The consequence thread (Brexit)

[andyofborg]

 

There is no immediate danger of Scottish independence. You can't march into the EU. There are 35 criteria. An independent Scotland won't meet them all.

 

Sturgeon is posturing, as was expected, but she is unbelievably naive.

 

scotland has been working under eu rules for 40 years so i'm pretty sure most of the 35 chapters have been met

[Radan]

I think it's the start of a domino effect. The Americans have seen us "sticking it to the establishment" and giving them foreigners what for. We aren't Greece or Venezuela we are still a major world power who rightly or wrongly has tossed away membership of the EU, immigrants,the establishment and our senses in general.

 

Trump next. Le Pen afterwards? I might go for an "acca" (I think that's the term).

 

Accumulator?

 

I doubt Trump has the Hispanic vote or women's.

 

It will be a dirty campaign.

 

---------- Post added 26-06-2016 at 16:01 ----------

 

scotland has been working under eu rules for 40 years so i'm pretty sure most of the 35 chapters have been met

 

From a human rights point of view of course, but with oil so low they are an economic mess. The EU won't want another likely black hole.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Radan

[Justin Smith]

I think I'm going to start a petition for us to NOT have a rerun of the referendum. I bet it gets 10 times more signatures than theirs!

 

I `m pretty sure it wouldn`t.....

But aren`t we forgetting something here ? Farage himself said just after the polls closed, "if we lose by a small margin it isn`t over", or words to that effect. Well they won by a small margin, so how came it`s suddenly "all over", for good,, bearing in mind we would always have another chance to leave at some point in the future, but not another chance to stay......

[andyofborg]

From a human rights point of view of course, but with oil so low they are an economic mess. The EU won't want another likely black hole.

 

from all the eu legislation point of view. the price of oil is rising

 

i'm not sure of the exact state of the scottish economy. i imagine it's not much better than ours.

[apelike]

scotland has been working under eu rules for 40 years so i'm pretty sure most of the 35 chapters have been met

 

Not so sure on that.

 

Scotland have only been working under EU rules as they are part of the UK which are in the EU, Scotland itself is not only by default.

[andyofborg]

I `m pretty sure it wouldn`t.....

But aren`t we forgetting something here ? Farage himself said just after the polls closed, "if we lose by a small margin it isn`t over", or words to that effect. Well they won by a small margin, so how came it`s suddenly "all over", for good,, bearing in mind we would always have another chance to leave at some point in the future, but not another chance to stay......

 

indeed

 

and as we've had to put up with the leavers winging on for years about wanting a referendum it's our turn to give them a taste of their own medicine

 

so, bring on the second referendum

 

---------- Post added 26-06-2016 at 16:13 ----------

 

Not so sure on that.

 

Scotland have only been working under EU rules as they are part of the UK which are in the EU, Scotland itself is not only by default.

 

it amounts to the same thing

 

the law side of things must be pretty much sewn up, apart from areas where the uk in general had an opt out. i imagine that the scottish parliament will give many of those up.

 

i don't know about any budget and financial requirements but i guess that will work its way out.

[tinfoilhat]

Accumulator?

 

I doubt Trump has the Hispanic vote or women's.

 

It will be a dirty campaign.

 

---------- Post added 26-06-2016 at 16:01 ----------

 

 

From a human rights point of view of course, but with oil so low they are an economic mess. The EU won't want another likely black hole.

 

Yes, it will be dirty. As result of Thursday it may well be dirtier. If you had asked me when the referendum was announced we'd end up with a leave vote, the leaders of our two main political parties out (corbyn won't see Friday in charge) and another Scottish referendum on the cards I'd have laughed in your face. We've had the most appalling campaign and as result is a win for knee jerk, populist liars (as opposed to establishment liars).

 

I'll have a fiver on trump.

[chalga]

Iain Duncan Smith;

Tory former Cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith insisted he never said all the money would go to the NHS, despite that pledge being pasted across the Vote Leave battle bus.

 

Mr Duncan Smith acknowledged that around half of the £350 million a week British contribution to the EU came back to the UK from Brussels anyway, and said the "lion's share" of the remainder could go to the health service if the Government made that choice.

 

Presented with a Leave poster stating: "Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week" when he appeared on BBC One's Andrew Marr show, Mr Duncan Smith said: "It is not a promise broken, I never said that through the course of the election, what I said was we will be able to spend the lion's share of that money.

 

"What was actually said at the time, and I said it myself, consistently through, which was we hand over £19.1 billion, half of which is gone into the European Union.

 

"And other bits come back directed by the European Union, so we said throughout that we would stand by some critical areas, those areas that are being funded, structural regional funds will be funded, we'd have more money to spend on the NHS because we wouldn't be losing half of that sum of money and we'd stand by commitments that have been made to things like agriculture, the rest were just a series of possibilities of what you could then do beyond those main commitments," Mr Duncan Smith said.

 

During the Campaign the Commons Treasury committee criticised use of the £350 million figure by the Leave side.

 

Ukip leader Nigel Farage, who was not part of the official Vote Leave campaign, said it had been a "mistake" for the £350 million pledge to have been made.

[SnailyBoy]

I think I'm going to start a petition for us to NOT have a rerun of the referendum. I bet it gets 10 times more signatures than theirs!

 

The irony is that the famous 2nd Referendum petition was started by a Leave campaigner over a month ago.

[ricgem2002]

No, I think it might have in fact stopped Trump's rise dead in its tracks. Even Bernie now supports Hillary after he saw what playing with fire can do. We will see though, I was wrong about Brexit as well.

 

 

 

No it isn't accepted, it is different. Australia never signed up for the free movement of people and goods. They have their own constitution. The UK and EU share(d) a constitution of sorts that had free movement of people and goods at its core. I came here as part of that, I suspect l00b did as well and so did the other migrants. That understanding is now being revoked and nullified, or at least is under threat.

 

I don't expect you to understand, I didn't until I experienced it first hand.

 

 

 

The balance already suited the UK, it got to set its own agenda whilst part of the EU. It didn't have to join the Euro or Schengen. It was able to agree on Passporting for the banks and develop its own financial centre as being a global one. It got access to labour, whether skilled or unskilled, enabling it to attract huge amounts of foreign investment due to the combination of the availability of labour and low taxes.

 

What I would have done, years ago, was alter the way the benefit system in the UK works, from the ground up, as soon as it became clear there were migrants coming here because of it. Just like the Dutch did, just like the Germans did, just like the Latvians, the Austrians, the Hungarians and so on and so on did. I would have worked with the EU to ensure that there is a working, supra-national framework in place to prevent 'benefit migration' and to ensure that only those with a job were eligible for the same rights that common British workers are eligible for. That all would have been possible, years ago. It never happened. The UK government was seemingly happy to A) get migrants in and B) To claim it would bring it down whilst doing sweet f all to do so.

You voted out the EU because what I just described is what you wanted and your own, national, government didn't deliver it. I have warned you a dozen times, personally, that nothing would change by leaving the EU.

 

I have just had insight in a Twitter conversation with a Tory Leave activist who openly states she wants and expects an EEA style agreement to begin with, slowly building down to an EFTA style agreement over time. (which actually is sensible, but they never mentioned this during their campaign which is disingenuous)

 

An EEA style agreement means the only difference resulting from Brexit is that the UK does not have a right to discuss matters in Europe any more. It will still have open borders, it will still pay the EU, it will still be subject to EU law.

 

That transitions into an EFTA agreement, that means that the UK would not be subject to open borders any more. But it would still be subject to EU law and would have to pay the EU for membership.

 

How does that translate to what they promised you in the Leave campaign? Didn't they promise you, and didn't you vote for, the understanding that the UK would not pay the EU any more, it would no longer be subject to EU law?

 

Well, that doesn't look plausible at the moment. In fact, if we don't get someone in charge PDQ nothing looks plausible. The country is in a proper political crisis.

thanks for answering with a well thought out reply which i have to admit i agree with most of it. . the points i dont agree with are where you keep blaming past and present govs in not dealing with these issues and harping on how the eu has got it right 52% of the british vote on thursday told you they didnt think the eu was right for the uk so voted out. we dont know how this is going to pan out, and maybe the people to put it right will do whats right for the uk:suspect: