Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Arakhor]

If you do not think that the referendum vote by the UK to Leave was not a mandate, then you live in a different universe from the majority of us.

I think you are now the one deliberately misunderstanding me. It clearly wasn't a mistake, as you don't give me that benefit.

Scotland does not want to leave and Northern Ireland does not want to leave, both by greater margins than the UK as a whole. Further, as much as I wanted the Union to remain together, part of the No campaign's arsenal was staying in the EU, which Brexit will completely destroy, so most people could understand why they would be offended.

I am not aware of any one other than yourself suggesting that Theresa May uses the Royal Prerogative to usurp Parliament's right to make and decide upon British legislation.

Well, of course not. For one thing, no one is going to be suggesting that May is not doing her sovereign duty in the media you consume. For another, two years after Article 50, if matters are not yet arranged, the UK immediately withdraws from the EU, with no reference to Parliament or anyone else. This clearly infringes the right of Parliament alone to make British law.

 

[Takhisis]

I've just seen this story on the BBC. You really couldn't make it up.

He's called ‘Christian Holiday’. No, you can't make it up. My answer is that the sovereign state of Scotland should apply to join the European Union, and Northern Ireland should really consider new arrangements.

Or, well, really, if some kingdoms can have different domains that are or aren't part of the EU (e.g. Greenland, Canada, Australia) then other arrangements can be made.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Arakhor. The Remainers lost the vote. Get over it.

If the majority of the Scots had voted for Independence in 2014, England would have let Scotland as a whole separate. We would not have said that the fact that this or that
particular city/county/island voted to stay in the union invalidated the vote or that that city/county/island could separate from Scotland and retain its union with England.

Inventing arguments afterwards as to why the minority of the UK should have their way in 2016, while the majority of the UK's wishes should be ignored, is spurious.

And regarding your "no reference to Parliament or anyone else". The matter was clearly referred to the UK electorate in the referendum.

 

[Takhisis]

In a non-binding referendum, in which no terms were set except a general ‘hey let's renounce EU membership’. It was implicit that Parliament would be in charge.

 

[EnglishEdward]

In a non-binding referendum, in which no terms were set except a general ‘hey let's renounce EU membership’. It was implicit that Parliament would be in charge.

Yes we do indeed, expect the UK Parliament to carry what is now referred to as Brexit to completion.

What is quite entertaining is to observe how the federalists and Remainers who were only too happy for the sovereignty of the UK Parliament
to be usurped by the EU treaty provisions including for example "ever closer union" and EU laws overriding UK laws, to suddenly decide
to argue after all that it is the UK Parliament, and not the UK people, the Queen or the Prime Minister, that has the sovereignty.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

My neighbour voted to remain. As his house voted to remain in the EU (by a HUGE 100% margin, much greater than even Scotland or Northern Ireland), there can be no question that his house should remain in the EU. Because that's how countries work.

 

[Takhisis]

Is your neighbour a darkie or communist?

 

[Gigaz]

Arakhor. The Remainers lost the vote. Get over it.

You know, if Brexit ends up being overturned, it would not be the first referendum to suffer this fate .

 

[Pangur Bán]

We would not have said that the fact that this or that
particular city/county/island voted to stay in the union invalidated the vote or that that city/county/island could separate from Scotland and retain its union with England.

What city/county/island has an union with England?

 

[Kyriakos]

Calais?

 

[Arakhor]

My neighbour voted to remain. As his house voted to remain in the EU (by a HUGE 100% margin, much greater than even Scotland or Northern Ireland), there can be no question that his house should remain in the EU. Because that's how countries work.

Is his house in personal union with the Crown? Did he hold a referendum two years ago, with one of the promises being staying in the EU? Does his house represent a vital and bitterly contested political venue, whose nature is fixed in law? I don't want to see the UK diminished at all, but if England refuses to even pretend that they're not wholly dominating the Union, there might not be a Union much longer (and that would be a tragedy).

Arakhor. The Remainers lost the vote. Get over it.

The same way you got over the matter in the '70s, you mean?

Inventing arguments afterwards as to why the minority of the UK should have their way in 2016, while the majority of the UK's wishes should be ignored, is spurious.

Once again, the majority of the UK didn't decide on the matter. A plurality did, certainly, as did a slim majority of the votes cast, but that was still not the majority of the UK electorate. It doesn't change anything of course, but for someone to so keen to see the will of the majority enacted, you should be very careful about what that means.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Is his house in personal union with the Crown? Did he hold a referendum two years ago, with one of the promises being staying in the EU? Does his house represent a vital and bitterly contested political venue, whose nature is fixed in law? I don't want to see the UK diminished at all, but if England refuses to even pretend that they're not wholly dominating the Union, there might not be a Union much longer (and that would be a tragedy).

Well of course they're dominating the Union, the population of England makes up 84% of the UK. This isn't a newly discovered fact that nobody realised before June 2016.

And, as an aside, you seem to talk a lot about "promises" that were never actually made. it absolutely definitely completely was never a promise in the Scottish referendum at all. A lot of people were saying that the status of Scotland within the EU would be uncertain if they left, but that doesn't represent any sort of "promise" to remain in the EU if they remained. In fact that the Tories planned to have EU referendum was already known before the Scotland referendum. Are you deliberately trying to rewrite history here?

 

[Arakhor]

Not in the slightest. Maybe 'promise' was too strong a word, but it was definitely bandied around an awful lot in 2014.

As for the nature of England's dominance, that's why I said 'pretend'. Westminster is already seen as out of touch and really does not need to provide any more ammunition to those in other part of the realm. A little finesse would go a long way, something which is sadly absent from No 10 of late.

 

[Traitorfish]

Because they don't present any kind of plan beyond the let's be independent. There must be a purpose that call for independence as a means to achieve it. What if they did manage to get Scotland independent, then what? What would the party be about then? Are they willing to disband? What of the pro-up population of an independent Scotland, would they become "traitors" in their own land, and would the SNP the dedicate itself to maintain a grip on power to keep those subdued?

The whole way of the SNP doing politics around the independence issue (not the devolution, mind you, which was workable) is stupid. Their interest in it is a power ploy, no more.

"I don't know anything about Scottish politics, but lemme tell you what's what."

If the majority of the Scots had voted for Independence in 2014, England would have let Scotland as a whole separate. We would not have said that the fact that this or that
particular city/county/island voted to stay in the union invalidated the vote or that that city/county/island could separate from Scotland and retain its union with England.

Well, in the first place, there was a serious discussion about the fate of the Northern Isles, which were expected to come down fairly heavily in favour of the Union; their own MP, then-Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael, suggesting that they may be detached from Scotland and adopted as Crown Dependencies. So, yes, the Unionist camp did say that, even if it might not have occurred to you personally.

In the second place, the argument seems to me disingenuous, because the existence of a Scottish parliament and the fact of the independence referendum represent implicit recognition that Scotland is, in at least some sense, a sovereign entity, which can't be said of, say, Clackmannanshire. The current consensus in Scotland is certainly that Scotland is a sovereign entity, attached to the Union in an uncodified but none the none the less voluntary federation, which, again, nobody imagines is the case for Moray. Scotland as Scotland has been empowered to make decisions about its constitutional status: surely that must be recognised as a form of sovereignty?

However you chose to imagine it, the fact is that many Scots, perhaps most Scots, see Brexit as something which has been imposed upon them not simply by a democratic majority but by an over-mighty partner, and that is going to have far-reaching consequences which you don't seem to expect and which I can't imagine you desire.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yes we do indeed, expect the UK Parliament to carry what is now referred to as Brexit to completion.

I am not sure that its even possible for the UK Parliament to Brexit and fullfill any promises at this stage. At which point the Leavers are going to be in for a very rude awakening
Still UK dose have 2 years to get together a workable plan, If the UK has to fall to just the WTO rules, it is going to find out the hard way what hard brexit means.

Hard Brexit would send food prices soaring, says Nick Clegg
Former deputy PM says UK should pursue EU relationship similar to that of Norway as he predicts economic disaster

Releasing a new report, he said a hard Brexit would “lead us off a cliff edge towards higher food prices, with a triple-whammy of punishing tariffs, customs checks and workforce shortages”.

In terms of the costs of exporting to the EU, Clegg said a reliance on World Trade Organisation schedules would lead to tariffs on beef exports at 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%. He said that under WTO rules these tariffs would also have to be applied to all imports into the UK until a trade deal with the EU was struck – a process that was likely to take years. “The only way the government will be able to avoid this outcome is if it maintains Britain’s membership of the single market,” he said.

He added that said customs checks could be even more significant than tariffs, creating huge red tape and bureaucracy if for example a British-made car had to be examined for compliance with every EU regulation at the border.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/17/nick-clegg-hard-brexit-food-prices-uk-eu-norway

 

[EnglishEdward]

Regarding Ian Clegg:

lead us off a cliff edge towards higher food prices, with a triple-whammy of punishing tariffs, customs checks and workforce shortages

Higher food prices are a fact of life in the UK now that the over valuation of the pound is ending after the loss of the misplaced over confidence.
The vote to Leave may be the immediate tripwire trigger, but it is the UK's current account trade deficit that is the underlying cause.

There are large numbers (>40%) of 18 to 21 year olds in the UK being encouraged to foolishly indebt themselves at ten thousand pounds per year or more via student
loans in many instances to obtain degrees of questionable economic worth. It would only take a modest diversion of those to agriculture e.g. cauliflower picking
etc in Lincolnshire for the season to replace foreign labour even if the dastardly plan of those rascits and xenophobic brexiters was to stop immigration into the UK.
However the UK government thinking is not to stop immigration at all, merely to prevent it surging from beyond control and overloading the demand for housing etc.

In terms of the costs of exporting to the EU, Clegg said a reliance on World Trade Organisation schedules would lead to tariffs on beef exports at 59%, chocolate at 38%, cheese at 40% and wine at 14%. He said that under WTO rules these tariffs would also have to be applied to all imports into the UK until a trade deal with the EU was struck – a process that was likely to take years. “The only way the government will be able to avoid this outcome is if it maintains Britain’s membership of the single market,” he said.

First off, the UK is very much a net importer of all of those items listed.

Secondly to the best of my knowledge there is nothing in WTO rules that obliges the UK to apply such tariffs at all to its imports.
My understanding is that the UK would merely not be entitled to impose higher tariffs than the rates specified in those schedules.

He added that said customs checks could be even more significant than tariffs, creating huge red tape
and bureaucracy if for example a British-made car had to be examined for compliance with every EU regulation at the border.

Do you really think that the EU customs currently check every single smart phone coming in from China or South Korea?


Lastly Ian Clegg's Liberal Democrat party stood on a pro EU platform in 2015 and they got annhilated dropping from 57 to 8 seats in the House of Commons.
It seems to me that the fact that he can not learn from that and the 2016 referendum result shows either pig headedness or intellectual dysfunction.

 

[Arakhor]

Ian Clegg? It is far more likely that the LibDems got wiped out because of their U-turn of tuition fees and their perceived culpability for Tory excesses than some secret groundswell of Europhobia.

Why do you keep going on about the pound being over-vauled? Is that the new mantra in your parts to convince yourselves that the economy is not about to go to pot? The £ held roughly the same value for as long as I can remember knowing about such things, which is easily 25 years, and yet it's been allegedly over-priced for that long?

You're also very quick to throw around allegations of stupidity these days. Why would that be, given how much you hate being mischaracterised?

 

[EnglishEdward]

"I don't know anything about Scottish politics, but lemme tell you what's what."

Well, in the first place, there was a serious discussion about the fate of the Northern Isles, which were expected to come down fairly heavily in favour of the Union; their own MP, then-Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael, suggesting that they may be detached from Scotland and adopted as Crown Dependencies. So, yes, the Unionist camp did say that, even if it might not have occurred to you personally.

Thank you for that reference.

In the second place, the argument seems to me disingenuous, because the existence of a Scottish parliament and the fact of the independence referendum represent implicit recognition that Scotland is, in at least some sense, a sovereign entity, which can't be said of, say, Clackmannanshire. The current consensus in Scotland is certainly that Scotland is a sovereign entity, attached to the Union in an uncodified but none the none the less voluntary federation, which, again, nobody imagines is the case for Moray. Scotland as Scotland has been empowered to make decisions about its constitutional status: surely that must be recognised as a form of sovereignty?

However you chose to imagine it, the fact is that many Scots, perhaps most Scots, see Brexit as something which has been imposed upon them not simply by a democratic majority but by an over-mighty partner, and that is going to have far-reaching consequences which you don't seem to expect and which I can't imagine you desire.

Well spoken!

In referring to cities and islands, I am also thinking of Gibraltar and London so I do not agree that I am being disingenuous.

However most English do not see why we should continue to surrender our sovereignty to a federal Europe
merely because the Scots or Northern Irish or Gibraltians seem content to go along with that drift.

I have no objection to the Scottish people having another vote on independence. As for the Northern Islands, all I can say is that splitting up Ireland
did not work so well, and I would not want to split up Scotland. By the way I see the existing Crown dependencies as liabilities as much as assets.
I.e. they should either elect and send MPs etc to Westminster and share the laws of England and Wales OR try to make their own way in the world.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Ian Clegg? It is far more likely that the LibDems got wiped out because of their U-turn of tuition fees and their perceived culpability for Tory excesses than some secret groundswell of Europhobia.

Why do you keep going on about the pound being over-vauled? Is that the new mantra in your parts to convince yourselves that the economy is not about to go to pot? The £ held roughly the same value for as long as I can remember knowing about such things, which is easily 25 years, and yet it's been allegedly over-priced for that long?

The UK's current account deficit has been going on for far longer than 25 years.

You're also very quick to throw around allegations of stupidity these days. Why would that be, given how much you hate being mischaracterised?

And precisely who have I accused of stupidity today?

 

[Arakhor]

And precisely who have I accused of stupidity today?

It seems to me that the fact that he can not learn from that and the 2016 referendum result shows either pig headedness or intellectual dysfunction.

It's an either/or statement, but there you go.

However most English do not see why we should continue to surrender our sovereignty to a federal Europe... merely because the Scots or Northern Irish or Gibraltians seem content to go along with that drift.

Can you find any stats on the Brexit vote broken down by region? This time, you're probably right, but actual statistics would be useful.