Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Traitorfish]

The Scots chose that, in their independence referendum, to stay in the UK, not the English.

But not, and this is the point, to abide without question whatever whim capture English fancy. A vote for the Union did not mean a vote for the dissolution of Scottish self-government; that point was a central plank of the Unionist camp. The alternative to independence offered by the Better Together campaign was not centralism, but the yet-deeper entrenchment of Scottish autonomy within the Union, perhaps hinting towards a truly federal system, and in a federal system, one constituent cannot impose sweeping constitutional change on another. The referendum was, at its best, not about voting for or against England, but about competing between visions of Scottish self-government; it's a pity, and as a democrat I mean this sincerely, that the Unionists had very little to offer in the way of fleshed-out vision, and so insisted on casting it precisely as a vote on the English attachment. (All the while blaming this shift in the debate on the Yes campaign, because the Unionist leadership have all the scruples of a highwayman with none of the charisma.)

The problem, you see, is that the Scots and the English have come to imagine the Union in entirely different terms- or, and this seems more likely, they always have done so, but only in recent years have these different imaginations become, if not incompatible, then a point of open conflict.

 

[Kyriakos]

^I think that a federal union would be a good idea re the UK. Although it looks like the needed popular support for that is fading.

 

[Arakhor]

I'm not really surprised. Westminster won't even let other parts of England run itself, what with the recent hoohaa over a Cabinet minister overruling literally everybody involved when it came to a question of fracking in Lancashire.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Concerns about fracking aside, that seems a rather inverted way of looking at things. Why would you be surprised that regions within the same country are afforded less autonomy/sovereignty than an actual different country with its own parliament/laws/etc? You seem to be saying that you think Lancashire is more likely to be granted these powers than Scotland?!

 

[Arakhor]

I was attempting to point out that Westminister's apparent desire to micromanage parts of Northern England to the disapproval of everyone actually living there does not bode well for any real federalisation to take place in more far-flung parts of the Isles. I certainly don't believe we are likely to see any further regional parliaments before we (re?) settle the Scottish and Irish Questions.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But surely other parts of England are the absolute last places you would expect Westminster to stop micromanaging... I don't really see why you would take that as an indicator of anything.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, it does show a high (maybe even unnecessary) focus on English affairs as opposed to more pressing issues of the day, but yes, I see your point.

 

[Kyriakos]

Given that scottish people very obviously don't view London as the capital, only a federalism with ability to veto union matters could work.
That said, it seems to be going the other way, currently. Ie a dissolution.

Maybe the threat of the north scottish isles being tied to the remainder of UK is going to avert that, though.

 

[EnglishEdward]

But not, and this is the point, to abide without question whatever whim capture English fancy.

Deciding not to ratify the elite's decision to join the EU without first consulting the voters and voting to
Leave the EU so as not progressing to single European union, is rather more than a whim or fancy.

A vote for the Union did not mean a vote for the dissolution of Scottish self-government; that point was a central plank of the Unionist camp.

I have never said it did.

The alternative to independence offered by the Better Together campaign was not centralism, but the yet-deeper entrenchment of Scottish autonomy within the
Union, perhaps hinting towards a truly federal system, and in a federal system, one constituent cannot impose sweeping constitutional change on another.

If the US federal government votes not to join or to leave an international organisation e.g. the International Criminal Court, California has no veto.
If the Indian federal government votes to join or leave an international organisation such as the Commonwealth, the individual Indian states have no right to decide otherwise.
And similarly if the UK as a whole votes to leave the EU (and the overall majority of votes casts were for Leave), I do not see that Scotland has a veto on the UK.

Scotland may however ask itself again if it wishes to leave the UK, and make its own separate decision about the European Union.

The referendum was, at its best, not about voting for or against England, but about competing between visions of Scottish self-government;

That is an interesting interpretation.
The ballot papers on google that I can find refers to and uses the word "Independent"

"Should Scotland be an independent country?"

and does not say anything about self government.

t's a pity, and as a democrat I mean this sincerely, that the Unionists had very little to offer in the way of fleshed-out vision, and so insisted on casting it precisely as a vote on the English attachment. (All the while blaming this shift in the debate on the Yes campaign, because the Unionist leadership have all the scruples of a highwayman with none of the charisma.)

While the UK remains within the EU, the Unionists are necessarily constrained as to what they
can in all honesty offer the Scots without risk of it being contradicted by current and future EU law.

The problem, you see, is that the Scots and the English have come to imagine the Union in entirely different terms- or, and this seems more likely,
they always have done so, but only in recent years have these different imaginations become, if not incompatible, then a point of open conflict.

I assume you are talking about the union between Englnd and Wales with Scotland; and not about the European Union.

Well yes, us many of silly English actually imagined that the Scots voted
according to what was written on their ballot paper.

 

[Arakhor]

Deciding not to ratify the elite's decision to join the EU without first consulting the voters and voting to Leave the EU so as not progressing to single European union, is rather more than a whim or fancy.

Rather than my "deliberately" misinterpreting you "again", please restate that so it's clearer for me to understand.

 

[Traitorfish]

But surely other parts of England are the absolute last places you would expect Westminster to stop micromanaging... I don't really see why you would take that as an indicator of anything.

Why would we expect Westminster to micro-manage regional affairs at all?

Deciding not to ratify the elite's decision to join the EU without first consulting the voters and voting to
Leave the EU so as not progressing to single European union, is rather more than a whim or fancy.

Well, I was politely avoiding the word "mania"...

If the US federal government votes not to join or to leave an international organisation e.g. the International Criminal Court, California has no veto.
If the Indian federal government votes to join or leave an international organisation such as the Commonwealth, the individual Indian states have no right to decide otherwise.
And similarly if the UK as a whole votes to leave the EU (and the overall majority of votes casts were for Leave), I do not see that Scotland has a veto on the UK.

Joining the ICC does not have deep and far-reaching constitutional implications, while joining the EU does. You acknowledge as much yourself, with your predictions of encroaching Teutonic federalism.

That is an interesting interpretation.
The ballot papers on google that I can find refers to and uses the word "Independent"

"Should Scotland be an independent country?"

and does not say anything about self government.

The debate around the referendum extended further than the literal wording of the ballot paper? It would have to, else it would just be two sets of people repeating a single syllable over and over again.

While the UK remains within the EU, the Unionists are necessarily constrained as to what they
can in all honesty offer the Scots without risk of it being contradicted by current and future EU law.

That's a non-response. In what concrete ways does the EU, which contains several federal countries, represent an obstacle towards further devolution to Scotland?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Why would we expect Westminster to micro-manage regional affairs at all?

Oh dear, this is all getting out of hand again. I haven't followed whatever this Lancashire/fracking story is so I'm in no position to decide if it really is micromanaging or not, but let's just drop the "micro" prefix - I would expect the English government to manage affairs in England (and I'm only calling it the English government and not the British because that's the tone of the argument being presented). I would also expect places in England to be the last places that the English government would stop managing, micro or otherwise, rather than the first.

 

[Arakhor]

I used the term micromanage because the Lancashire situation was contrary to everyone's wishes there on the ground and because Edward had disparagingly usexd it to suggest that Parliament was out of line to expect to have a say in the handling of Brexit.

 

[Takhisis]

We could make the droll observation that one does not see what business politicians have in politics.

 

[Kyriakos]

Breakfast is made

Maybe he meant there will no longer be the continental version available. British people can make their own breakfast from now on

 

[Silurian]

Oh no - English Breakfast is good one day a week but not seven.

 

[Traitorfish]

Oh dear, this is all getting out of hand again. I haven't followed whatever this Lancashire/fracking story is so I'm in no position to decide if it really is micromanaging or not, but let's just drop the "micro" prefix - I would expect the English government to manage affairs in England (and I'm only calling it the English government and not the British because that's the tone of the argument being presented). I would also expect places in England to be the last places that the English government would stop managing, micro or otherwise, rather than the first.

It isn't the English government, though, whatever the more sanguine Scots nationalists might insight. It's the British government, and it's remit runs the length of the country. Directly involving itself in local affairs suggests, at best, a certain lack of focus.

 

[Silurian]

The shape of things to come for the Brexit negotiations?

From the Guardian

""Emergency talks aimed at rescuing a landmark trade deal between the EU and Canada are under way in Brussels, as the deal hangs in the balance.

The president of the European parliament, Martin Schulz, met the Canadian trade minister, Chrystia Freeland, on Saturday morning in an attempt to salvage the agreement after the Walloon regional parliament refused to allow Belgium to sign the treaty.""

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-talks-over-trade-deal-martin-schulz-wallonia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement

 

[Lillefix]

The EU and their undemocratic ways...

 

[Kyriakos]

^Indeed, the Eu is known to put the interest of member countries first. As long as they are Germany or France.