BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/07/scottish-brexit-voters-pose-quandary-for-independence-campaign

Nicky the Fish is in no position to call any referendum.
29% of SNP voters voted for Brexit.

So 71% voted Remain? And how many No voters did so to remain in the EU?
This is a complete clusterf brought about by DC.

bramstoker

Has the EU at any point said they would let Scotland remain in, or to rejoin if they were independent ?

briantrumpet

PBlakeney wrote:

This is a complete clusterf brought about by DC.

When my new word shows up here in a Google search, the next logical step will be for its inclusion in the OED. Remember, this is history being made, right here, right now.

Forget Brexit.

rick_chasey

bramstoker wrote:

Has the EU at any point said they would let Scotland remain in, or to rejoin if they were independent ?

Spain will veto any attempt for its own separatist issues.

bramstoker

Seems like she can promise the earth then, but not deliver, lots of hot air.

briantrumpet

bramstoker wrote:

Seems like she can promise the earth then, but not deliver, lots of hot air.

A bit like the pipe-dream Brexiters, then.

TheBigBean

A blog for people that don't like the result. It is not the will of the British people etc.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/2 ... -has-been/?

Bobbinogs

TheBigBean wrote:

A blog for people that don't like the result. It is not the will of the British people etc.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/2 ... -has-been/?

Cripes, what a big bag of tosh that is. Quite clear on which side he is, I can tell by the big L on his forehead.

TheBigBean

I particularly like the idea that you give more importance to polls of how people would vote than how they did vote.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

bramstoker wrote:

Has the EU at any point said they would let Scotland remain in, or to rejoin if they were independent ?

Spain will veto any attempt for its own separatist issues.

And I believe they have stated such.

wallace_and_gromit

TheBigBean wrote:

I particularly like the idea that you give more importance to polls of how people would vote than how they did vote.

The disbelief in his words - that despite overwhelming support to remain it was just one of those freak random events that those pesky 17 million people voted the wrong way - was palpable. I bet the book that the blog site was touting is a hoot, but I won't be stumping up to find out!

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

That's two remain arguments that I really don't like
1. EU is the main reason for peace.
2. That moving the border with France is any more significant than preventing immigration queues on arrival. It's possible to fly from France to the UK and only go through immigration on arrival. The reason this isn't the go to option for residents of the jungle is airport security. There is no reason to suggest channel tunnel security will be reduced as a consequence of shifting immigration.

Europe, and France/Germany had been in a perpetual state of war since the beginning of time. This ended in 1945. Most observers attribute at least part of this to the EU.

Once immigrants set foot in the U.K. they can claim asylum here. By moving the border to France they can not set foot here. It is a remarkably generous situation that the French have allowed.

By moving the border to the UK it will be no easier to set foot there because there will still be security. Same as airports. It is a red herring.

How do you see it as a red herring?
The security will be handled by the French only and if they decide not to search a lorry or turn a blind eye to a car full of Afghans, once outside of the french border, it ll be our problem - France will have zero incentive to enforce exit controls.

Eurotunnel (the company) will have security and passport checks otherwise they have no business. Same as airports.

All passport controls do is prevent a delay on arrival. Imagine a Eurostar train where everyone needs to queue to go through passport control. They wouldn't have been allowed on the train without Eurostar checking the passport and checking security. It's just a question of efficiency. It becomes the same as flying.

So,ask yourself why we are so keen to keep the border controls in France

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

bramstoker wrote:

Has the EU at any point said they would let Scotland remain in, or to rejoin if they were independent ?

Spain will veto any attempt for its own separatist issues.

And I believe they have stated such.

The point being that as things stand, they are definitely out of the EU.
Wee Jimmy will be selling it as the only possible way back in.

ballysmate

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

That's two remain arguments that I really don't like
1. EU is the main reason for peace.
2. That moving the border with France is any more significant than preventing immigration queues on arrival. It's possible to fly from France to the UK and only go through immigration on arrival. The reason this isn't the go to option for residents of the jungle is airport security. There is no reason to suggest channel tunnel security will be reduced as a consequence of shifting immigration.

Europe, and France/Germany had been in a perpetual state of war since the beginning of time. This ended in 1945. Most observers attribute at least part of this to the EU.

Once immigrants set foot in the U.K. they can claim asylum here. By moving the border to France they can not set foot here. It is a remarkably generous situation that the French have allowed.

By moving the border to the UK it will be no easier to set foot there because there will still be security. Same as airports. It is a red herring.

How do you see it as a red herring?
The security will be handled by the French only and if they decide not to search a lorry or turn a blind eye to a car full of Afghans, once outside of the french border, it ll be our problem - France will have zero incentive to enforce exit controls.

Eurotunnel (the company) will have security and passport checks otherwise they have no business. Same as airports.

All passport controls do is prevent a delay on arrival. Imagine a Eurostar train where everyone needs to queue to go through passport control. They wouldn't have been allowed on the train without Eurostar checking the passport and checking security. It's just a question of efficiency. It becomes the same as flying.

So,ask yourself why we are so keen to keep the border controls in France

In both countries' interest to police the border. If France were to facilitate free crossing, they would be inundated with migrants looking to get to the UK.

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So,ask yourself why we are so keen to keep the border controls in France

Convenience, cost, etc. How do you think all the other non French ports work?

ballysmate

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/ ... dex_en.htm
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossa ... hague.html

An indie Scotland would have no currency and no lender of last resort initially, so I imagine would not meet the Copenhagen Criteria. Plus a massive hole in their finances without Barnett.
Access would be negotiated and not happen overnight. Mind you, once admitted they would have a currency - The Euro.

bramstoker

Ballysmate wrote:

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/steps-towards-joining/index_en.htm
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossa ... hague.html

An indie Scotland would have no currency and no lender of last resort initially, so I imagine would not meet the Copenhagen Criteria. Plus a massive hole in their finances without Barnett.
Access would be negotiated and not happen overnight. Mind you, once admitted they would have a currency - The Euro.

So what cards is she trying to play? People go on about how doomed we all are leaving the EU, if the scots leave us they would be even worse off.

ballysmate

bramstoker wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/steps-towards-joining/index_en.htm
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossa ... hague.html

An indie Scotland would have no currency and no lender of last resort initially, so I imagine would not meet the Copenhagen Criteria. Plus a massive hole in their finances without Barnett.
Access would be negotiated and not happen overnight. Mind you, once admitted they would have a currency - The Euro.

So what cards is she trying to play? People go on about how doomed we all are leaving the EU, if the scots leave us they would be even worse off.

Search me !
We may have been turkeys voting for Xmas in many people's eyes, but the Scots really would be plucking themselves, jumping in the oven and given themselves a good basting.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

So,ask yourself why we are so keen to keep the border controls in France

Convenience, cost, etc. How do you think all the other non French ports work?

Only Dunkirk works the same. A quick Google tells you that is is illegal for SNCF to check docs and that pre 2003 thousands of people a year were refused entry at Dover. These people could try and claim asylum.

TheBigBean

Eurostar seems to be exempt from the fines, so would be more problematic without an agreement. Carriers on Eurotunnel would still need to pay the fines - mostly my point as it is always mentioned in the context of the jungle. I also struggle to believe that Eurostar would be able to operate now with no ID checks. So possibly a big standoff would happen.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Lordy, what a mess. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... brexit-as/

I think I'm going to coin the word "clusterf" (cf. "bumf"). As each day passes, the clusterf grows.

The biggest screw up for Scotland would be if they leave the UK, yet that is what Sturgeon says she wants and she is claiming to be acting in the interests of Scotland. I doubt she is stupid enough not to know this...

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Lordy, what a mess. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... brexit-as/

I think I'm going to coin the word "clusterf" (cf. "bumf"). As each day passes, the clusterf grows.

The biggest screw up for Scotland would be if they leave the UK, yet that is what Sturgeon says she wants and she is claiming to be acting in the interests of Scotland. I doubt she is stupid enough not to know this...

But I suspect what she also knows is that there is the serious possibility of constitutional crisis if 'England' tries to take other parts of the UK out of the EU without their agreement, leaving TMay fighting on two fronts in uncharted waters (at the risk of mixing my metaphors). That's the part of the clusterf to which I refer.

ballysmate

An interesting result in Lithuania. A direct result of the free movement in the EU

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... lithuania/

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Lordy, what a mess. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... brexit-as/

I think I'm going to coin the word "clusterf" (cf. "bumf"). As each day passes, the clusterf grows.

The biggest screw up for Scotland would be if they leave the UK, yet that is what Sturgeon says she wants and she is claiming to be acting in the interests of Scotland. I doubt she is stupid enough not to know this...

But I suspect what she also knows is that there is the serious possibility of constitutional crisis if 'England' tries to take other parts of the UK out of the EU without their agreement, leaving TMay fighting on two fronts in uncharted waters (at the risk of mixing my metaphors). That's the part of the clusterf to which I refer.

Not sure there is much of a fight that Scotland can put up. We tell them to shut up and stop whining, what are they going to do?

bobmcstuff

bramstoker wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/steps-towards-joining/index_en.htm
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossa ... hague.html

An indie Scotland would have no currency and no lender of last resort initially, so I imagine would not meet the Copenhagen Criteria. Plus a massive hole in their finances without Barnett.
Access would be negotiated and not happen overnight. Mind you, once admitted they would have a currency - The Euro.

So what cards is she trying to play? People go on about how doomed we all are leaving the EU, if the scots leave us they would be even worse off.

Well one obvious one is that a lot of Scots want independence for exactly the same reasons a lot of Tories wanted out of the EU - pure ideology. As per Brexit, most/many people are deciding with their heart rather than their head.

Incidentally the SNP are in quite a nice position at the moment as they get to be the party of power but also have someone bigger to blame things on. Somewhat similar to the UK government and the EU, and just as we're going to find with the EU if/when they do get out they'll find it was all just excuses.

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Lordy, what a mess. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... brexit-as/

I think I'm going to coin the word "clusterf" (cf. "bumf"). As each day passes, the clusterf grows.

The biggest screw up for Scotland would be if they leave the UK, yet that is what Sturgeon says she wants and she is claiming to be acting in the interests of Scotland. I doubt she is stupid enough not to know this...

But I suspect what she also knows is that there is the serious possibility of constitutional crisis if 'England' tries to take other parts of the UK out of the EU without their agreement, leaving TMay fighting on two fronts in uncharted waters (at the risk of mixing my metaphors). That's the part of the clusterf to which I refer.

Not sure there is much of a fight that Scotland can put up. We tell them to shut up and stop whining, what are they going to do?

Fcuk off, hopefully.

(Only joking, my Jockanese friends)

briantrumpet

Stevo 666 wrote:

Not sure there is much of a fight that Scotland can put up. We tell them to shut up and stop whining, what are they going to do?

They might try playing a constitutional joker (and no, that's not Boris Johnston). I've no idea how this whole constitutional thing works, but if TMay and pals treat Scotland with the same sort of bravado that they think will make the EU cower in the corner, I wouldn't blame Scotland for trying to make life as awkward as possible. You know the sort of thing... massive legal cases that fail because of one pesky little technicality...

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

An interesting result in Lithuania. A direct result of the free movement in the EU

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... lithuania/

World is going to sh!t

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

An interesting result in Lithuania. A direct result of the free movement in the EU

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... lithuania/

World is going to sh!t

Other than going all North Korea I'm not sure what they can do.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Not sure there is much of a fight that Scotland can put up. We tell them to shut up and stop whining, what are they going to do?

They might try playing a constitutional joker (and no, that's not Boris Johnston). I've no idea how this whole constitutional thing works, but if TMay and pals treat Scotland with the same sort of bravado that they think will make the EU cower in the corner, I wouldn't blame Scotland for trying to make life as awkward as possible. You know the sort of thing... massive legal cases that fail because of one pesky little technicality...

There are already legal cases in process, so nothing new.

Sturgeon is under the impression that Scotland is a separate country now. It is not, it is part of the UK. London voted overall to remain in around the same percentage as Scotland, but I don't see Londoners trying to break away and unilaterally stay in the EU.