spain was to block an independent Scotland's entry to the EU would they feel the need to provide an explanation? If so would they say the real reason - "we don't want to set a precedent and embolden Catalonia's bid for independence" - or would they weasel out of it somehow?
I was just about to update my comment saying that I know they're not obliged, I was just curious that's all. It would be a bit of a blow for the now mostly pro-independence, but pro-EU Scots to have battled through all this only to be vetoed because of similar issues in a completely separate country.
Given the chaos this whole vote has caused to everyone else, I'm not sure if we have the right to be upset about this however.
Will it matter to Scotland's goal of joining the EU after getting independence from the UK that they would have the worst deficit in the developing world [0] and have, in the past, only been a net contributor to the UK economy in three of the last fifteen years [1]?
It seems to me that the EU might require Scotland to make huge cuts to public spending. Would Scotland's independence be worth more to them than say free university tuition? I guess the SNP would avoid making cuts to certain nationally loved items, but something would surely have to give; either they would get higher taxes, or public spending would have to fall.
Of course, the EU might agree to let them remain and also allow them their deficit, but there looks to be an increasing strain on the EU's richest members, so who knows whether that would be allowed.
Obviously they won't force the UK into staying in the EU but that's definitely not what's important here. They are just starting UK's internal discrepancies which could seriously damage the union and Westminster won't be able to do much about it. England is already a well developed country which can't accept to be under the EU's power, while Scotland and others know that they're path to economic prosperity leads to the EU and its package of regulations and standards. As they France, Germany and the EU Commission likely to be tough on the UK, they are doing everything they can to stop the future bleeding.
All this in one brilliant graphics: http://i64.tinypic.com/1zdu79u.jpg
To quote a Tory MP: "Nicola Sturgeon seems to be the only one who knows what's she's doing".
Warning of a constitutional crisis is good tactics. It probably will not lead to canceling brexit, though it will probably break the 1998 devolution law and change how Scotland can "sell" independence and its claim to stay in the EU.
So it looks like this is either to lay ground for a "fast track" EU access due to special circumstances - OR getting special new rights within the UK to compensate leaving the EU.
Definitely the former. That and possibly an attempt at a second indyref if the current momentum doesn't die. I live in Edinburgh, one of the areas with the highest No vote in the indyref, and pretty much everyone I talk to who voted No would strongly consider a Yes vote. Depending how the situation in westminster develops, this might calm down or it could get stronger.
But a second referendum would force the situation to be analysed a lot more carefully. And that situation would not be a strong argument for leaving, no matter how much the Scots might like the idea of the EU.
You presume the referendum will be based on sound analysis. If there's one thing the EUref has shown it's that you don't need sound analysis. It also depends heavily on how the UK does in the coming year. The UK needs to be economically and politically powerful enough that it's not worth giving up for self determination. It doesn't need to be a better deal, it has to be better enough to defeat romantic notions of independence.
There you go: assuming the analysis of leave voters was not sound.
Many voters made a very straightforward analysis: "the EU means I compete against an essentially infinite supply of labour, I can't do that, therefore we should get out of the EU so we can restrict immigration again".
You may not agree with this reasoning or you may feel the various other benefits of the EU outweigh them in your personal circumstances, but it's not an illogical analysis: they think leaving will make them economically better off and there are millions of such voters. It's actually quite difficult to mount a robust economic argument against this idea: you have to argue that the EU will erect such serious trade barriers that all the jobs disappear. But a lot of these people are working in local service industries anyway, they aren't selling to the EU, so you end up arguing a very indirect path to them personally suffering which basically rests on "the EU will be such bastards that the entire UK economy collapses", which then stirs up patriotic sentiments very strongly (reminds people of the war). And you rapidly end up in economic wonk territory because the details of the damage depend so much on details of the final deal, etc. The public, quite rightly, does not trust economists due to their track record of getting the big things wrong.
The economic rationale for Scotland leaving the UK and joining the EU is much less clear. The big one is public spending. The Scots may not like it but their country is subsidised by the UK to a huge degree. The spending deficit alone is the same size as ALL Scottish NHS spending. The economic argument from "lose the subsidies from the English, public services are cut because oil is cheap" is very direct and much more easily understood. Scotland does not have a problem with massive immigration. People like the idea of the EU but what specific economic problem would it solve for them?
> The Scots may not like it but their country is subsidised by the UK to a huge degree.
^This!
I am a Scot, living in Scotland and I voted out (and against independence) but a great many of my peers over the years wanted independence "because Westminster/England".
It was the most childish of reasons.
The economic argument wasn't there the last time and it absolutely isn't there this time but last time it wasn't pressed much... this time it will be but once the Indy Propaganda machine gets going then all bets are off.
I was referencing the anti-expert rhetoric that was popular among the leave campaign. I'm sure many leave voters had their reasons but there was also a significant anti-expert segment.
Do you have current statistics on the Scottish spending deficit? Last time I looked there was one but it was far from huge, especially when you account for defence and administration savings from being a small country.
I wanted out of the EU to have control of the future of our country in the hands of the people we elected... I have no control over the elites in Europe.
That was the primary (possibly only!) factor in my decision.
Do you have control over the elites in Westminster? Be realistic, we can obviously not influence who gets to be the next head of state, nor who gets placed into the Tory/Labour safe seats by the inner parties, nor who gets chosen by those people to run the civil service and our lives.
Even if you think that you have influence over who your SNP MP is - he/she won't ever be in the UK government, they will never have a say on anything, resigned to jeer from the opposition backbenches. It is the epitome of disenfranchisement.
You have elected MEPs that make many of the decisions. Additionally in the UK currently you have a FPTP system that is arguably undemocratic and an unelected House of Lords (which I don't necessarily disagree with) so surely there are bigger easier fish to fry.
I still see major obstacles to indyref 2: Scotland would have to join the Euro and Schengen, and build a border with England. That's choosing work over family and I bet Sturgeon doesn't underestimate the risk of a 2nd (and final) "stay".
Also: borders are sacred in Europe. States don't want to split/remodel per a 60 years old tradition.
There is a very strong case for indy Scotland (and i support it) but I admire that Sturgeon is smart enough to try and get the best of all possible outcomes.
> Scotland would have to join the Euro and Schengen
Theoretically, yes, Scotland has to join the Euro. The EU treaties as they stand today, however, would prevent that from happening any time soon. Scotland would need its own currency first, and then to join ERM2, and meet the conditions for several years, and so on. And, like Sweden, Scotland could choose to deliberately not join ERM2.
Schengen is more interesting, particularly the future potential situation in Ireland.
Seen from another EU country, saddened as I am by the UK leaving the Union, my take on this is:
1) Even if the referendum is advisory, given the importance of the issue it would be difficult to dismiss it and do as if it didn't happen. I'd be embarrassed to make decisions with leaders that are willing to ignore such address from their people.
2) It's better for the UK to leave as quickly as possible because uncertainty is bad. It's bad for business and for anybody. See the hours we are wasting writing about it ;-) Furthermore uncertainty could prompt unrest, especially in the UK (you voted, you won, you're ignored, you get angrier and angrier).
3) There is no reason not to keep being friends, even if a little disillusioned, and keep doing business together. There will be some extra barriers and cross border exchanges will decrease, but IMHO the UK should become as one of those other European countries that don't belong to the EU. No need to be punitive.
4) If Scotland wants to stay in the EU they should either get independent or make some clear deal with the UK, and the EU to accept them. I understand but not approve the reason for Spain not liking the idea, but they'll be frowned at quite a lot.
5) There are territories around the world, some virtually independent from the country that claims rights on them. There are some of the especially in Asia, maybe for face saving reasons. Could Scotland be the next one? Even London is possible, but much more difficult to implement IHMO.
That said, we are human beings and we are used to bend the written words to our wills. If we agree on the result any act or constitutional chart can be interpreted to match it or changed.
If it falls apart it will be because of its internal divisions, not because of external punishment. Actually, punishment often strengthens the bonds among the punished especially if it's deemed to be unjust. And a feeling of injustice could drive other countries to dislike the Union even more. It's a double edged sword that I wouldn't wield.
Hidden in the same discussion paper is the fact that the Northern Ireland (and Welsh) parliaments would also have to ratify the new laws required to remove EU law from their legal systems.
The Northern Ireland parliament would be incompetent if they voted for it. Removing the EU from Northern Ireland would break the Good Friday agreement and has the real potential to throw them back into war.
253 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 226 ms ] threadSo in other words, no. The UK Parliament is sovereign over the Scottish one, although by convention they do not usually override it.
Acts of Parliament cannot be struck down in the courts, in general. This is one of the cornerstones of Parliamentary Supremacy. I believe the only case where they can be is where they are found in contradiction to obligations of the EU treaties.
There's a joke going around here in London that we should devolve with them forming Scotlondon and set up immigration controls at M25 junctions. It's becoming pretty clear that a lot of exit voters never imagined it could actually happen and are suffering buyer's remorse.
Is it just London that wanted to remain? What about the other cities?
I haven't followed the race closely, but I'm guessing it was the country bumpkins mostly in favor of leaving?
Despite much of the media describing this as the north voting to leave, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Newcastle upon Tyne, Harrogate and York all voted to remain. Further south there's also Bristol, Cardiff, Cambridge, Oxford.
There are cities and urban areas that voted to leave, but generally speaking it does seem to be that the areas with lower population density voted to leave. I'd be interested to see a visualisation which examined this correlation.
There was an interview with people at a market on the BBC yesterday and a stall holder was selling Spanish cherries. He voted brexit, but had a haunted look on his face and said he never believed it would happen. The journalist asked if he regretted it, he said something like "No..... but I wonder whether I made the right decision.". So that would be yes, then.
Interactive results map: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028
There's the people saying "I never thought leave would win, I just didn't want remain to win overwhelmingly"
There's the people saying "Even if leave did win it will never happen, so I just voted for the protest option"
There's the people who said "wait, we never knew about all these things, we would have voted differently if we had known".
https://twitter.com/BestoftheMail/status/746716159559483392
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
Headline should summarize the main points in the news article as a statement, rather than posing a question to the reader.
The question no one seems to have thought to answer until now, is whether Boris or any other politician has a mandate to dissolve the UK in order to do so. Does anyone believe that if the vote had been "Should England leave the UK and the EU" it would have won majority?
Scotland is effectively a one party system, which is quite dangerous, never mind that the common man/woman do not see this.
The consequences for leaving the UK are well known. Companies aren't going to stay in because of Europe. They are going to move over the border.
Also. The UK rescued the Scottish banks. Scotland will have to take on half this debt. Will the EU bail out Scotland? Will there be Greece style terms?
So with the debt, companies leaving, not getting much tax receipts. How will Scotland pay for the FREE tuition, FREE healthcare, FREE this and FREE that, they like to promise? Is the EU going to be sending them FREE monies?
Finally and this is where I tend to laugh the most. Once Scotland joins Europe and the Euro. How is Scotland an independent state in Europe? How have Scottish people not realised this? Go look at Greece!
Scotland won't be able to control her economy. The EU bureaucrats will not do what's in her best interests. They'll do what's in THEIR best interests!
So what happens when Scotland no longer has control of her finances, can't pay for the FREE stuff. Oh and then slips into recession and the UK is doing better off? Yeah, that's the joke.
Oh and the UK won't let Scotland use the pound. I can tell you that now!
But you're going to need a new one: the euro just became a lot more credible than the pound as a currency for Scotland.
I'm not claiming to have an answer one way or another there, but it seems a bit of a risk to just assume that.
There was a question last time about whether Scotland would automatically inherit EU membership or would have to apply for accession. IIRC, the EU wouldn't answer the question directly because Westminster refused to ask them. I'm guessing Nicola Sturgeon might be keen for this question to be cleared up.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/25/brexit-...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36629331
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/sturgeon-see... We knew all along that Scotland was strongly pro-EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-3561...
And that the only reason a bunch of people in Scotland voted to stay in the UK was because of promises about staying in EU.
If the question of post-Independence EU membership is resolved on the EU side I'd love to know, during the last referendum the EU was pretty clear there would be no automatic entry for Scotland. But whether that was true or politically driven... guess we'll find out.
The consequences for leaving the EU were well-known and kicked in within hours of the votes being tallied last week, but didn't stop the English from voting to do it anyway. And if we're going to allow the English to be that reckless on the basis of a single simple-majority vote, I don't see why we oughtn't let the Scots do the same.
No. Sturgeon is just playing up to her base.
I suspect it's even more simple – Sturgeon thinks that Scotland should be part of the EU, is backed by a clear majority of voters, and will take all steps possible to try and keep the country in the EU.
Scotland is effectively a one party system, which is quite dangerous, never mind that the common man/woman do not see this.
Scotland currently has a parliament in which no single party has a majority. That's essentially as far from a one-party state as it's possible to get.
You might call it a one-party state in the sense of representation as Westminster, but that's down to an outdated electoral system more than anything else.
The consequences for leaving the UK are well known.
That might have been the case (though I don't think it was) but it's clear that those consequences are likely to be substantially different now. The UK that existed at the time of the last referendum will no longer exist.
Companies aren't going to stay in because of Europe. They are going to move over the border.
I'm not sure there is any evidence of that at this point. Few companies said they would do that at the time of the last referendum, so it's difficult to see why this would have changed.
Also. The UK rescued the Scottish banks. Scotland will have to take on half this debt. Will the EU bail out Scotland? Will there be Greece style terms?
The UK rescued the UK's banks – not 'Scottish banks'. These were banks that were Scottish in origin, but with most work conducted in the City of London, and which paid taxes to the UK treasury. It would be obviously preposterous to expect Scotland to bail out London-based banks, given that it does not receive the associated tax revenue.
So with the debt, companies leaving, not getting much tax receipts. How will Scotland pay for the FREE tuition, FREE healthcare, FREE this and FREE that, they like to promise? Is the EU going to be sending them FREE monies?
Your argument seems to presuppose that the Scottish economy will collapse, which seems unlikely. Maybe it will result in a tightening of budgets such that some things which are currently free at point of use will no longer be so.
Finally and this is where I tend to laugh the most. Once Scotland joins Europe and the Euro. How is Scotland an independent state in Europe? How have Scottish people not realised this? Go look at Greece!
People in Scotland are well aware of that. There is a trade-off of sovereignty for stability and economics; Scotland might be subject to EU law, but in exchange it gains access to the single market. It's possible to be both an independent state and agree to international treaties.
Oh and the UK won't let Scotland use the pound. I can tell you that now!
The UK has no say on who uses Sterling.
That's an extremely common fallacy. The banks were bailed out not by the countries they were based in but by the proportion of their wealth that belonged to citizens of each countries (roughly, it is slightly more complicated than that). Only a small proportion of the "Scottish Banks" wealth was actually that of Scottish citizens. The majority of it was English wealth along with a few other countries, therefore England would have had to bail out a sizeable chunk to avoid the economic ramifications of these "Scottish Banks" collapsing.
That's an extremely common fallacy. The banks were bailed out not by the countries they were based in but by the proportion of their wealth that belonged to citizens of each countries (roughly, it is slightly more complicated than that). Only a small proportion of the "Scottish Banks" wealth was actually that of Scottish citizens. The majority of it was English wealth along with a few other countries, therefore England would have had to bail out a sizeable chunk to avoid the economic ramifications of these "Scottish Banks" collapsing.
I don't think it's going to happen though.
As such, there are several levels I object to this comment, in particular that we have fair reason to believe the will of the people might have changed in recent days.
Stubbornly following the result of a majority vote is majoritarianism, not democracy.
Nonsense. In the case of an A/B referendum, following the majority vote is democracy.
In a representative democracy, all you vote for is your representative. The rest is politics.
It was one of the main election subjects back in May 2015 to whether to hold the referendum or not. Making whether to follow through another election subject would be wasteful considering leave has the majority.
How would the conservatives pledge? Half of them want out and spent the last few months campaigning for it.
Many Labour areas of the country voted to leave, calling an election would just provide more confusion.
I also don't think it's a good idea to just vote in a government based on 1 aspect
I'd say 2/3, or some requirement for a certain % of the total population.
I'm sure there's been some buyer's remorse among leave voters - but if remain can't win a remain-vs-leave vote, I doubt they'd fare better with a remain-labour-corbyn-vs-leave-conservative-boris vote.
This is the latest, like others it's more of an exercise in denial than it is in reality. Many of these things could come to pass, it's true, but each one carries with it the implication that a direct democratic mandate, to leave the EU, is ignored.
If this occurs we can expect politics in the UK to become dangerously divided and unsettled, and the likes of UKIP to become a seriously large party in the next parliament, not to mention civil unrest in various forms.
The people that voted leave already feel left behind and ignored by the state. Explicitly ignoring them and finding a way to work around their democratically expressed opinion is likely to be a really BAD idea.
--edit-- I notice the points attached to this post going up and down. To those downvoting, can you tell me where/why you disagree?
Maybe not the long grass, but it's a poison chalice for the next leader for the reasons you say - trigger article 50 and Scotland leaves UK and tries to join EU. Don't leave and the majority voters get angry. (And we really don't need them getting angrier since a small minority are angry enough to spray paint Polish community centres; to print and laminate "no more polish vermin" cards. (EDIT: Both these things have happened post-ref.)
Some men just love to watch the world burn. I will never understand this sentiment.
Oh, by the way, "The referendum was non-binding, it's advisory".
2. I voted 'remain'. If this result is ignored for a.second referendum I will vote 'leave' because I believe democratic respect is more important than EU membership.
3. Your 10% figure is pure conjecture.
4. It was a 4% margin.
5. Whether the referendum is legally binding or not has no bearing on its democratic legitimacy, nor on the potential fallout of ignoring the result.
You've got effectively called me a racist there. You realise this is precisely the sort of rhetoric that's lead us here?
The attack on the Polish cultural centre is "rhetoric"? The murder of Jo Cox is rhetoric?
Feel offended, but at least don't try to paint yourself as subject of hate.
But you know full well that the rhetoric I'm talking about, as exemplified by that post, is the attempt to paint everyone with any 'leave' symapthies as a racist.
https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/747080385683660801
I didn't vote leave, for a start.
The shouting down of dissenting opinions by either directly or indirectly labelling them as racist, rather than taking them seriously or even trying to understand them, is one of the factors that has lead to widespread disillusionment with both Westminster and the EU.
That's what I'm saying.
I'm not saying that this is all voters general opinion, but it sure looks like the majority's. I don't hear anyone coming up with plausible arguments and I really wanted to hear them.
There are many good arguments and many bad ones that don't involve hatred of foreigners. "Take our country back" would, to me, meaning regaining full legislative control. Yes, this includes immigration, and yes I would limit that based on skills and an annual quota.
I don't believe for a second this is racist.
And I'm actually curious about what would those skills be as I don't believe that's a reasonable approach..
I feel no need whatsoever to defend myself from accusations of racism based on support of the idea of quota and skill-based immigration.
Anyway, it was your vote, I don't really care.
My idea of racism, it sure is wide.
Who is John to limit people from going wherever they want, while trying to make a living? Does the place where John was born makes him different or special somehow? I consider this racism. Isn't John going to end up making bricks same way as the migrant?
It just sounds way more rational to let the market decide. If immigrants can't find a job in here I'm sure they will leave and move some place else. If they happen to find a job and contribute to our society, then this should mean they have their place here. They should be able to stay and live.
And I'm sure there will be plenty of jobs, without the need for a specific skill set, that they will be willing to do. Jobs that many people in this country refuses to accept, because 'it's just £7 an hour' or because 'I didn't study for this' or whatever.
How dare you paint me in that light when you know absolutely nothing about me or my motives for wanting to remove my country from the clutches of an undemocratic state. Your narrow-mindedness is part of the reason I want out.
This all reeks of bitterness and toy-throwing by those that voted remain.
It's over. We are out. Accept it or feel free to move to a European country... I don't mind.
That we also have them at the UK level is irrelevant to me, we're not having a referendum on that (yet).
Your definition of xenophobic is so wide that it would cover the very existence of nation states within the EU. I don't think all that many people share it.
Then democracy itself is too
> The EU is no less democratic than the UK itself
MPs are elected
> they don't impose on us because we are part of it
Not for much longer.
We've already seen a rise in xenophobic, racist, hate crime.
To use UKIPs line, why aren't moderate anti-immigrationists condemning this violence?
https://twitter.com/sima_kotecha/status/747404962242633728
UKIPer in that thread calls Sima Kotecha a liar, manufacturing fake outrage, when she describes someone calling her a paki.
> We've already seen a rise in xenophobic, racist, hate crime.
Have we?
Yes. We need to National Crime Survey to be certain, but police forces are already reporting an increase in reported incidents, and affected groups are reporting an increase in incidents.
But you have done exactly that, associated anyone bringing up the subject with a fascist ideology.
The probelm is that those who raise objections to immigration never seem to have anything constructive to say after that. So if you're not a racist or xenophbe, how about we have a discussion about allowing freedom of movement but actually SOLVING the problems that have been brought about by it?
The EU are going to demand freedom of movement if we are to stay in the EEA - so what's your answer?
It's not xenophobic to want to curb the net migration number.
And even if UK doesn't remain in EEA, immigration will be a fact of life. Hell, half of all immigrants in the UK don't even come from the EU!
Other countries may well demand a get-out, if they perceive it's to their advantage. And if it is, I'm not sure why the EU should seek to stop them either.
I guess we'll see one way or another.
Unfortunately the most discussed argument is to have sovereignty over who can come into the country and who cannot. That is racism to me.
I wanted sovereignty over everything: Border control is just one part of the whole argument.
> Unfortunately the most discussed argument is to have sovereignty over who can come into the country and who cannot. That is racism to me.
I don't, however, agree with your stance that having a say who can and cannot come into the country is racism. How can you say that it's ok to let anyone in but by saying we need checks and balances is racism?
You may call it discrimination but that takes many forms, not all of them bad.
Racism it is not.
Edit: spelling, clarification
Agreed.
> How can you say that it's ok to let anyone in but by saying we need checks and balances is racism?
Discrimination and racism sound like the same to me. I read people saying they would like to choose based on peoples skills, which is a complete nonsense. Why not let the market decide? People would be able to come in as they like, if they wouldn't get a job nor benefits, I'm sure they would go away. Otherwise, it would mean they have a place in here. Wouldn't that be a wiser decision?
People with pre-existing xenophobic/racist have found vindication & legitimisation with the referendum result.
Many papers today are carrying stories of attacks along these lines, I'm sure the rest will in the following days also.
"It's over. We are out. Accept it or feel free to move to a European country... I don't mind."
The back-pedalling has only just begun. People voted leave for a lot of reasons, and they will have their displeasure at progress heard to differing degrees.
I'd suggest you give it a little while before you take it as read that any side won for the cause they voted for.
At the very least this is unhelpful, and devalues the impact of such words.
While I'd agree such terms are being carelessly banded about, there's no need to go looking for reasons to be offended here.
So it was "just" xenophobia and bigotry. That's all fine then. Carry on.
Overall it's not particularly diverse. One of the larger towns (Cheltenham, pop about 110,000) is 96% White British in last census. Nearby Gloucester is much more diverse - one street has over 70 different languages spoken as a first language, and the school in the UK (but outside London) with most different languages spoken as a first language is in Gloucester.
So, while I believe the UK is diverse it's a bit more complicated than that.
But that makes your point stronger, no? That even in this small (by population, not geographical) rural county there's still a mix of not much diversity and lots of diversity.
I'm reminded of the proposal of "managed decline" for Liverpool in the 80s. Give up rather than fixing the problems. Ironically Liverpool has since prospered enough to vote Remain, although that vote may also be due to the longstanding boycott of the Sun newspaper there.
At least 100 countries are more diverse, ethnically, linguistically, racially, you name it. Germany is among them, so is the US. France is about the same level of diversity. A majority of EU countries are more of a melting pot than the UK, in fact.
The UK is 87% white, 95% English speaking, 92% Christian/atheist/agnostic. It doesn't get much less diverse than that.
And of course the places that aren't homogenous (inner London for instance), all voted "remain" by a huge margin.
Some sharia "courts" operate in the UK, as do Beth Din and Ecclesiastical Courts.
They're mostly for mediation and actual courts feel free to ignore them.
They've all been involved in pretty severe human rights abuses. Christian courts moved abusing priests around the country rather than reporting them to the police; Christian courts did little to prevent the sexual, physical and emotional abuse of children by nuns. Beth Din are currently involved in not giving Jewish women "Gets" - a religious divorce that can only be provided by the husband. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scandal-of-wo...
Sharia Zones, as talked about by US media, don't exist.
For example, many powerful free-trade Libertarian think-tanks backed Brexit: the Hoover Institution [0], the Cato Institute [1], the Adam Smith Institute [2], etc.
These certainly aren't racist dumb-dumbs or protectionist "little Englanders", and their opinions are well worth a read. While bigots exist and certainly voted 'Leave' that does not mean that there are not good, open, free-market reasons to leave the EU.
[0] http://www.hoover.org/research/cautious-yes-brexit
[1] http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bullet...
[2] http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/files/2016/06/brexit-education-re...
You are right that there are lots of people without University educations which backed Brexit. Rather than hating them perhaps you could try to understand their struggles and feelings on how they have been betrayed by the establishment [0]?
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/meet-10-brit...
But they clearly believed so strongly, that they didn't think it was wrong to stoke immigration fears to win, and then turn round and explain that actually, free market economics suggests that low wage immigration is actually a good thing. This is playing with fire, and may end tragically.
Cornwall mostly voted Leave (higher the UK average) but have since asked for the EU funding for Cornwall to be protected.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwa...
The main reason given by Leave voters was "The principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK"
Decisions about Scotland should be taken in Scotland
Or even dissolving England.
Decisions about London should be taken in London.
In fact, the argument you just quoted is basically "representative democracy is bad".
Edit: if you downvote, please leave a comment arguing why.
http://www.yorkshirefirst.org.uk/
I really hope we don't find out how a second referendum goes, as I think it would paint the EU and westminster in a worse light, and put UKIP firmly into ascendancy.
*I really hate all these portmanteaus...
Cameron saying "I will campaign for in or out depending on whether I get a good deal for Britain". Reality: he got nothing and then claimed leaving the EU would be morally wrong.
Cameron saying "this isn't about me, I'll stay on no matter what". Reality: resigning the very next day, having known full well he'd do that if he lost yet he openly lied to the public about it.
Osborne saying "there'll be a punishment budget". Reality: that has now mysteriously vanished.
But I don't think any of that will really matter in a rerun anyway. The pro-remain side seems to think voters are spreadsheets that weigh up the output of yet more spreadsheets which pretend to represent the real world, and then make their decision based on that.
In reality most Leave voters clocked ages ago that politicians were not trustworthy and made up their minds based on other factors. If the referendum is ignored then expect a lot of Remain voters in the regions to switch to Leave: it will be widely interpreted as the end of democracy itself if they don't.
True - though the gov white paper mentioned that it was, in effect, binding because ignoring its result would irreversibly damage representative democracy.
Even if the UK were somehow to backtrack: they broke any faith and goodwill on EU side (not the entire EU but key members).
Politically, the Tories have to rally Brexit - or they will get killed by UKIP in the next election run.
The box is open. At some point in 10-20 years, a new agreement will probably bring the UK back to most of its EU membership. Until then, there's no way back.
In Sweden, several national referendums have been ignored by the government (shutting down nuclear power, switching to right hand traffic, new pension system). It has had no negative effect on either parties or politicians really. People are only angry as long as it stays in the public eye.
The truth is. To carry out politics you need politicians, and the No-side in the EU question is made up of a clique of populists joined by mass media. Without broad support by most politicians in the UK, the actual act of leaving will never actually come to pass.
Refusing to leave at this point will make things worse, not better.
I have spent a significant portion of my life living in countries where I was not a citizen, paid taxes and was unable to vote. Just like there are millions of Europeans paying taxes in the USA and unable to vote. This applies to most countries and does not make them any less democratic.
At the end of the day Democracy is a shit system. A really shitty system, but we keep it around because it is better than the other systems.
There have been a number of EU nationals quoted in the media as being aggrieved by this, but in many cases they have lived here more than long enough to become citizens and not chosen to do so.
[0] http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registr...
A democracy is about people whose lives will be significantly affected by a decision having a right to take part in the decision-making.
Why this logic was applied to resident Commonwealth and Irish citizens differently from residents from EU?
Regarding Commonwealth citizens - I'm not sure of the logic, but it has something to do with Britain occupying them... At any rate, these are legal loopholes and not the standard state of affairs.
I presume it's related to their historic status as British Subjects (which some of them will still hold, though it's been impossible to gain status as such since the 1980s), which would have granted them the right to vote in Westminster elections and referendums.
Last year I started citizenship proceedings for me and my wife, aggrieved by the darkening mood, but tbh at this point I think I'll save the money for a visa elsewhere. It's clear I'm not welcome anymore, despite paying more taxes and using less services than most beleavers; and it's clear the country as a whole wants to go back to the bad old days of Thatcher, with all its urban decay, racism, violence and permanent Tory majorities. I think my children might get a better chance elsewhere.
I made the exact same mistake, for the exact same reasons.
It costs £1588 [0], which is a lot of money to spend on something which gives no benefits (to an EU citizen) other than being able to vote in general elections (and referenda).
[0] Comprising:
£1236 - citizenship
£72 - passport
£70 - Saturday appointment to check documents (optional)
£10 - passport check
£150 - English test
£50 - life in the UK test
I'd need a citation for that being the reason; anecdotal I know, but I have several non-Scottish/British pals who all voted Yes for independence.
It's generally accepted that the reason that Yes lost was that we had the full might of the British state propaganda machine putting the fear of god into people, i.e. British Government, BBC and practically every newspaper (the exception being the Sunday Herald). It was called "Project Fear" [0, 1]
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Fear_(British_politics...
1: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/178590051X
53% Yes for Scots-born,
72% No for rest-of-UK born,
57% No for non-UK
Woa. Hang on a minute. Why do I have to become a UK citizen in order to be able to partake in the decisions that directly affect my life?
I've lived here for over a decade now. I studied here, I work here, I pay taxes, I pay contributions to the NHS. Why does it make any difference whether I'm a UK citizen or not?
In fact, the only difference between myself with British citizenship and myself without, is ... whether I have the British citizenship or not.
And yet that difference determines whether I can vote or not. How does that make any sense? It's exactly as reasonable as granting the right to vote to only men, or only Christians, or something completely unacceptable like that.
I live in this country that wants to call itself democratic. Like, it just made a point of how it loves democracy so much it's willing to jump off a cliff singing God Save the Queen because it didn't think it had enough democracy.
So how is it all so democratic that a few million active, productive people living here don't get to have a say in their own affairs?
The difference between a citizen and a resident is that a citizen has made a long term commitment to the country. A citizen has decided that they want to be a part of the country, with all of the privileges and responsibilities that entails.
Take a spectrum of immigration statii:
- Temporary resident working on a visa or similar.
- Long term resident working with indefinite leave to stay or permanent residence.
- Citizen
Now imagine what would happen if they can vote:
- Temporary resident: Doesn't necessarily care about long term effects of their vote on the country. Could vote for short term changes that benefit them then leave. Isn't integrated with the culture and could cause discontent.
- Long term resident: Hasn't committed to a long term relationship with the country so is essentially the same as a temporary resident. Has the option to become a citizen __and has chosen not to__.
Why shouldn't you agree to commit to the country long term if you want the privilege of affecting it long term?
Obviously, the losing side of any politcal battle will always want a redo. And obviously the winners will always prefer to keep the results as they are. Letting the losers try again until they win is like a DOS attack.
Btw, I totally agree though that leaving something like succession up to a simple majority is crazy. Seems 2/3 is more appropriate for big things like this, going to war, and what not.
I wonder where do you get the 10% figure; how on earth would you know that in the three days since polling? It's difficult to know what to make of folk who given three months of intense EU/Out/In discussion across the land suddenly discover that they didn't think their vote mattered or that they couldn't make up their minds and tossed a coin. They need a lesson in how democracy works.
It was expected that the pound would fall and markets react negatively in view of the immediate uncertainty. Aside from that, what's happened that would make someone say "I didn't know it would be like this"?
Even Paul Krugman, a would-be remainer says " I’m finding myself less horrified by Brexit than one might have expected – in fact, less than I myself expected. The economic consequences will be bad, but not, I’d argue, as bad as many are claiming. The political consequences might be much more dire; but many of the bad things I fear would probably have happened even if Remain had won."
> “I said to him, so where’s the plan? Can we see the Brexit plan now?” Islam told Botting, without naming the MP specifically.
> He said the pro-Leave Tory replied: “There is no plan. The Leave campaign don’t have a post-Brexit plan.”
> According to Islam, the MP then pointed toward the Houses of Parliament and said: “Number 10 should have had a plan”.
https://twitter.com/PED7/status/747063871765086208?ref_src=t...
I wonder where do you get the 10% figure; how on earth would you know that in the three days since polling? It's difficult to know what to make of folk who given three months of intense EU/Out/In discussion across the land suddenly discover that they didn't think their vote mattered or that they couldn't make up their minds and tossed a coin. They need a lesson in how democracy works.
It was expected that the pound would fall and markets react negatively in view of the immediate uncertainty. Aside from that, what's happened that would make someone say "I didn't know it would be like this"?
Even Paul Krugman, a would-be remainer says " I’m finding myself less horrified by Brexit than one might have expected – in fact, less than I myself expected. The economic consequences will be bad, but not, I’d argue, as bad as many are claiming. The political consequences might be much more dire; but many of the bad things I fear would probably have happened even if Remain had won."
There is no such mandate, implied or otherwise. The referendum was advisory. Legally there is nothing compelling the government to act on the result.
There is a lot compelling action, I mentioned some of the possible fallout scenarios in my post.
That situation would change in a heartbeat if the Queen actually tried to rule.
In 1975 in an extreme circumstance the Governor-General (the Queen's representative in Australia) dismissed the sitting Prime Minister and appointed a new one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...
Not sure exactly what might happen here.
a) She convinces the Leader of the Commons to bring a motion to dismiss parliament (under the 2011 Fixed Term Parliaments Act this requires a 2/3rds majority).
b) She convinces the members of the Privy Council to form a National Coalition, and to stand as such for election on a manifesto centred on EU membership.
Alternatively, she finds someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons across party lines, and gets agreement across party lines (likely through the Privy Council) to support the appointment, and duly appoints them Prime Minister (this is roughly how Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940, with no election held since 1935 and none would be held till 1945). The cross-party Government then formed can then seek a mandate to remain in the EU in a number of ways (such as then falling to an election or a second referendum).
One shouldn't understate the amount of influence the Queen can have, and maintain, if she plays her cards right.
And there's the problem.
There IS a case to be made that a democratic majority with a margin of merely 4% is something that can, in fact, be ignored. In the United States, we have these lovely Senate filibusters, for instance, which everyone loves to complain about when their party isn't the one doing them. And vetos. And Supreme Court smackdowns.
The UK has at least a couple of these it could theoretically apply (e.g. the fact that Parliament isn't bound by the results, and some long-shot ones like Scottish Parliament or the royal veto that they apparently never use) but when you put something on the ballot like that and make the entire nation vote, it kind of sends a message that this is something that's going to be respected. If there's a whole new Parliament in a few months that may be different? But substantial fallout will remain.
----
Some people voted leave for less immigration, others for more balanced (non EU-biased) immigration, it seems that these goals are fundamentally at odds. This isn't the only example of polarising goals that people have expressed. Until a referendum is put forward that actually allows people to express the end result they're hoping for (leaving the EU just seems to be the first step, not the goal for most people), I strongly believe it's undemocratic to proceed under the false argument that the people have spoken.
For what it's worth, the point i'm making is the same as the argument in favour of alternative vote (or single transferable vote) vs first-past-the-post elections. The way in which people are polled is insufficient for ascertaining what they actually want. A binary choice doesn't work in a world with more than two possible opinions.
----
On immigration I worry that we will see a crack down on non-EU immigration to allow continued EU immigration. People will argue that they are closer to us culturally, and they would be right. It is hard to see how the government can avoid appeasing ant-immigrant sentiment at this point.
I agree 100% that we need a better voting system. I can't stand UKIP, but I absoutely think they should have more representation in parliment. It would be good to use this as an oppurtunity to reform the house of lords into being fully elected. Give them the authority that the EU held in terms of long term regulation. We need an institution that can take a long term view which we will sorely miss post Brexit.
It's as big as a constitutional change and such change usually require more than 50% to be adopted.
There were dreadful lies on both sides. Personally I treated the entire campaign period as a sideshow we'd have been better off without, the issues and opinions about EU membership are far deeper rooted than the last few weeks of noisy bickering.
Further, the constitutional changes that got us in were not subject to supermajority conditions, in fact no political party that implemented them had an equivalent mandate behind them to either side of the referendum vote.
I disagree. Leave's lies were on a completely different (larger) scale. Most fundamentally, Leave claimed that Brexit would not be an economic disaster, which they cannot possibly have known — especially since they very clearly have no plan at all for what's next.
Did Remain have a lie painted on the side of their bus? A lie printed on huge posters at press conferences? A lie that they rode back from on the morning of the results?
http://imgur.com/indvx6a
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article7943774.ece/ALTERNATE...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-refe...
I voted Remain, BTW, and don't support UKIP. But I'm not prepared to grab pitchforks on a tenuous claim of hypocrisy either.
The problem is that many people voted based on that and many other lies and are feeling betrayed. Now the guilt will vanish as usual... will be no one's fault.. but somehow someone will be able to fulfil their agenda.
At least insofar it's true that many people just voted to "send a signal" but didn't actually think they'd get a majority, that strikes me as going by the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it, so to speak.
> If this occurs we can expect politics in the UK to become dangerously divided and unsettled, and the likes of UKIP to become a seriously large party in the next parliament, not to mention civil unrest in various forms.
Hmm, sounds like a lose/lose situation: http://usuncut.com/world/hate-crimes-across-england-evoke-ni...
Admittedly, both these points are kind of anecdotal, I don't have an overview or a glass ball either. But still, I don't really get the "it might be a mistake, but you have to go through with it" stuff.
I think UKIP will sit back and let the next Conservative government fail to deliver on some key Leave promises - I think they'll be targeting the 2020 election on a "the Conservatives didn't deliver on what Leave promised but UKIP will" platform.
The next Conservative leader will probably offer Farage a peerage to try and neutralise him but I suspect he is far too clever to fall for such an obvious ploy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-eu-refere...
That, combined with the fact that things are currently going to hell in a hand basket (look at the FTSE250, comprised of business that make most their money within the UK, as opposed to the FTSE100 which doesn't), makes the out vote at best questonable right now.
Be that as it may, I voted remain, but only beause now was not a good time to leave and nobody seemed to have a plan for exit. But I have faith in Britain - what I hope will happen is that we will accept freedom of movement, and that we will bloody well deal with it properly this time by shutting up the racists and investing in intrastructure, health and housing such that the cause of all the mess that led up to all this doesn't happen again. Fuck austerity this time - spend like there's no tomorrow, because frankly there might not be a tommorrow otherwise. Whethe that actually happens in my lifetime, I doubt, but hey oh.
You could make the same argument about those that voted to remain.
> That, combined with the fact that things are currently going to hell in a hand basket (look at the FTSE250, comprised of business that make most their money within the UK, as opposed to the FTSE100 which doesn't), makes the out vote at best questonable right now.
Not really. It's only natural that there will be some short term downward moves in the markets due to uncertainty about the future. But we don't know what the medium and long term holds.
Yes. Do you have any examples?
Here's the one I'm going to keep using from the Leave campaign: http://imgur.com/indvx6a
- "Brexit 'could cause mortgage rises', says Cameron"[1]
- "Every household would be £4,300 a year worse off by 2030"[2]
- "Taxes would go up if we leave the EU"[2]
- "House prices will fall by up to 18 per cent by 2018"[2]
- "Inflation would be 2.3 percentage points higher if we leave"[2]
- "Leaving the EU would wipe £32,000 off the average pensioner’s wealth"[2]
- "Food bills would rise by an average of £220 a year"[2]
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36454017
[2] http://www.independent.co.uk/money/your-money/right-to-remai...
And agreed the UK's short-term econonomy is pretty much the least of its problems. But do you have a scenario in which it ends up peachy keen for the UK and Europe by about 2020? I sure as hell can't think of one.
This may well come as a surprise to many Brexit voters. It certainly sets out his stall for what he hopes to achieve, presumably he'll happily sign up for mass immigration as long as the finance industry gets opt-outs from EU fraud investigations or whatever his backers want to get out of this. Re-invigorating northern England's former industrial heartlands is nowhere on his list, and the anger of the people who live there can in no way harm the Conservative party in the UKs current parliamentary system.
Not to me - the opaque processes of unelected EU officials was the main reason.
Other way round. UK politics was already divided and unsettled, it's just that an illusion of stability and consensus has been pasted on the front. The cardboard facade has collapsed when asked to bear weight - just look at the leadership chaos!
This referendum and its result is really a result of dozens of problems which have been pushed under the rug. It's all the unexploded bombs of nasty controversies that were never properly defused, just piled up in a corner.
The "immigration" question covers lots of nasty questions, for example. What is the EU doing about refugees? Why has Sangatte festered for so long? What should the right response to radical islamist violence be? What is the economic function of towns whose businesses collapsed in the 70s and have not improved? What's going on in the "crap towns" like Great Yarmouth and Boston, Lincs.? Why are voters struggling to get GP appointments and school places?
What is the UK constitution? Don't say "unwritten", because that's not true; instead it's scattered bits and pieces from Factortame to the Good Friday Agreement. That's why we're having this discussion about Scotland blocking it - it's not clear how any of this works. Is it really a good idea that Parliament can make big constitutional changes by simple majority (e.g. Fixed Term Parliaments Act)? Why do we have so many different voting systems but use the crap one for the important election? Does the House of Lords count as "undemocratic" compared to, say, the EU commission?
What is the proper relationship of the non-English parts of the UK to the Union? Scotland regards Westminster as the distant, unaccountable elite and finds the distant, unnacountable Brussels elite more cordial. Despite the fisheries problem.
What should UK economic and employment policy be? Are we funding the current account deficit by selling houses to foreigners from kleptocratic states and China? Are we too dependent on financial services which are too centralised in London?
Was Greece treated fairly? What about Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain? What about the Polish constitutional crisis? Is Hungary run by Nazis? What if the Austrian election had gone differently?
Did you know the EU has a Trump-style border wall? It's in Bulgaria.
This twitter gives the view from Northern Ireland, which was "dangerously divided and unsettled" for years with malign neglect from the UK government: https://twitter.com/shockproofbeats
I'm sure that you, personally, have answers to all these questions. My point is that there is no broad consensus on all of them, they've nagged at the UK for years, and now they've all been made relevant.
https://twitter.com/shockproofbeats/status/74736207057689804...
You need to keep clicking "Show more" to reveal all 32 tweets in that series.
If Scotland could remain in the EU (By remaining, not re-joining, which Madrid would oppose) then they almost certainly would. This means that "brexit" would imply the end of the "United" in the UK and I believe that would be enough of a change in circumstances that a) leave politicians could hold off invoking Article 50 without losing face or b) a referendum for the new conditions could be held.
So the Scottish Parliament don't really need to veto Brexit to stop it, they just need to threaten to leave the UK and remain in the EU to d oso.
The new conditions of Brexit (which really were known before but likely not phrased as such) are "Should England and Wales leave the UK and form the United Kingdom of England and Wales, and then leave the EU?". I doubt that's a very popular idea.
Scotland 'remaining' in the EU is far from a done deal, we have yet to hear whether the EU would accept it - it has no record of running its own economy to speak of.
(and by now I mean soon)
That's not a precedent since Norway is an EEA/EFTA member and actually even part of Schengen. However, as provision for joining the EEA/EFTA, Norway agreed on free movement rules, something that the Brexit campaign has been campaigning against. They've been backtracking on that issue, but I'm still curious how they'll square that circle.
I agree it's not a good fit for the circumstances here, it's all rather uncertain. But it at least shows that not everything is black and white.
This is part of why the referendum was a bit sketchy - it wasn't very clear about the consequences, even those that were known from the outset.
If there had been three choices: a) UK to Leave, b) UK to remain, and c) UK to leave but only if it can agree as a union to do so (i.e. not break up).
then c) would have been attractive.
EDIT:
"UK Government could use Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty to apply for a treaty change which would allow Scotland to become a member when it formally becomes independent in 2016.
The Article 48 route has been dismissed by the UK Government and it would also require unanimous approval of all the other 28 EU members. Instead the more likely route is Article 49 which requires Scotland to apply for membership."
This is just from some light Googling, some more informed people may have more details
from http://www.scotsman.com/scottish-independence/key-topic/euro...
It would probably never happen and would be incredibly silly but it's interesting to think about if it could.
Additionally the UK is a union between Scotland and England so we'd technically not be leaving, but choosing to break the union, at which point the UK ceases to exist and becomes Scotland and England (and it's associated region/principalities etc). Since the UK is the member of the EU (not it constituent countries) if the union is broken before the UK leaves the EU then it's a legally grey area as the country that was a member of the EU no longer exists.
England does automatically inherit all treaties that applied to the UK, both countries would need to renegotiate international treaties as two newly separate countries. Though of course England being the bigger country has a lot more weight in these matters. But England would not be RUK, it would be England, and many matters such as EU membership are with UK.
That application would certainly be vetoed by either the Spanish (catalan issues) or the Germans (Scotland has a bigger deficit than Greece).
If you want to know what's really going on then the best tool available is still opinion polling (ideally combined with on-the-street interviews to get additional depth).
Polling in Germany is showing rapidly rising anti-Euro feeling since August 2015, if we take AfD support as a proxy for "we don't want to bail out the feckless deficit countries anymore". AfD polling shifts are on a very smooth upward trajectory when averaged and the AfD is anti-Euro.
Given this trajectory and the grumbling the Greek bailouts caused it would be very difficult to convince the Germans to allow the normal EU rules on deficits in joining countries to be broken: they are already slapping down suggestions from Italy that Brexit means austerity policies must be loosened. Why should Germans pay for the Scots?
If an advanced, liberal, english speaking country like Scotland declares its wish to remain or join the EU, that could be seen as a welcome vote in favor of the European idea.
I think it is in Germany's (and Spain's) interest to woo Scotland and make it as easy as possible for them to remain in the EU or rejoin in a seamless fashion.
"However there is another reason closer to the heart of the Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy that Spain won’t block Scottish accession to the EU. Interestingly, during the last independence referendum Rajoy was asked three times in an interview with El Pais newspaper whether he would veto Scotland, and three times he refused to reply. He refused to reply because he didn’t want to encourage Scottish independence by telling the truth.
Mariano Rajoy comes from Galicia, and represents the city of A Coruña in the Spanish parliament, the Cortes. The mainstay of the local economy is the fishing industry, and big fishing interests are the main funders of Rajoy’s own local party. The Galician fishing fleet depends on its access to Scottish waters in order to feed Spain’s enormous appetite for seafood, and any attempt by Spain to veto Scottish membership of the EU would threaten that access. Rajoy would then find that his local party’s bank balance was as empty as the fish counter in a Spanish supermarket. He’s not going to let that happen."
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/an-argument-as...
See also:
http://wingsoverscotland.com/what-mariano-rajoy-didnt-say/
There is precedence for the opposite. That said, Scotland on its own would have to demonstrate that it can be a member, but it's far from clear that they would have to reapply. Repplying would almost certainly fail because Madrid would block it.
With the UK on its way out from the EU, an argument can be made that Madrid will be persuaded to let this happen.
Maybe the Scots can just declare themselves to be French and stay in the EU that way.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auld_Alliance
If Spain was to block an independent Scotland's entry to the EU would they feel the need to provide an explanation? If so would they say the real reason - "we don't want to set a precedent and embolden Catalonia's bid for independence" - or would they weasel out of it somehow?
Given the chaos this whole vote has caused to everyone else, I'm not sure if we have the right to be upset about this however.
They would have no second thoughts about saying that out loud. It's not like Madrid are being shy about keeping Catalonia, against their will or not.
(Betteridge’s Law applies?)
It seems to me that the EU might require Scotland to make huge cuts to public spending. Would Scotland's independence be worth more to them than say free university tuition? I guess the SNP would avoid making cuts to certain nationally loved items, but something would surely have to give; either they would get higher taxes, or public spending would have to fall.
Of course, the EU might agree to let them remain and also allow them their deficit, but there looks to be an increasing strain on the EU's richest members, so who knows whether that would be allowed.
[0] http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/if-scotland-had-gone-in...
[1] http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/simple-summary.html
Warning of a constitutional crisis is good tactics. It probably will not lead to canceling brexit, though it will probably break the 1998 devolution law and change how Scotland can "sell" independence and its claim to stay in the EU.
So it looks like this is either to lay ground for a "fast track" EU access due to special circumstances - OR getting special new rights within the UK to compensate leaving the EU.
But a second referendum would force the situation to be analysed a lot more carefully. And that situation would not be a strong argument for leaving, no matter how much the Scots might like the idea of the EU.
Many voters made a very straightforward analysis: "the EU means I compete against an essentially infinite supply of labour, I can't do that, therefore we should get out of the EU so we can restrict immigration again".
You may not agree with this reasoning or you may feel the various other benefits of the EU outweigh them in your personal circumstances, but it's not an illogical analysis: they think leaving will make them economically better off and there are millions of such voters. It's actually quite difficult to mount a robust economic argument against this idea: you have to argue that the EU will erect such serious trade barriers that all the jobs disappear. But a lot of these people are working in local service industries anyway, they aren't selling to the EU, so you end up arguing a very indirect path to them personally suffering which basically rests on "the EU will be such bastards that the entire UK economy collapses", which then stirs up patriotic sentiments very strongly (reminds people of the war). And you rapidly end up in economic wonk territory because the details of the damage depend so much on details of the final deal, etc. The public, quite rightly, does not trust economists due to their track record of getting the big things wrong.
The economic rationale for Scotland leaving the UK and joining the EU is much less clear. The big one is public spending. The Scots may not like it but their country is subsidised by the UK to a huge degree. The spending deficit alone is the same size as ALL Scottish NHS spending. The economic argument from "lose the subsidies from the English, public services are cut because oil is cheap" is very direct and much more easily understood. Scotland does not have a problem with massive immigration. People like the idea of the EU but what specific economic problem would it solve for them?
^This!
I am a Scot, living in Scotland and I voted out (and against independence) but a great many of my peers over the years wanted independence "because Westminster/England".
It was the most childish of reasons.
The economic argument wasn't there the last time and it absolutely isn't there this time but last time it wasn't pressed much... this time it will be but once the Indy Propaganda machine gets going then all bets are off.
Do you have current statistics on the Scottish spending deficit? Last time I looked there was one but it was far from huge, especially when you account for defence and administration savings from being a small country.
The arguments for the EU aren't purely economic.
How is Scotland going to finance it this time?
FYI I am Scottish, living in Scotland and I voted out!
That was the primary (possibly only!) factor in my decision.
Even if you think that you have influence over who your SNP MP is - he/she won't ever be in the UK government, they will never have a say on anything, resigned to jeer from the opposition backbenches. It is the epitome of disenfranchisement.
Also: borders are sacred in Europe. States don't want to split/remodel per a 60 years old tradition.
There is a very strong case for indy Scotland (and i support it) but I admire that Sturgeon is smart enough to try and get the best of all possible outcomes.
Theoretically, yes, Scotland has to join the Euro. The EU treaties as they stand today, however, would prevent that from happening any time soon. Scotland would need its own currency first, and then to join ERM2, and meet the conditions for several years, and so on. And, like Sweden, Scotland could choose to deliberately not join ERM2.
Schengen is more interesting, particularly the future potential situation in Ireland.
1) Even if the referendum is advisory, given the importance of the issue it would be difficult to dismiss it and do as if it didn't happen. I'd be embarrassed to make decisions with leaders that are willing to ignore such address from their people.
2) It's better for the UK to leave as quickly as possible because uncertainty is bad. It's bad for business and for anybody. See the hours we are wasting writing about it ;-) Furthermore uncertainty could prompt unrest, especially in the UK (you voted, you won, you're ignored, you get angrier and angrier).
3) There is no reason not to keep being friends, even if a little disillusioned, and keep doing business together. There will be some extra barriers and cross border exchanges will decrease, but IMHO the UK should become as one of those other European countries that don't belong to the EU. No need to be punitive.
4) If Scotland wants to stay in the EU they should either get independent or make some clear deal with the UK, and the EU to accept them. I understand but not approve the reason for Spain not liking the idea, but they'll be frowned at quite a lot.
5) There are territories around the world, some virtually independent from the country that claims rights on them. There are some of the especially in Asia, maybe for face saving reasons. Could Scotland be the next one? Even London is possible, but much more difficult to implement IHMO.
That said, we are human beings and we are used to bend the written words to our wills. If we agree on the result any act or constitutional chart can be interpreted to match it or changed.
Except, to prevent other EU nations from leaving, brexit should be as painful as possible. Ideally with the UK falling apart.
The Northern Ireland parliament would be incompetent if they voted for it. Removing the EU from Northern Ireland would break the Good Friday agreement and has the real potential to throw them back into war.