Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jumpship

Brexit Negotiations

Recommended Posts

Victorian

One possible workaround might be that it would be permitted if mandated again in good faith.     Another mandate.      Another referendum.      Joyous stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

It doesn't matter.    It's still an act of parliament.     It required legislation,    which I believe came first anyway.     But it's a moot point.

 

Anyway,    the latest thing I see suggests that the ECJ ruling on unilateral revocation of article 50 does not permit the UK to revoke in bad faith.     It does not allow for a scheme to revoke and then trigger in order to get around extending article 50.      It only provides for article 50 being revoked in good faith (deciding to remain).     

 

Following on,     it would then seem irrelevant whether or not it requires a new act of parliament to trigger for a second time,    because it would not be allowed in any case.

 

The point I was getting at was that handing in our notice would surely be enough of a sign that brexit isn't over to those who need that kind of reassurance. But I'm thinking out loud really, I don't remember clearly what happened - when we triggered article 50 I lived on a street that had two coffeeshops on it. 

Someone asked once before if bad faith has ever been proven against a nation, I'd be interested to find that out myself as an aside. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874

For all those unhappy at the tv coverage of Ian Blackford (cutting away from him speaking in Parliament) he is on Question Time tonight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

The point I was getting at was that handing in our notice would surely be enough of a sign that brexit isn't over to those who need that kind of reassurance. But I'm thinking out loud really, I don't remember clearly what happened - when we triggered article 50 I lived on a street that had two coffeeshops on it. 

Someone asked once before if bad faith has ever been proven against a nation, I'd be interested to find that out myself as an aside. 

 

It seems to me that if the UK decided to revoke as part of a wider strategy (to effectively enable a delay without agreement by the EU) then,    if minded to,    the EU would take it up with the ECJ to rule on whether it was lawful.      It looks like the ECJ would rule it as unlawful.     It might be that the EU would tolerate it if it was also to the EU's advantage.    But I doubt it.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Notts1874

Matt Hancock is being trotted out on Newsnight now. Does she have no other cabinet ministers that will defend her on tv?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toxteth O'Grady

They are a bunch of shitebags. The Tories are 2 seperate factions that really need to separate. Labour are a disorganised shambles that don't offer an alternative and often don't even oppose the government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
13 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

For all those unhappy at the tv coverage of Ian Blackford (cutting away from him speaking in Parliament) he is on Question Time tonight. 

During a specially commissioned ad break

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Frenchman Returns
19 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

For all those unhappy at the tv coverage of Ian Blackford (cutting away from him speaking in Parliament) he is on Question Time tonight. 

 

James Cleverly

Deputy chair of the Conservative Party

 

Clive Lewis

Shadow Treasury minister

 

Ian Blackford

Leader of the SNP group at Westminster

 

Julia Hartley-Brewer

Right-wing radio presenter and commentator

 

Catherine Barnard

Professor of European Union Law and Jean Monnet chair of EU Law at the University of Cambridge

Edited by The Frenchman Returns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterion
1 hour ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

 

James Cleverly

Deputy chair of the Conservative Party

 

Clive Lewis

Shadow Treasury minister

 

Ian Blackford

Leader of the SNP group at Westminster

 

Julia Hartley-Brewer

Right-wing radio presenter and commentator

 

Catherine Barnard

Professor of European Union Law and Jean Monnet chair of EU Law at the University of Cambridge

 

I thought Blackford spoke well on QT and made some good/sensible points. 

 

Julia Harley Brewer was also on demonstrating how to speak well but have absolutely no substance or sense of reality.

 

QT has been absolutely woeful lately but this one was (mostly) bearable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
16 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

The point is that it is really myopic to seethe at Corbyn over a PV today when the PV campaign fully agreed.

While there is a lull in the substantive discussion on here, why isn't the "PV" at least called "PV2" rather than  everyone in the media and elsewhere  accepting the Remainers' and "Peoples' Vote" campaigners' implication that the (first) referendum somehow did not involve people?

 

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
16 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

Thet wanted Brexit.  They'll get it.   Some wont get the exact flavour they wanted.

 

But I do not remember an a la carte menu de Brexite on the ballot paper.

I think that we are heading either towards Remain or "Brexit in Name Only" ie all the substantive elements of Remaining except any voice in EU decisions. The latter is not a "flavour" anyone voted for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

While there is a lull in the substantive discussion on here, why isn't the "PV" at least called "PV2" rather than  everyone in the media and elsewhere  accepting the Remainers' and "Peoples' Vote" campaigners' implication that the (first) referendum somehow did not involve people?

 

 

It hardly matters,   does it?     Ok let's call it PV2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

I think that we are heading either towards Remain or "Brexit in Name Only" ie all the substantive elements of Remaining except any voice in EU decisions. The latter is not a "flavour" anyone voted for.

 

I think people have directly linked the referendum to any routine electoral event (election).      With an election,   people mandate a party to form government and deliver on their manifesto.    There is a direct holding to account.      The referendum is conducted very differently.     Campaign groups can 'promise' things but they are not the people who end up being in charge to enact the result.     There is no manifesto to live up to as such.    There is no Brexit government.     Much more difficult to then hold to account the people who made the 'promises'.

 

If people don't get the type of Brexit they think they were promised then they merely misunderstood the nature of the political event.     

Edited by Victorian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doctor jambo
14 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

For all those unhappy at the tv coverage of Ian Blackford (cutting away from him speaking in Parliament) he is on Question Time tonight. 

To be fair, they constantly cut away from him as within 3 seconds he is wittering on  about Scottish independence.

 

Might as well introduce him as " Ian Blackford MP about to leave the topic and start bulling on about a niche view from a minority party even in their own country"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

I think that we are heading either towards Remain or "Brexit in Name Only" ie all the substantive elements of Remaining except any voice in EU decisions. The latter is not a "flavour" anyone voted for.

 

So no one voted Leave hoping for a EEA/EFTA type deal at the end of it all?  How do you know that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamboelite
58 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

To be fair, they constantly cut away from him as within 3 seconds he is wittering on  about Scottish independence.

 

Might as well introduce him as " Ian Blackford MP about to leave the topic and start bulling on about a niche view from a minority party even in their own country"

No he doesnt, I’m no fan of the SNP but Blackford is articulate in remining the house of its hypocrisy when it comes to changing their minds every 5 mins and certainly worth listening to, especially if we are stuck hearing JC and TM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Costanza
36 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

So no one voted Leave hoping for a EEA/EFTA type deal at the end of it all?  How do you know that?

Given that 48% wanted to remain a soft Brexit like EFTA would be more akin to the wil of the people you would think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Costanza
1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

To be fair, they constantly cut away from him as within 3 seconds he is wittering on  about Scottish independence.

 

Might as well introduce him as " Ian Blackford MP about to leave the topic and start bulling on about a niche view from a minority party even in their own country"

A minority party,  even in their own country - so the same as the Tories and Labour then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugly American
1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

To be fair, they constantly cut away from him as within 3 seconds he is wittering on  about Scottish independence.

 

Might as well introduce him as " Ian Blackford MP about to leave the topic and start bulling on about a niche view from a minority party even in their own country"

 

In every speech I saw he dropped independence generally once in each speech very briefly at the end. The substance of what he was saying was focused on May's incompetence, Labour's cutesy games, the need for a second vote, and his advocacy for cancelling Article 50 being the wisest move. All of which were germane to the subject matter at hand, unlike the posturing from the old buzzard from the LibDems, whatever his name is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
17 minutes ago, Costanza said:

Given that 48% wanted to remain a soft Brexit like EFTA would be more akin to the wil of the people you would think. 

 

Excellent point.      Maybe there's a large or even a majority view along those lines that straddles the in/out vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

So no one voted Leave hoping for a EEA/EFTA type deal at the end of it all?  How do you know that?

I don't know of course but I doubt that many people on either side were voting on the basis of the niceties taking account of EEA/EFTA  type deals. The vote (however stupidly agreed by 85% of MPs) was "Remain or Leave". The majority of MPs have narrowed it to Remain or Leave in name only (or effectively remain on worse terms than Remain).

And they are doing that before substantive (or "meaningful" in the jargon) discussions on the trading relationship between the UK and EU after we leave have even begun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
Just now, Francis Albert said:

I don't know of course but I doubt that many people on either side were voting on the basis of the niceties taking account of EEA/EFTA  type deals.

 

 

Equally were they thinink about lack of customs union, access to the single market, WTO, tariffs etc etc?

 

Just now, Francis Albert said:

 

The vote (however stupidly agreed by 85% of MPs) was "Remain or Leave". The majority of MPs have narrowed it to Remain or Leave in name only (or effectively remain on worse terms than Remain).

And they are doing that before substantive (or "meaningful" in the jargon) discussions on the trading relationship between the UK and EU after we leave have even begun.

 

Leave in name only means nothing!  Switzerland, Norway, both are not members of the EU.  If we leave the EU we are not members of the EU, yet we could enjoy the same priviliges that they have with the EU.  We will still have left the EU.

 

But that isn't good enough for some, yet the only words on the ballot were remain and leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Craig_
1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

 

In every speech I saw he dropped independence generally once in each speech very briefly at the end. The substance of what he was saying was focused on May's incompetence, Labour's cutesy games, the need for a second vote, and his advocacy for cancelling Article 50 being the wisest move. All of which were germane to the subject matter at hand, unlike the posturing from the old buzzard from the LibDems, whatever his name is.

 

Don't think it's worth Scotland considering independence, get the impression that even if the country was to vote Yes, Westminster wouldn't let us leave... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
2 minutes ago, Craig_ said:

 

Don't think it's worth Scotland considering independence, get the impression that even if the country was to vote Yes, Westminster wouldn't let us leave... 

 

It's not really up to Westminster...

 

On another note, should Brexit be "sabotaged", I wonder if the ERG types would set up a new party advocating English independnece so they could leave the EU?

 

Probably not, but you never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

Equally were they thinink about lack of customs union, access to the single market, WTO, tariffs etc etc?

 

 

Leave in name only means nothing!  Switzerland, Norway, both are not members of the EU.  If we leave the EU we are not members of the EU, yet we could enjoy the same priviliges that they have with the EU.  We will still have left the EU.

 

But that isn't good enough for some, yet the only words on the ballot were remain and leave.

,And leaving in any form however soft is not good enough for those who have been campaigning for a so called "Peoples Vote" to reverse the referendum outcome since the day after they lost, many while piously saying they   "respect the vote".

 

Anyway I have little doubt now we will be remaining as fully fledged EU members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin_T
21 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

,And leaving in any form however soft is not good enough for those who have been campaigning for a so called "Peoples Vote" to reverse the referendum outcome since the day after they lost, many while piously saying they   "respect the vote".

 

Anyway I have little doubt now we will be remaining as fully fledged EU members.

 

I doubt it, but at least you will be getting what you voted for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
1 minute ago, Martin_T said:

 

I doubt it, but at least you will be getting what you voted for.

I know it will never catch on here but it is possible to see at least part of both sides of an argument.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin_T
5 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I know it will never catch on here but it is possible to see at least part of both sides of an argument.

 

 

Maybe you should try some of your own advice then and offer balanced arguments rather than continually criticising 'remainers'.

 

The most balanced point on this whole thread is probably Costanza's point about finding a compromise solution, i.e a Soft Brexit, because not only did 48% vote remain, but it's highly doubtful that entire 52% of the leave vote, did so on the premise of the UK leaving with no deal on WTO terms.

 

I for one, certainly wouldn't be against a Norway type deal, even if it's ultimately inferior to remain, in so much as it involves taking the rules without being able to influence them 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mighty Thor

On going and significant talks between ministers and the Irish flat earthers. 

Apparently seeking legal assurances to allow support for Mays deal 3.0.

 

I'm sure she'll find a way to give them assurances. Probably another couple of billion of them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874
2 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

On going and significant talks between ministers and the Irish flat earthers. 

Apparently seeking legal assurances to allow support for Mays deal 3.0.

 

I'm sure she'll find a way to give them assurances. Probably another couple of billion of them. 

 

 

And then it seems vote 4.0 on / around 26 March. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
1 hour ago, Martin_T said:

 

Maybe you should try some of your own advice then and offer balanced arguments rather than continually criticising 'remainers'.

 

The most balanced point on this whole thread is probably Costanza's point about finding a compromise solution, i.e a Soft Brexit, because not only did 48% vote remain, but it's highly doubtful that entire 52% of the leave vote, did so on the premise of the UK leaving with no deal on WTO terms.

 

I for one, certainly wouldn't be against a Norway type deal, even if it's ultimately inferior to remain, in so much as it involves taking the rules without being able to influence them 

Taking my own advice on seeing both sides I can just about see why Remainers or some of them,having lost, might accept an outcome where we accept the rules and regulations of the EU without having any say, for the benefits of being in the EU.

I struggle to see how any Leaver (the winners) would find this outcome acceptable. If a vote was held with the choice of this outcome and Remain as we are, I think the vast majority of Leavers would go for Remain as we are because despite the myth most are not thick. 

Maybe that at the end of the day will be the choice in the "Peoples' Vote".

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Class of 75
5 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

To be fair, they constantly cut away from him as within 3 seconds he is wittering on  about Scottish independence.

 

Might as well introduce him as " Ian Blackford MP about to leave the topic and start bulling on about a niche view from a minority party even in their own country"

They cut away from him as he is irrelevant. This is a UK issue and nothing to do with the SNP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Class of 75
3 hours ago, Craig_ said:

 

Don't think it's worth Scotland considering independence, get the impression that even if the country was to vote Yes, Westminster wouldn't let us leave... 

Wouldn't make much of a difference. The EU is a federalist organisation and does not condone nationalism which is why the UK is having issues with Brexit. An independent Scotland would be a net taker from the EU and would offer nothing substantial. Surely being a nation within the UK is better than being swallowed up in a federalist system of government where you have no say in raising taxes and losing your identity etc? 

Edited by Class of 75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Class of 75
4 hours ago, Costanza said:

A minority party,  even in their own country - so the same as the Tories and Labour then?

They are a minority party. They are being propped up by the Green Party and although the largest party are polling between 30-40% in each seat meaning the Unionist parties are polling the remaining 60-70 % of the vote. 

Edited by Class of 75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Victorian
44 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

On going and significant talks between ministers and the Irish flat earthers. 

Apparently seeking legal assurances to allow support for Mays deal 3.0.

 

I'm sure she'll find a way to give them assurances. Probably another couple of billion of them. 

 

 

I would think the cold, hard cash bung is less likely this time,    although there may well be something in some form.     The more likely price is the DUP being given an important input into the negotiations towards the future relationship.     They have already spoken in these terms.     

 

On a related point,    assuming the DUP are looking ahead to that phase of Brexit,    it seems to rule out any possibility of the DUP storming out of the confidence & supply pact,    even if May was able to get her deal through without the DUP votes.     The DUP will not vote against the government in a confidence motion.      Their interests lie in this parliamentary term running it's full course because their power is dependent on there being a minority Tory government.     Any other configuration of parliament turns Cinderella back into a pumpkin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin_T
27 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Taking my own advice on seeing both sides I can just about see why Remainers or some of them,having lost, might accept an outcome where we accept the rules and regulations of the EU without having any say, for the benefits of being in the EU.

I struggle to see how any Leaver (the winners) would find this outcome acceptable. If a vote was held with the choice of this outcome and Remain as we are, I think the vast majority of Leavers would go for Remain as we are because despite the myth most are not thick. 

Maybe that at the end of the day will be the choice in the "Peoples' Vote".

 

Well the official leave / 'winners' campaign, Vote Leave, campaigned on the premise of staying in the single market, so maybe many are a bit 'thick' given that the scenario you describe is exactly what they were told that they were voting for.

 

In fact that probably explains why you voted remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Costanza
4 minutes ago, Class of 75 said:

They are a minority party. They are being propped up by the Green Party and although the largest party are polling between 30-40% in each seat. They are out numbered by the Unionist parties. 

Yes but so are the Tory government. I was just highlighting the meaningless of that statement.

I also notice you say earlier that an Independent Scotland in the EU would have no say in raising its taxes.

That's just not true, is it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Costanza
7 minutes ago, Martin_T said:

 

Well the official leave / 'winners' campaign, Vote Leave, campaigned on the premise of staying in the single market, so maybe many are a bit 'thick' given that the scenario you describe is exactly what they were told that they were voting for.

 

In fact that probably explains why you voted remain.

It's funny isn't it? Brexiteers like Farage were extolling the benefits of being out the EU like Norway but have a different tack after they won the referendum. 

Almost as though they are opportunists who don't give a damn about the economic impact of their proposals.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/591988/Nigel-Farage-EU-European-Union-Ukip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugly American
1 hour ago, Martin_T said:

 

Well the official leave / 'winners' campaign, Vote Leave, campaigned on the premise of staying in the single market, so maybe many are a bit 'thick' given that the scenario you describe is exactly what they were told that they were voting for.

 

In fact that probably explains why you voted remain.

 

In any vote, people project what it means onto the election, regardless of what was actually said. Two years into Obama's election, tons of people were complaining that he wasn't doing what he said he would do, when he was largely doing exactly what he said he would do. People just heard what they wanted to hear.

 

Despite there being clear text on what Leave was about, people clearly made it what they thought it was about. The fact that the current deal looks nothing like what was promised, the fact that what was promised was always a ridiculous fantasy born out of longing for the days of empire, and the fact that the ERG seems to want something even more extreme than what was promised, all make it even more impossible to come up with a Brexit that meets the expectations of everyone who voted Leave.

 

That, more than anything else, should be the justification for the second referendum. If May wants to come back for a fourth vote on exactly the same thing that Commons keeps rejecting, the logically and democratically consistent thing to do would be to put it to a vote to see if that's what people actually want.

 

That neither the Tories nor Labour seem willing to do that makes me believe that they, too, have each projected a meaning onto Leave that they want to see and control. Brexit is a dramatic moment to reshape policy in the UK fundamentally, and neither one are willing to give up that chance.

 

Perhaps because they want shot of the whole thing, I've found the SNP's position on this to be more logically consistent than any other, which given that they're pinned by their own interest in Brexit (in that it effectively justifies independence, legally and politically), I find impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
2 hours ago, Class of 75 said:

They cut away from him as he is irrelevant. This is a UK issue and nothing to do with the SNP. 

 

Every one of those SNP MPs was elected to represent their constituents at Westminster, the UK parliament. Each one of them was granted an equal voice in the running of the UK, same as any MP in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. 

Should Scottish MPs be second class citizens at Westminster and denied a say in UK issues or is it just Scottish MPs whose politics you don't like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Konrad von Carstein
1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

Every one of those SNP MPs was elected to represent their constituents at Westminster, the UK parliament. Each one of them was granted an equal voice in the running of the UK, same as any MP in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. 

Should Scottish MPs be second class citizens at Westminster and denied a say in UK issues or is it just Scottish MPs whose politics you don't like?

 

Bravo...well said...this equal partners thing is consistently forgotten, both constitutionally at Westminster and by SNP bad types on the internet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
4 hours ago, Martin_T said:

 

Well the official leave / 'winners' campaign, Vote Leave, campaigned on the premise of staying in the single market, so maybe many are a bit 'thick' given that the scenario you describe is exactly what they were told that they were voting for.

 

In fact that probably explains why you voted remain.

Why is winners in inverted commas? Did Leave not win?

The official Vote Leave campaign was only part of the Brexit campaign. As I remember quite a bit of the wider Brexit campaign was about freedom to do trade deals separately from the EU and about immigration, to name but two. Immigration not in the sense as racist Remainers say about keeping brown people out but in reaction to the German Chancellor waving her arm without consulting anyone to invite over a million self identified Mddle East refugees to the EU. A policy since rapidly reversed because of opposition throughout Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Class of 75
4 hours ago, Costanza said:

Yes but so are the Tory government. I was just highlighting the meaningless of that statement.

I also notice you say earlier that an Independent Scotland in the EU would have no say in raising its taxes.

That's just not true, is it?

 

 

They are indeed. Scotland within the EU would be forced to join the Euro with the ultimate aim of the European project being to create an unelected Central Bank located in Germany who will set the tax rate. I am afraid it is true, I studied it at length at Uni. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
4 hours ago, Costanza said:

It's funny isn't it? Brexiteers like Farage were extolling the benefits of being out the EU like Norway but have a different tack after they won the referendum. 

Almost as though they are opportunists who don't give a damn about the economic impact of their proposals.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/591988/Nigel-Farage-EU-European-Union-Ukip

Farage despite his self publicity was not the leader of the Brexiteers. A passing and typically ignorant reference to Norway and Switzerland does not represent the  opinion of most Leave voters..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Class of 75
2 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Every one of those SNP MPs was elected to represent their constituents at Westminster, the UK parliament. Each one of them was granted an equal voice in the running of the UK, same as any MP in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. 

Should Scottish MPs be second class citizens at Westminster and denied a say in UK issues or is it just Scottish MPs whose politics you don't like?

Not at all. I have nothing against Scottish MPs, just the SNP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
33 minutes ago, Class of 75 said:

Not at all. I have nothing against Scottish MPs, just the SNP. 

 

To each their own.

But why shouldn't they be heard at Westminster? They're elected to be part of this parliament, why should they not be allowed a say? They're the third biggest party and whether you like it or not they've earned the right to some respect, for the constituents they represent if nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Costanza
36 minutes ago, Class of 75 said:

They are indeed. Scotland within the EU would be forced to join the Euro with the ultimate aim of the European project being to create an unelected Central Bank located in Germany who will set the tax rate. I am afraid it is true, I studied it at length at Uni. 

Where is it explicitly stated that they would have to adopt the Euro?

They may well have to intend to adopt it but countries who have done that have never been forced to.

Countries with the Euro still set their own personal tax rates and determine how it is spent,  so I don't agree with your point. There is a degree of harmonisation with regards to business taxation certainly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Costanza
40 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Farage despite his self publicity was not the leader of the Brexiteers. A passing and typically ignorant reference to Norway and Switzerland does not represent the  opinion of most Leave voters..

Where did I state Farage was representative of most Leave voters?

I just thought it was significant that a leading political Brexiteer had changed his tune on the Norway option, similarly Aaron Banks the main financial contributor to Leave EU.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smithee
56 minutes ago, Class of 75 said:

They are indeed. Scotland within the EU would be forced to join the Euro with the ultimate aim of the European project being to create an unelected Central Bank located in Germany who will set the tax rate. I am afraid it is true, I studied it at length at Uni. 

Sounds interesting, I'll need to look that up. Which course and module(s) are we talking about here?

Genuine question by the way, I can't help wonder what context should be accompanying this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sadj
4 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

Every one of those SNP MPs was elected to represent their constituents at Westminster, the UK parliament. Each one of them was granted an equal voice in the running of the UK, same as any MP in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. 

Should Scottish MPs be second class citizens at Westminster and denied a say in UK issues or is it just Scottish MPs whose politics you don't like?

Also at least with the SNP MPs they are voting on these votes with the majority of their constituents not against them as Graham , Bowie and their friends are doing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×