Brexit Referendum Superthread

Foghladh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

stefanovich wrote: »

They had a referendum and they voted to remain in the UK. Nicola is just posturing for political gain.

And the circumstances have changed massively and they require another ref.

Says who? The inhabitants? Or are people trying to find similarities with the Scottish scenario.

Calina

stefanovich wrote: »

Good thing the majority saw through the lies and voted the right way.

Perhaps they should move to proportional representation like Ireland and enjoy the mess we deal with?

This is a profoundly ignorant comment in the context.

First of all, a referendum is a yes/no question. It's not done on the basis of proportional representation. This is because referendums are not generally voting for representation, but for a decision.

Secondly, the Scots have proportional representation for the Scottish parliament. It is somewhat different to the arrangements in Ireland, but it is in fact, proportional in the way that the Westminster elections are not.

Thirdly, to be perfectly frank, significantly more lies and dishonesty in the UK Brexit referendum came from the side which ultimately won. There are many people in the UK who are slowly starting to find out that they will never get 350 million pounds for the NHS. They have found out they will not be in the single market and their government aren't even considering negotiating for it. They are finding out that no one actually cared about the border in Northern Ireland and they are finding out that no one has considered the impact on Gibralter. The Brexit supporting side did not come even close to measuring the ramifications of their side which the opposing side did. I hope the English are enjoying the inflation which is slowly starting to cut in.

Fourthly, it is also incorrect to suggest that the Scots have no options to do something about the mess a lot of seriously ignorant English people have put them in. There may have been a referendum two years ago and a core component of the better together campaign was that exit from the UK would cost Scotland EU membership. The UK has subsequently voted out of the EU itself and the Scots who value EU membership may take the view that being shackled to the UK is of less value to them than gaining independence and working on getting back into the EU. I see anti-Scottish independent voices scathingly pointing out that apparently the EU won't take any new members until 2020. Well that's not that far off in economic terms. The fact remains that the majority of seats in Holyrood are held by pro-independence parties and that is underpinned by proportional representatation. Where they vote on FPTP, for Westminster, the SNP hold 54 of the 59 seats.

The raison d'etre of the SNP is absolutely obvious. The Scots may have voted against independence a couple of years ago but they continue to hand massive amounts of representative authority over to a party whose reason for existing is independence both in terms of PR and FPTP.

You are in no position to say that the Scots have no options or inputs here. The UK is a union of equal members, allegedly, although it is blatantly obvious that the English have never understood this, and if the Scots are sending a clear message that they prefer EU to UK, the English, and you, do not get to shackle them to the UK.

The political situation in the UK is now extremely different to what it was three years ago. For that reason, saying the Scots cannot reconsider a major decision is nothing short of disgusting and nasty. Quite frankly, I think the English - and people like you - are terrified that in fact, the Scots, with different required outcomes for independence will be successful outside of the UK where the rest of the UK will not be successful outside of the EU. Yuu can smell the terror off Brexit voters who yowl, wail and scream about independence and getting control back on the subject of Scotland taking control back. They are absolutely petrified. They've made a stupid decision and they want to take everyone else down with them.

Bit cynical

I think that if Scotland were to gain independence they would not ultimately go on to join the EU.

The reason for this is:
1. We tend to assume in the wake of Brexit that the main reason Scots might want independence is in order to join the EU. But there's very little evidence for that and, in fact, since the referendum, polls are still much at the same level after the Brexit referendum as they were before the Scottish independence referendum. Although a majority in Scotland voted against Brexit, a significant minority voted in favour of it. It is quite likely therefore that a significant overlap exists between Brexit and independence support, both being about self-determination. I think most will agree that it makes a certain amount of sense.

2. If they gain independence and then apply to join the EU, they must first join the EEA. This confers most of the economic benefits of EU membership. The downside, of course, is little or no influence over EU legislation (however how much would they have anyway as a very small country?). The crucial point is, however, that EEA membership allows independent free trade deals with third parties and allows the retaining of existing trade deals. Upon gaining independence, they would quickly form a free trade deal with the rump UK and join the EEA. But if they then join the EU they would have to give up that free trade deal causing unprecedented disruption to their economy as the EU would oblige them to impose a hard border with their Southern trading partner.

So if they gain independence, at most they will join the EEA but not the EU.

I almost forgot to mention fishing rights. After Brexit, unless they are traded away, UK fishing grounds will be returned to the UK and if Scotland gains indpendence, Scottish fishing grounds will be returned to Scotland. However, upon joining the EU they would have to give that up. I can see a fairly industrial UK giving up UK fishing grounds but fishing is much bigger proportionately in Scotland and therefore a bigger deal to hand back.

FrancieBrady

Foghladh wrote: »

Says who? The inhabitants? Or are people trying to find similarities with the Scottish scenario.

I was referring to the Scots not the Gibraltese or ex pat Brits (not sure what their correct title is)

robindch

murphaph wrote: »

The UK is completely on the back foot. It's almost cringe worthy.

The UK has been on the back foot since that idiotic vote last year - and its government seems either unaware of that (in which case they are stupid) or they are (in which case they are dishonest in not being upfront about it).

Thankfully, the EU, Tusk and the rest are playing nice at the moment. If things turn ugly, I really wouldn't like to be the UK - they have very few negotiating cards indeed, and massive liabilities.

Sam Russell

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think that if Scotland were to gain independence they would not ultimately go on to join the EU.

If they vote independence before the UK leave the EU, then they will not have left the EU. It will be England and Wales that will be leaving.

Anyway, they voted quite heavily to remain, so why do the Leavers believe they have changed their mind?

Lemming

Bit cynical wrote: »

I almost forgot to mention fishing rights. After Brexit, unless they are traded away, UK fishing grounds will be returned to the UK and if Scotland gains indpendence, Scottish fishing grounds will be returned to Scotland. However, upon joining the EU they would have to give that up. I can see a fairly industrial UK giving up UK fishing grounds but fishing is much bigger proportionately in Scotland and therefore a bigger deal to hand back.

You are misrepresenting matters; they don't "give up rights to fish", but they would have to come to some sort of agreement regards sharing grounds - or part of their fishing grounds if they wish to retain some exclusivity - & quotas to prevent overfishing.

In any case, those grounds will need to be policed. What is gained with one hand, is lost with the other. So it's not suddenly as if the UK would have a massive fishing industry again and the revenue generated from it; naval resources will need to be spent policing the sovereignty of their fishing grounds, and who are they going to sell to, and at what cost before they make a profit given that the EU's heaviest tarrifs are all food-based.

djpbarry

stefanovich wrote: »

They had a referendum and they voted to remain in the UK. Nicola is just posturing for political gain.

They also voted to remain in the EU, remember? Seems to me that a third referendum to establish the overlap between those two conflicting positions is warranted.

stefanovich wrote: »

Good thing the majority saw through the lies and voted the right way.

Perhaps they should move to proportional representation like Ireland and enjoy the mess we deal with?

That would be nice – the views of almost half the population, who voted to remain in the EU, might actually be taken into consideration then.

djpbarry

Bit cynical wrote: »

We tend to assume in the wake of Brexit that the main reason Scots might want independence is in order to join the EU. But there's very little evidence for that and, in fact, since the referendum, polls are still much at the same level after the Brexit referendum as they were before the Scottish independence referendum.

That’s not true. Support for Scottish independence has been growing steadily since the first referendum on the matter:
http://scotcen.org.uk/media/1361407/ssa16-2fr8m-1ndyref-2-1ndyr8f-tw0-two.pdf

Bit cynical wrote: »

I almost forgot to mention fishing rights. After Brexit, unless they are traded away, UK fishing grounds will be returned to the UK and if Scotland gains indpendence, Scottish fishing grounds will be returned to Scotland. However, upon joining the EU they would have to give that up.

They wouldn't have to "give anything up", but regardless, sharing fishing grounds didn’t stop Ireland joining the EU.

Water John

In fairness Barry our big sell out was Fisheries. Scots should not let that happen to them.

Westminister have little in their hand and it will become readily apparent over the next 2 months.

Nody

Water John wrote: »

In fairness Barry our big sell out was Fisheries. Scots should not let that happen to them.

No Ireland did not...
Here are the facts:

According to a 1970 Department of Agriculture report, which was produced in advance of Ireland joining the then EEC in 1973, Irish exports of fish and fishery products in 1968 were valued at £2.7m — less than 1% of total exports in that year — of which £1.3m was consigned to EEC countries and £1.2m to the UK Imports in 1968 were valued at £1.5m of which nearly £0.7m came from the UK mainly as fish fingers and smoked fish.

The numbers employed were significant for coastal communities but not on a national scale. In 1963, 5,588 people were employed: 1,666 (30%) were engaged wholly in sea fishing and 3,922 (70%) were engaged part time. By 1969, the number of full-time sea fishermen had increased by 9% to 1,821, and the number of part-time fishermen had declined by about 3% to 3,810. Total employment in the industry was at 6,800 according to the ESRI.

In recent times, employment has fallen from 15,000 in 1997 to 11,000 (including part-time workers) in the industry: 5,000 in fishing; 1,700 in aquaculture; 2,900 in processing and the rest in ancillary activities (excluding distribution) according to Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM - Sea Fisheries Board).

The value of Irish seafood exports in 2014 was €533m — 2.9% of indigenous tradeable exports in the year and 0.26% of total headline exports. Overall, the total sales of seafood both export and on the home market amounted to about €845m.

I could go on but you can read it all here but in short no, Ireland did not give up their fish to EU when joining. In fact they got funds to modernize their fleet and pull up even more fish than ever before inc. funding for ships to guard their waters. It's become a myth story going around the same route as the "endless riches of gas / oil in the Irish waters" and how the Spanish were stealing all the fish and jobs; the reality however is different and the numbers tell a very clear story not matched to the story.

Enzokk

stefanovich wrote: »

So you are in favour of Spain taking control of Gibraltar against the will of all who live there?

Surely if we follow your argument then Scotland and Northern Ireland will have to stay in the EU or they will be taken out of it against their will?

catbear

Norway will want heavy tariffs on UK fish to protect its EEA market. No net benefit.

Water John

Nody, don't disagree with you. We gave up the potential of our fishing stocks to other EU countries.
In fairness, we had not historically invested in the industry.

It was like having massive mineral reserves but telling the EU to use them as we weren't equipped to.

ancapailldorcha

catbear wrote: »

Norway will want heavy tariffs on UK fish to protect its EEA market. No net benefit.

Norway isn't an EU member and has no say in EU legislation.

An Ciarraioch

Nody wrote: »

No Ireland did not...
Here are the facts:


I could go on but you can read it all here but in short no, Ireland did not give up their fish to EU when joining. In fact they got funds to modernize their fleet and pull up even more fish than ever before inc. funding for ships to guard their waters. It's become a myth story going around the same route as the "endless riches of gas / oil in the Irish waters" and how the Spanish were stealing all the fish and jobs; the reality however is different and the numbers tell a very clear story not matched to the story.

And our maritime borders had a mere 12-mile limit in 1973, compared with the 200-mile range today, so the fisheries area is vastly expanded.

Bit cynical

Lemming wrote: »

You are misrepresenting matters; they don't "give up rights to fish", but they would have to come to some sort of agreement regards sharing grounds - or part of their fishing grounds if they wish to retain some exclusivity - & quotas to prevent overfishing.

In any case, those grounds will need to be policed. What is gained with one hand, is lost with the other. So it's not suddenly as if the UK would have a massive fishing industry again and the revenue generated from it; naval resources will need to be spent policing the sovereignty of their fishing grounds, and who are they going to sell to, and at what cost before they make a profit given that the EU's heaviest tarrifs are all food-based.

I'm really talking about the political fallout of suddenly gaining quite a large chunk of fishing grounds under the control of Scotland only to hand it back when they join the EU. Our handing over of fishing grounds is still a political issue in Ireland even though we joined the EU in 1973.

CrabRevolution

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm really talking about the political fallout of suddenly gaining quite a large chunk of fishing grounds under the control of Scotland only to hand it back when they join the EU. Our handing over of fishing grounds is still a political issue in Ireland even though we joined the EU in 1973.

Is it really? Or do a few fringe activists just claim it is?

Same with fossil fuels. We produce 0 barrels a year of oil and a small amount of gas from 2 fields, yet apparently this means we are having vast resources "stolen" from us.

Zubeneschamali

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Is it really? Or do a few fringe activists just claim it is?

We land far more fish now than before we joined the EU.

Far more people are employed, both in the fishing fleet and in processing.

But.. the EU stole our fish! Everyone knows!

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We land far more fish now than before we joined the EU.

Far more people are employed, both in the fishing fleet and in processing.

But.. the EU stole our fish! Everyone knows!

I'm afraid this is a well known logical fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Just because Ireland's fishing developed during EU membership does not mean it would not have developed (or developed more) outside of the EU.

Ireland's fishing waters were demanded by the EU as a condition of entry. It is something we gave up. Other fishing fleets are now worried because former Uk fishing waters are to be returned to the the UK.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

Ireland's fishing waters were demanded by the EU as a condition of entry. .

Much better not to have them "demand our waters" and catch less fish, employ less people, and make less money.

Because 1916 was all about water demandation!

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Much better not to have them "demand our waters" and catch less fish, employ less people, and make less money.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc again!

catbear

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

catbear wrote: »

Norway will want heavy tariffs on UK fish to protect its EEA market. No net benefit.

Norway isn't an EU member and has no say in EU legislation.

If you actually read my post post you'd see I said the EEA, which at this time the UK hasn't ruled out leaving as well.

murphaph

catbear wrote: »

If you actually read my post post you'd see I said the EEA, which at this time the UK hasn't ruled out leaving as well.

Yeah but the point stands. Norway can want a lot of things but Norway will have no say in the deal with the UK.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

Post hoc ergo propter hoc again!

Wow, underlining and Latin! Cannot fail!

If not for all the evidence from the money and the fish and the jobs.

So tell us, in your ideal world where we gave up nothing fish related to the EU, how would we be better off exactly? Who would have invested in our fleet? Who would have bought our catch?

Spell it out here - we know how the industry thrived in the EU, in your ideal world, how would it have done not just as well, but even better?

ancapailldorcha

catbear wrote: »

If you actually read my post post you'd see I said the EEA, which at this time the UK hasn't ruled out leaving as well.

Again, EEA countries do not have a say in EU regulation. They simply must abide by it.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Again, EEA countries do not have a say in EU regulation. They simply must abide by it.

May has been extremely contemptuous of the idea that the UK would get a Swiss deal or a Norwegian deal.

They are going to get a great deal, a really great deal, the greatest! Trust me, it'll be great!

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

Just because Ireland's fishing developed during EU membership does not mean it would not have developed (or developed more) outside of the EU.

There is no evidence to support that. The EU has put more investment into the Irish fishing industry than generations of Irish governments, or fishermen themselves.

We have a small, artisan fishing industry because we don't eat enough fish. People starved in the Famine with the seas full of food because we lacked the wherewithal to catch it.

The Catholic church has done more to cripple the Irish fishing industry than a fleet of super trawlers ever could.

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

There is no evidence to support that. The EU has put more investment into the Irish fishing industry than generations of Irish governments, or fishermen themselves.

We have a small, artisan fishing industry because we don't eat enough fish. People starved in the Famine with the seas full of food because we lacked the wherewithal to catch it.

The Catholic church has done more to cripple the Irish fishing industry than a fleet of super trawlers ever could.

It seems to me that this is basically the same argument as made by Zubeneschamali: because Ireland had not developed its fishing industry significantly up to the point of of joining the EU, it could not, it is believed, have developed its fishing industry after that point so we may as well have given away the asset.

This is a bit like saying that a country with oil under the ground may as well give away rights to its oil if it has not up to that point exploited it.

My main point remains. If Scotland has its fishing waters returned to it, it will be very reluctant to give it away again. Plus the other things like having to reintroduce a hard border with the rump UK in accordance with EU requirements will make rejoining the EU a difficult proposition. Unlike Ireland, which will have to introduce a hard border due to another country's leaving, this will be an active decision on Scotland's part and therefore they will only be able to blame themselves for the consequences.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

It seems to me that this is basically the same argument as made by Zubeneschamali: because Ireland had not developed its fishing industry significantly up to the point of of joining the EU, it could not, it is believed, have developed its fishing industry after that point so we may as well have given away the asset.

We have exactly the same access to the asset as we always had. If Irish waters were off limits to others, the asset would keep swimming around as we don't have the capacity to catch it.