Brexit Referendum Superthread

Sam Russell

Thomas_... wrote: »

I was always in favour of giving the English their own parliament apart from Westminster on the same Basis on which the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and the Northern Irish Assemblies are set up. With a prospect of having another Scottish Independence Referendum that might result in a majority in favour of Independence, the English can take that chance and have their own parliament and Westminster would be then the parliament of the rest of the UK.

Your idea of placing an English parliament in Manchester doesn't make sense to me for such an Institution has to be placed in London as this is the capital of England as well.

My point that the English Assembly should be in Manchester would be that if it was, it would emphasise that the assembly was not the Parliament. Putting it in Manchester would decentralise decisions away from the bubble that is Westminster, and give a loud voice to the regions, and in particular, those regions north of Watford.

For too long, power, and in particular, political power, has been concentrated in London. That needs to change.

Why did Sunderland and the NE vote so heavily for Brexit when it is the least effected by EU migration, and are likely to be effected in the most negative way by Brexit?

demfad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I cannot understand how NI, Scotland and Wales can accept being held at arms length from Brexit negotiations.
Or what the reasoning is. Anyone know if it is some sort of official way of doing this kind of business?

The Joint Ministerial Council. The JMC met yesterday and all 3 PMs of the small 'nations' stated a minimum preference is guarantee of single market membership. This weakens Mays 'mandate' for immigration controls as it is clear now that this is an English only mandate. The price of flushing the entire UK economy down the drain is clearly too high and unfair on the smaller nations.

Thomas_...

Sam Russell wrote: »

Thomas_... wrote: »

I was always in favour of giving the English their own parliament apart from Westminster on the same Basis on which the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and the Northern Irish Assemblies are set up. With a prospect of having another Scottish Independence Referendum that might result in a majority in favour of Independence, the English can take that chance and have their own parliament and Westminster would be then the parliament of the rest of the UK.

Your idea of placing an English parliament in Manchester doesn't make sense to me for such an Institution has to be placed in London as this is the capital of England as well.

My point that the English Assembly should be in Manchester would be that if it was, it would emphasise that the assembly was not the Parliament. Putting it in Manchester would decentralise decisions away from the bubble that is Westminster, and give a loud voice to the regions, and in particular, those regions north of Watford.

For too long, power, and in particular, political power, has been concentrated in London. That needs to change.

Why did Sunderland and the NE vote so heavily for Brexit when it is the least effected by EU migration, and are likely to be effected in the most negative way by Brexit?

I see. I'm rather reckoning with seeing the UK falling apart in the near future and Scotland to become an Independent Nation once again and then for once and for all. Afterwards the English can see where they are left with their domination of the West Corner of Europe and hence making the way free for a UI when they cease to finance NI and just leave it to the Republic of Ireland where NI historically, geographically and culturally belongs to.

djpbarry

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When you look at how they have rounded on Lineker (for a fairly mild humanitarian comment in fairness) and others, it is hard to know how it is going to be put back in it's box.

Yep, people feel their irrational hatred has been given legitimacy by the referendum – it’s worrying.

What’s possibly even more worrying are the xenophobic noises coming out of the Tory party lately, such as rumours that employers will be required to maintain lists of their foreigners for when Amber Rudd calls around with her clipboard.

djpbarry

Thomas_... wrote: »

I'm rather reckoning with seeing the UK falling apart in the near future and Scotland to become an Independent Nation once again and then for once and for all. Afterwards the English can see where they are left with their domination of the West Corner of Europe and hence making the way free for a UI when they cease to finance NI and just leave it to the Republic of Ireland where NI historically, geographically and culturally belongs to.

There's more than a hint of anti-English sentiment about your posts.

Might I remind you that a very large minority of English people voted to remain in the EU.

demfad

djpbarry wrote: »

Yep, people feel their irrational hatred has been given legitimacy by the referendum – it’s worrying.

What’s possibly even more worrying are the xenophobic noises coming out of the Tory party lately, such as rumours that employers will be required to maintain lists of their foreigners for when Amber Rudd calls around with her clipboard.

This was quickly dismissed by Hammond at an event in NY for US bankers. He assured them that bankers and other rich people wouldn't be affected. Rudd had to row back somewhat.

Also worrying for the UK is that Hammond has apparently been sidelined in key cabinet Brexit meetings. He wasn't given a preview of May's 'hard Brexit' Tory speech for example.

The UK are heading for arguably the most important peace time negotiations in UK history. Even though the negotiations will be economic (directed by ideology) the chancellor of the exchequer is compromised.

FrancieBrady

demfad wrote: »

This was quickly dismissed by Hammond at an event in NY for US bankers. He assured them that bankers and other rich people wouldn't be affected. Rudd had to row back somewhat.

Also worrying for the UK is that Hammond has apparently been sidelined in key cabinet Brexit meetings. He wasn't given a preview of May's 'hard Brexit' Tory speech for example.

The UK are heading for arguably the most important peace time negotiations in UK history. Even though the negotiations will be economic (directed by ideology) the chancellor of the exchequer is compromised.

They never had any problem with rich foreigners in high positions.

Clearlier

demfad wrote: »

This was quickly dismissed by Hammond at an event in NY for US bankers. He assured them that bankers and other rich people wouldn't be affected. Rudd had to row back somewhat.

Also worrying for the UK is that Hammond has apparently been sidelined in key cabinet Brexit meetings. He wasn't given a preview of May's 'hard Brexit' Tory speech for example.

The UK are heading for arguably the most important peace time negotiations in UK history. Even though the negotiations will be economic (directed by ideology) the chancellor of the exchequer is compromised.

I heard an interview with him shortly after his appointment as chancellor and he made it clear that it had been made clear to him that he would not be involved in Brexit and would be kept on the sideline for this (incredibly important) issue. He wasn't happy but clear that he knew exactly where he stood.

solodeogloria

demfad wrote: »

The Joint Ministerial Council. The JMC met yesterday and all 3 PMs of the small 'nations' stated a minimum preference is guarantee of single market membership. This weakens Mays 'mandate' for immigration controls as it is clear now that this is an English only mandate. The price of flushing the entire UK economy down the drain is clearly too high and unfair on the smaller nations.

Good morning!

Forgive me but didn't Wales vote for Brexit also?

Also - the referendum was conducted as a United Kingdom and it will leave the European Union as a United Kingdom.

Scotland won't win another referendum. In particular the economic arguments (as dubious as they were in 2014) no longer hold. It's not certain that a remain vote in the Brexit referendum corresponds with independence support.

Interpreting Northern Ireland's result in respect to a United Ireland is even more dubious.

The nations must be consulted but May's mandate from the referendum is to do two things:
- Ensure that Britain takes back control of legislation from Brussels.
- Take control on immigration.

Neither of which are massively unreasonable given the result.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

We've seen one country leave a union when the economic arguments didn't hold. Why not another? I wouldn't be so quick to write off the idea of Scotland outside the UK.

Scotland as part of the UK as part of the EU could only be a bigger 'sell' to the 'No' voters in the last referendum (when you consider the 62% Remain voters) than Scotland as part of the UK as not part of the EU.

There's a big ole Venn Diagram waiting to be drawn, with a whole lot of space up for grabs.

solodeogloria

Deleted User wrote: »

We've seen one country leave a union when the economic arguments didn't hold. Why not another?

Good morning!

The difference is I don't think Sturgeon can actually get the vote past the line. North Sea Oil isn't as profitable as it used to be. The case for an independent Scotland is much weaker than in 2014.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

solodeogloria

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The difference is I don't think Sturgeon can actually get the vote past the line. North Sea Oil isn't as profitable as it used to be. The case for an independent Scotland is much weaker than in 2014.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Apologies, I edited my post whilst you were replying to it!

The economic case for an 'independent UK' (from the EU) was the weaker option in almost all commentators' analysis, yet still prevailed.

We have a direct and relevant example of the economic arguments not being the ones that the decision rested on, so I think it unwise to retreat to the 'It's the Economy stupid' position now.

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Forgive me but didn't Wales vote for Brexit also?

Also - the referendum was conducted as a United Kingdom and it will leave the European Union as a United Kingdom.

Scotland won't win another referendum. In particular the economic arguments (as dubious as they were in 2014) no longer hold. It's not certain that a remain vote in the Brexit referendum corresponds with independence support.

Interpreting Northern Ireland's result in respect to a United Ireland is even more dubious.

The nations must be consulted but May's mandate from the referendum is to do two things:
- Ensure that Britain takes back control of legislation from Brussels.
- Take control on immigration.

Neither of which are massively unreasonable given the result.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The only result/mandate that the referendum pointed to was that the UK would leave the EU. No mention was made on the ballot paper about immigration or wresting control from Brussels of legislation. Much of EU legislation would be required if the UK chooses to go the EEA route. The vote said nothing about the The European Convention on Human Rights which May has always had trouble with (as Home Secretary).

The campaign to leave promised £350 million a week would go to the NHS - that cannot and will not happen. There were plenty of other claims that were based on falsehoods, for example, who will pay the farmers single payment, or pay the regional funds that go to the areas that voted most heavily to leave?

The UK has significant control over immigration currently that it does not exercise - namely immigration from outside the EU. The only result that leaving the EU has on immigration is to prevent badly needed professionals from entering the UK - this will harm the NHS and the universities and business. Illegal immigration will continue as before as will immigration from non-EU states.

The loss of passporting of financial services will cause many institutions to move to Paris, Frankfurt or Dublin. The rest could look at New York as an alternative. To counteract this, the UK could turn themselves into a tax haven with slack regulation - not the platform put forward by the Brexiteers.

I think as the precipice comes closer, some of the lemmings might turn back.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think as the precipice comes closer, some of the lemmings might turn back.

How would this work? We have Teresa "Brexit means Brexit" May at the helm who seems determined to leave one way or the other and a Labour party which is unable of providing a functional opposition.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How would this work? We have Teresa "Brexit means Brexit" May at the helm who seems determined to leave one way or the other and a Labour party which is unable of providing a functional opposition.

May has a majority of 3, and a divided party on Brexit. Some of those MPs are not total lemmings.

They have changed PMs once this session, could they do it again?

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The difference is I don't think Sturgeon can actually get the vote past the line. North Sea Oil isn't as profitable as it used to be. The case for an independent Scotland is much weaker than in 2014.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It depends. The rationale for the UK Brexit decision was not economic and a contribution the the last Scottish referendum was the risk to EU membership for Scotland.

The Brexit vote has been a material change and provides a rationale for making a decision for reasons beyond North Sea Oil.

Chips Lovell

I'd agree that Independence won't be as easy a sell as a lot of people seem to think it will be.

Either way, Scotland is likely to be poorer. What Sturgeon would need to to is convince voters that Independence and remaining in the EU would be the least worst option.

Thomas_...

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I'd agree that Independence won't be as easy a sell as a lot of people seem to think it will be.

Either way, Scotland is likely to be poorer. What Sturgeon would need to to is convince voters that Independence and remaining in the EU would be the least worst option.

Well, the whole UK of today is likely to be poorer when the Brexiters dreams fall apart by Meeting reality and when they are left to do their own deals with other nations as they so wished for doing so. There is no guarantee that the UK will be better off after they have exited the EU and there is also no guarantee that Scotland will be poorer when she leaves the UK but becomes a member of the EU as an independent nation and a replacement of the UK in the EU.

I rather see the chances as being 50/50.

Bob24

Calina wrote: »

It depends. The rationale for the UK Brexit decision was not economic and a contribution the the last Scottish referendum was the risk to EU membership for Scotland.

The Brexit vote has been a material change and provides a rationale for making a decision for reasons beyond North Sea Oil.

Yes cultural aspects are now becoming more important than the economy for a good number of voters.

Having said that, convincing voters that leaving the UK is the best course of action to protect their cultural identity might be a hard sale.

Chips Lovell

Thomas_... wrote: »

Well, the whole UK of today is likely to be poorer when the Brexiters dreams fall apart by Meeting reality and when they are left to do their own deals with other nations as they so wished for doing so.

That's what I meant, that Scotland would be poorer because the whole of the UK would be. I didn't intend suggesting that Scotland would be worse affected than the other constituent nations.

Whether it's better off remaining in the EU really depends on whether the economic benefits and any subsidies it gets from that outweigh the subsidies it looses by decoupling from the UK. That's a tricky one to answer.

I do think that the chance of a referndum passing is higher than the first time around, since it's a shot in the dark vs. a shot in the dark compared to shot in the dark vs. status quo. I just don't think its a foregone conclusion.

Thomas_...

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Thomas_... wrote: »

Well, the whole UK of today is likely to be poorer when the Brexiters dreams fall apart by Meeting reality and when they are left to do their own deals with other nations as they so wished for doing so.

That's what I meant, that Scotland would be poorer because the whole of the UK would be. I didn't intend suggesting that Scotland would be worse affected than the other constituent nations.

Whether it's better off remaining in the EU really depends on whether the economic benefits and any subsidies it gets from that outweigh the subsidies it looses by decoupling from the UK. That's a tricky one to answer.

I do think that the chance of a referndum passing is higher than the first time around, since it's a shot in the dark vs. a shot in the dark compared to shot in the dark vs. status quo. I just don't think its a foregone conclusion.

Yes, that all makes sense to me. The EU on the other hand could interfere in this anticipated furious debate that will arise by supporting the Scottish camp and make them some offers but at least, such offers should be backed by all the remaining EU member states for otherwise it would backfire on the EU and the SNP. The UK govt wouldn't be pleased buy such an approach and I rather doubt that the EU would ever even consider such an attempt to interfere with domestic matters of the UK, but who knows what comes along next year.

Nody

Thomas_... wrote: »

Yes, that all makes sense to me. The EU on the other hand could interfere in this anticipated furious debate that will arise by supporting the Scottish camp and make them some offers but at least, such offers should be backed by all the remaining EU member states for otherwise it would backfire on the EU and the SNP. The UK govt wouldn't be pleased buy such an approach and I rather doubt that the EU would ever even consider such an attempt to interfere with domestic matters of the UK, but who knows what comes along next year.

Unlikely EU would support it due to Catalan, Flemish region etc. They don't want to give regions the idea they can break out and then get a fast track into EU afterwards due to previous association.

Thomas_...

Thomas_... wrote: »

Yes, that all makes sense to me. The EU on the other hand could interfere in this anticipated furious debate that will arise by supporting the Scottish camp and make them some offers but at least, such offers should be backed by all the remaining EU member states for otherwise it would backfire on the EU and the SNP. The UK govt wouldn't be pleased buy such an approach and I rather doubt that the EU would ever even consider such an attempt to interfere with domestic matters of the UK, but who knows what comes along next year.

The EU will do exactly as it did last time, stay out of it.

Thomas_...

Nody wrote: »

Thomas_... wrote: »

Yes, that all makes sense to me. The EU on the other hand could interfere in this anticipated furious debate that will arise by supporting the Scottish camp and make them some offers but at least, such offers should be backed by all the remaining EU member states for otherwise it would backfire on the EU and the SNP. The UK govt wouldn't be pleased buy such an approach and I rather doubt that the EU would ever even consider such an attempt to interfere with domestic matters of the UK, but who knows what comes along next year.

Unlikely EU would support it due to Catalan, Flemish region etc. They don't want to give regions the idea they can break out and then get a fast track into EU afterwards due to previous association.

Yes, rather unlikely but why then giving Scotland the prospect of getting a membership in the event of her independence? That contradicts the general attitude of the EU towards other regions of EU member states.

Thomas_...

Deleted User wrote: »

Thomas_... wrote: »

Yes, that all makes sense to me. The EU on the other hand could interfere in this anticipated furious debate that will arise by supporting the Scottish camp and make them some offers but at least, such offers should be backed by all the remaining EU member states for otherwise it would backfire on the EU and the SNP. The UK govt wouldn't be pleased buy such an approach and I rather doubt that the EU would ever even consider such an attempt to interfere with domestic matters of the UK, but who knows what comes along next year.

The EU will do exactly as it did last time, stay out of it.

Sure they will, stay out of it and if not, it will told to stay out of it by the UK govt.

Chips Lovell

While I can see the EU not standing in Scotland's way if it wants to remain in as an independent state, I can't see it bending over backwards to win the Scots over.

Scotland is hardly (to borrow the words of one of its most famous bands) a glittering prize.

Zubeneschamali

Thomas_... wrote: »

Yes, rather unlikely but why then giving Scotland the prospect of getting a membership in the event of her independence? That contradicts the general attitude of the EU towards other regions of EU member states.

But Scotlands situation is different - Scottish people are EU citizens being dragged out of the UK by their mad English masters, other EU citizens will be sympathetic to Scottish people not being dragged away, and England can't block the idea since they are leaving.

Catalonian or Basque independence is of no consequence to any other EU citizen, and Spain as a full member can very much block the idea.

Bob24

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But Scotlands situation is different - Scottish people are EU citizens being dragged out of the UK by their mad English masters, other EU citizens will be sympathetic to Scottish people not being dragged away, and England can't block the idea since they are leaving.

Catalonian or Basque independence is of no consequence to any other EU citizen, and Spain as a full member can very much block the idea.

There would be hard discussions between EU members. While some might try to make it easy for Scotland to "punish" the English, I think Spain, Belgium, or any other country with potential concerns that one of its own regions might try to break-up would make it hard for the Scots, so as not to set a precedent that leaving a country and remaining in the EU is an automatic and easy process.

djpbarry

solodeogloria wrote: »

Scotland won't win another referendum. In particular the economic arguments (as dubious as they were in 2014) no longer hold.

You’re right, they don’t – the economic case for remaining in the UK is weaker than it was in 2014.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The nations must be consulted but May's mandate from the referendum is to do two things:
- Ensure that Britain takes back control of legislation from Brussels.
- Take control on immigration.

Neither of which are massively unreasonable given the result.

I’m sorry, but what result are you referring to? Because in the referendum in which I voted, I was simply asked whether I wished for the UK to remain in or leave the EU. May’s mandate is limited to the answer provided to that particular question. She certainly does not have a mandate for the “Hard Brexit” that she seems to be pursuing.

Thomas_...

Bob24 wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But Scotlands situation is different - Scottish people are EU citizens being dragged out of the UK by their mad English masters, other EU citizens will be sympathetic to Scottish people not being dragged away, and England can't block the idea since they are leaving.

Catalonian or Basque independence is of no consequence to any other EU citizen, and Spain as a full member can very much block the idea.

There would be hard discussions between EU members. While some might try to make it easy for Scotland to "punish" the English, I think Spain, Belgium, or any other country with potential concerns that one of its own regions might try to break-up would make it hard for the Scots, so as not to set a precedent that leaving a country and remaining in the EU is an automatic and easy process.

Belgium can fall apart by itself without considering what an Independent Scotland that would be a EU member state would mean for the EU. The Union of the Belgian Kingdom is still fragile.

I am no supporter of such ideas, only in case of Scotland I am in support of their independence. Separatism in other countries have their own cultural and historical backgrounds but what not less of them have in common is that they feel and see themselves as being ill-served by the national government.