The Brexit Thread - Page 64 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

The Brexit Thread


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

I know that

Just imagine what the Unionist and media campaign would be if there is a single market and customs union arrangement 

Scotland being treated like shite isnt a material change in circumstances 

We should all get behind John Redwood and Jacob Rees Mogg at this juncture ....

That would be ideal IMO, as Better Together Mk II wouldn't be able to threaten a hard border between Scotland/England and economic war on Scottish exports.

It'd be closer to the vision Yes had of independence in 2014, i.e. Scotland and the rUK as independent EU members cooperating and trading with each other via the single market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

That would be ideal IMO, as Better Together Mk II wouldn't be able to threaten a hard border between Scotland/England and economic war on Scottish exports.

It'd be closer to the vision Yes had of independence in 2014, i.e. Scotland and the rUK as independent EU members cooperating and trading with each other via the single market.

Again 

They would be crucified as it's not the material change in circumstances that is implied in the manifesto and the SNP have been campaigning for the last 2 years for Scotland to remain in the SM & CU 

So if we are kinda still in the SM & CU we are fucked 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Again 

They would be crucified as it's not the material change in circumstances that is implied in the manifesto and the SNP have been campaigning for the last 2 years for Scotland to remain in the SM & CU 

So if we are kinda still in the SM & CU we are fucked 

 

Ahh, you're going with the hard brexiteer 'staying in the SM & CU isn't really Brexit' line?

 

In the aftermath of the vote, a 'soft' Brexit referred to leaving the EU but staying inside the SM + CU. A 'hard' Brexit referred to leaving the EU and being outside the SM + CU. Now these labels mean variations of the latter (with a hard Brexit specifically meaning crashing out with No Deal.

It frustrates me how the Brexiteers and compliant media have changed the language on this, in effect moving the overton window in their favour. You (we/Yessers) shouldn't follow them onto this territory Ally.

Edit: Furthermore, the SNP have been campaigning for 2 years to stop Brexit. The material change still exists so long as leaving the EU is enacted.

 

Edited by Dave78
...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I have said this before but Brexit and what it promised was and is a great white lie that could never really deliver. It is mind-blowing to think that those who drove the Brexit bus during campaigning never stopped to think about the Irish border as what Brexit was promising had to mean a hard border in Ireland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I think I have said this before but Brexit and what it promised was and is a great white lie that could never really deliver. It is mind-blowing to think that those who drove the Brexit bus during campaigning never stopped to think about the Irish border as what Brexit was promising had to mean a hard border in Ireland.

I think the reality is that they didn't care, and probably still don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dave78 said:

 

Ahh, you're going with the hard brexiteer 'staying in the SM & CU isn't really Brexit' line?

 

In the aftermath of the vote, a 'soft' Brexit referred to leaving the EU but staying inside the SM + CU. A 'hard' Brexit referred to leaving the EU and being outside the SM + CU. Now these labels mean variations of the latter (with a hard Brexit specifically meaning crashing out with No Deal.

It frustrates me how the Brexiteers and compliant media have changed the language on this, in effect moving the overton window in their favour. You (we/Yessers) shouldn't follow them onto this territory Ally.

Edit: Furthermore, the SNP have been campaigning for 2 years to stop Brexit. The material change still exists so long as leaving the EU is enacted.

 

No not at all

Look what happened to the SNP and Sturgeon when she came out on the day after the Brexit result

Even the Daily Record had the headlines "EU go girl"

A snap General Election was called and the SNP lost how many seats ?

That fucked up taking the moral high ground with the mandate and stopped a second referendum on the "material change of circumstances line"

Since then the SNP argued for Scotland to stay in the CU & SM

That fell on deaf ears and it's only in the last few months they have went down the second EU referendum line to keep the whole of the UK in the EU

So - if the UK happens to stay in some sort of CU & SM will that be enough to sway original No voters to vote Yes in a second Scottish referendum ?

The Unionist line will be that this is what the SNP wanted and yet they still want to cause disruption by having another "uneccessary" referendum

Think about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

No not at all

Look what happened to the SNP and Sturgeon when she came out on the day after the Brexit result

Even the Daily Record had the headlines "EU go girl"

A snap General Election was called and the SNP lost how many seats ?

That fucked up taking the moral high ground with the mandate and stopped a second referendum on the "material change of circumstances line"


Yep, as i've said before on here (with the benefit for 20-20 hindsight) the time to push for indyref2 was in the immediate aftermath of the brexit result.

Re the "moral high ground with the mandate", i don't think we'll ever get indyref2 from any Tory government, so it's all a bit academic.

We should push for it, request the section 30 (have it denied), and build support for it. But i think we're kidding ourselves to think the Tories will acquiesce.

 

3 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Since then the SNP argued for Scotland to stay in the CU & SM

That fell on deaf ears and it's only in the last few months they have went down the second EU referendum line to keep the whole of the UK in the EU

So - if the UK happens to stay in some sort of CU & SM will that be enough to sway original No voters to vote Yes in a second Scottish referendum ?

The Unionist line will be that this is what the SNP wanted and yet they still want to cause disruption by having another "uneccessary" referendum

Think about it

True, they will make that argument. The easy response is that the SNP were arguing against any kind of brexit at all, and that the material change still exists.

I'd rather face that argument from the unionists than them pointing out the hard border and negative trade implications that would come from an rUK outside the SM + CU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dave78 said:


Yep, as i've said before on here (with the benefit for 20-20 hindsight) the time to push for indyref2 was in the immediate aftermath of the brexit result.

 

 

And we would have lost judging by the June 2017 General Election result

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

And we would have lost judging by the June 2017 General Election result

An snap indyref would probably have been lost, that's true. 

The section 30 order gives the Scottish government the power to set the timing of the vote though (scheduling it for this week would have been perfect timing! :lol:).

The key is securing the section 30, and the best time to push for it was in the first week of the brexit vote aftermath, when our 'enemy' was in complete and utter disarray. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

An snap indyref would probably have been lost, that's true. 

The section 30 order gives the Scottish government the power to set the timing of the vote though (scheduling it for this week would have been perfect timing! :lol:).

The key is securing the section 30, and the best time to push for it was in the first week of the brexit vote aftermath, when our 'enemy' was in complete and utter disarray. 

A Section 30 order gives the Scottish Parliament the right to legislate on normally reserved issues. A referendum is not legislating on reserved issues (ie. the constitution) as a referendum would not change anything in a legal sense; the Scottish Parliament would have to act on the referendum result to bring about a change to the constitutional situation.

It is my understanding, therefore, that the Scottish Government could bring a referendum bill to Holyrood and hold a referendum without the consent of Westminster, but Westminster would have to agree on any constitutional change following said referendum - which is where the Section 30 order would be needed (although that Section 30 order could be provided at any point and many become politically impossible to deny if there's a Yes vote on a high turnout).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Clyde1998 said:

A Section 30 order gives the Scottish Parliament the right to legislate on normally reserved issues. A referendum is not legislating on reserved issues (ie. the constitution) as a referendum would not change anything in a legal sense; the Scottish Parliament would have to act on the referendum result to bring about a change to the constitutional situation.

It is my understanding, therefore, that the Scottish Government could bring a referendum bill to Holyrood and hold a referendum without the consent of Westminster, but Westminster would have to agree on any constitutional change following said referendum - which is where the Section 30 order would be needed (although that Section 30 order could be provided at any point and many become politically impossible to deny if there's a Yes vote on a high turnout).

You think a section 30 order which enables the Scottish parliament to end the union would be granted retrospectively by Westminster in the aftermath of a 'consultative' (and possibly legally 'ultra vires') referendum? Are you mad? 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Clyde1998 said:

A Section 30 order gives the Scottish Parliament the right to legislate on normally reserved issues. A referendum is not legislating on reserved issues (ie. the constitution) as a referendum would not change anything in a legal sense; the Scottish Parliament would have to act on the referendum result to bring about a change to the constitutional situation.

It is my understanding, therefore, that the Scottish Government could bring a referendum bill to Holyrood and hold a referendum without the consent of Westminster, but Westminster would have to agree on any constitutional change following said referendum - which is where the Section 30 order would be needed (although that Section 30 order could be provided at any point and many become politically impossible to deny if there's a Yes vote on a high turnout).

Any "advisory" referendum held by the Scottish Government on that basis would be a waste of time.  The U.K. Government would only have to say it had no basis and then you have the No side boycotting it.  

That scuppers you as to make any kind of point you need to get 50% of the entire electorate, not just the turnout on the day.  Dead people and people who would never vote would be counted as Being against Independence.  

That was one of the problems with the Catalonian referendum.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave78 said:

You think a section 30 order which enables the Scottish parliament to end the union would be granted retrospectively by Westminster in the aftermath of a 'consultative' (and possibly legally 'ultra vires') referendum? Are you mad? 😛

In regards to it being 'ultra vires', it would almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court, if it went down that route, and that's where the ultimate decision would be made as to whether it would be legal for Scotland to hold a pre-legislative referendum on the subject of independence.

For the Section 30 order, I think that if the Supreme Court ruled legal the referendum being held without having the consent of Westminster, they would have political pressure to provide a Section 30 order prior to the referendum as otherwise it blow the entire 'union' concept out of the water, particularly internationally, and it wouldn't do the idea of 'British democracy' any good.

Following a referendum, it would likely depend on outside pressures - but if you have the Germans and French (ultra hypothetically) coming out and saying that Scotland has voted for independence and we'd recognise Scottish independence even if the UK doesn't, then their hand will be forced. Also, it's worth pointing out that the UK would likely still be negotiating a trade deal with the EU at this point (it's currently only negotiating the withdrawal agreement) - which a single veto would kill. Malta could (again hypothetically) kill any trade deal between the UK and EU should it want to over something like this.

It's worth pointing out that Quebec held two referenda without the consent of the Canadian Government - who never officially said they'd recognise the result of either, despite partaking in both (albeit never said no to a referendum either) - but the international pressures of a Yes vote, particularly from the French, could've created the momentum that would've forced Canada's hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Clyde1998 said:

In regards to it being 'ultra vires', it would almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court, if it went down that route, and that's where the ultimate decision would be made as to whether it would be legal for Scotland to hold a pre-legislative referendum on the subject of independence.

For the Section 30 order, I think that if the Supreme Court ruled legal the referendum being held without having the consent of Westminster, they would have political pressure to provide a Section 30 order prior to the referendum as otherwise it blow the entire 'union' concept out of the water, particularly internationally, and it wouldn't do the idea of 'British democracy' any good.

The supreme court's ruling on the Continuity Bill instructed to us on how they'd find the legality of any referendum that wasn't sanctioned by Westminster.

I've long believed that the law is not about justice, it's about power...but i digress!

6 minutes ago, Clyde1998 said:

Following a referendum, it would likely depend on outside pressures - but if you have the Germans and French (ultra hypothetically) coming out and saying that Scotland has voted for independence and we'd recognise Scottish independence even if the UK doesn't, then their hand will be forced. Also, it's worth pointing out that the UK would likely still be negotiating a trade deal with the EU at this point (it's currently only negotiating the withdrawal agreement) - which a single veto would kill. Malta could (again hypothetically) kill any trade deal between the UK and EU should it want to over something like this.

The only outside pressure that would be relevant in this scenario would be the Spanish veto on us joining the EU (they're happy to accept Scotland into the EU via legal means (i.e. with Westminster consent), but not otherwise.

 

6 minutes ago, Clyde1998 said:

It's worth pointing out that Quebec held two referenda without the consent of the Canadian Government - who never officially said they'd recognise the result of either, despite partaking in both (albeit never said no to a referendum either) - but the international pressures of a Yes vote, particularly from the French, could've created the momentum that would've forced Canada's hand.

Didn't know that, cheers. :ok:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I think I have said this before but Brexit and what it promised was and is a great white lie that could never really deliver. It is mind-blowing to think that those who drove the Brexit bus during campaigning never stopped to think about the Irish border as what Brexit was promising had to mean a hard border in Ireland.

Some of them would be quite happy to scrap the Good Friday agreement altogether.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/11/the-price-of-peace/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...