[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

gordimhor

Its written into the act that it cannot be changed without holyrood consent. Sewel convention iirc is for the legislative consent motion which as I said some folk including the scottish secretary thik is important and binding and others do not

I have to cook dinner now but I'll look it up later

Further good news today

Both JPM and UBS arguing that likelihood of no deal is falling sharply and the former revising up GDP growth for full year 2017 and then higher growth in 2018. They even included a deal with a service element 😉

Sense is prevailing

Let's hope the prediction of these experts is close to what we finally get … but would that kind of outcome (and the compromises and arrangements that will enable it) satisfy those that voted for Brexit? Or will a third of the country feel let down, a third annoyed at what we've given up, and only a small minority be happy with the fudged replacement for our unique membership arrangement we currently have?

Or will a third of the country feel let down, a third annoyed at what we've given up, and only a small minority be happy with the fudged replacement for our unique membership arrangement we currently have?

It was always going to be like that as Brexit was never defined so even leavers wanted different things that they were never going to get.

gordimhor

I will get back to you on this - needs a bit of time to look at - I'm still bashing away at te keyboard in between cooking stuff

Here in Australia there's a new range of premium popcorn that is red chilli flavour. it's just the stuff for reading this.

oh, and don't hold your breath for a trade deal, you got nothing we want, we got nothing you can afford.

Official trade data suggests an alternative view

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Gordimhor
From the act:

(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements.

(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.

(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.

But

This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.

[F1(8)But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament

Can';t find the bit about human rights in the act

From the scottish government site

Background

Human rights is a subject devolved to Scotland by the Scotland Act 1998. The Scottish Parliament also has competence to observe and implement international human rights treaties. We work within that legal framework.

In Scotland, civil and political rights are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 and provisions in the Scotland Act 1998. These rights come from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. It means that public organisations, such as the government, councils and the police, must protect and abide by human rights. If human rights have been breached, cases can be taken to UK courts.

The Scotland Act 1998 ensures that laws passed by the Scottish Parliament can be challenged and overturned by the courts if they are not compatible with rights identified in the ECHR. Scottish Government Ministers have 'no power to act' in a way that breaches these ECHR rights.

The Scottish Commission for Human Rights Act 2006 created the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC). The SHRC is an independent public body that promotes and protects the human rights of everyone in Scotland.

Scotland's approach to human rights is also governed by international law. This has developed since the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Seven major UN human rights treaties, along with eight Council of Europe human rights treaties, currently apply to Scotland.

[quote=bigrich ]Here in Australia ...................

we got nothing you can afford.

Not quite true. You can still produce lamb and beef more cheaply than we can and ship it half way round the world and still make a profit. That would appeal to those in the UK really pushing for Brexit (i.e. those with enough money to benefit from very lax tax rules once out of the EU) as it would put our marginal hill farmers out of business and free up all those lovely properties in the countryside for 2nd homes.

On the UK oz trade as they will have a deal with the eu first will the UK have a strong bargaining position one of out major imports is pharmaceuticals, if there is a shift of production to the eu that could have a big impact, then automotive well if jag etc move production that's another one gone.

The current $ rate here certainly makes importing from the UK/eu good for us but the eu will probably cover most things.

The UK is a good in to the eu for a lot of Australian comanedue to the shared language and culture but they a looking to Dublin now. Even though a big proportion of dual citizenship is with the UK, combined eu will beat that. Heaps more ties across Europe than the UK now.

Theresa May has been hit with a double Brexit blow as the EU toughened up its terms for a transition period and Norway privately warned Brussels that giving in to the UK’s demands for a “special” trade deal could force it to rip up its own agreements with the bloc.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/15/norway-may-rip-up-eu-deal-over-uk-brexit-demands

A paper on Michel Barnier’s demands for the transition period, leaked to the Guardian, reveals that the EU plans to insist on the free movement of people throughout the transition period and the inclusion of people moving to the UK before 31 December 2020 in the terms of an agreement on rights for nationals from the rest of Europe post-Brexit.

The UK had at one time wanted the agreement on citizens to be limited to people who moved to the UK before 29 March 2017, when Theresa May triggered article 50.

Downing Street’s Brexit adviser, Olly Robbins, suggested in a recent cabinet meeting that the UK would operate on three levels post-Brexit with the EU, with some sectors being entirely free from Brussels regulation while others were fully converged to allow frictionless trade. In a third “basket” of sectors, the two sides could share the same goals but “achieve them through different means”.

One senior EU official said: “It’s what we always thought the UK would be going for and that’s why we have been quite clear that we don’t think that it is on.”

One of Theresa May’s new ministers has claimed the UK’s plan to drop the EU charter of fundamental rights after Brexit would help avoid an “extra layer” of human rights, contradicting the government’s assurance that no protections would be lost.

Thanks for the background research TJ. It provides some reassurance.

Its not as clear cut as I thought tho in that Westminster has reserved powers to make law in devolved areas but with the human rights being incorporated into scots law I really cannot see how they could get rid of it

TJ it's reassuring that there is currently a requirement for a referendum in Scotland if Westminster wants to abolish the Scottish Parliament.
However the Scottish Parliament is unable to make any legislation that does not comply with the ECHR. Because it is not legally "sovereign". Westminster on the other hand is legally sovereign and can make legislation which doesn't comply with the ECHR. This sovereign status would allow Westminster to repeal the current Scotland Act and remove the requirement for a referendum should they wish to do so. I have no doubt that the political fallout from this would be enormous but it remains a possibility.

could westminster take the convention on human rights out of scots law tho? that would cause a huge fuss if they tried and I am not sure from my reading they have the power

The current government is so weak they can't afford to get rid of anyone, no matter how crazy they are.

@welsh those of us “with enough money to favour Brexit” will always pay a premium for British lamb, I always buy British and Welsh in particular. IMO what’s going to happen with EU lamb is it will increasingly be replaced by NZ etc, so that's cheaper stuff used in curry houses etc.

@big you might want to ask your Government why they’ve said they are so keen on a deal with the UK then.

People need to understand our vice of buying more than we sell is a virtue when it comes to trade deals, we are hooked on imports and customers like us are hard to find.

No one is proposing to abolish the Scottish Parliament. Remember it was Cameron amd the Tories which granted you a binding Indy Referendum.

Jamba looks like your trade deal is getting further and further away

jambalaya - Member

No one is proposing to abolish the Scottish Parliament. Remember it was Cameron amd the Tories which granted you a binding Indy Referendum.

actually its a serious idea in the tory party and there is going to be a huge fight over human rights.

So far as I can see the ECHR applies in Two ways in Scotland 1 As it is directly written into the Scotland Act affecting the Scottish government
2 The same way as it applies in England affecting all other public bodies.

TJ see TMH’s post, to the contrary it getting closer. The electoral mess in Germany will help us as the EU cannot do anything to upset Germany and no deal would hurt Germany very badly indeed.

Of course a deal will include services as a deal without will be rejected. It is also worth noting that the EU could not replicate those services any time soon. See Deutsche Bank’s statements, in the event of a WTO Brexit they mive just a handfull of low/mid level jobs. What does the EU gain by losing the whole free trade deal for so little benefit ?

@Poop Front Nationale’s support amongst the young is very strong. Seeing “right wing” politics as something for the “elderly” is very dangerous. If I may say so its like all the critism I got on here for saying 4 years ago immigration was a major issue, people ignored it and it came back to bite.

@big you might want to ask your Government why they’ve said they are so keen on a deal with the UK then.

I don't see ~THMs posts - not worth looking at.

A deal on financial services is not going to happen on anything like the terms you want and indeed no deal is far more likely.

Germany on all sides politically and industially is the strongest against any deal.

Sorry jamba - wishful thinking is not cutting it. You need to get out of your brexit bubble into the real world. apart from anything else there is no time. they on't have to replicate the expertise just pinch it. No way on earth are they going to allow shells to operate. all the mechanisms have to be under EU jurisdiction. this has been made perfectly clear.

Why do you keep on claiming things will happen that have been categorically ruled out ?

The UK will be asked to make substantial indefinite contributions to the EU budget after Brexit in exchange for British banks having access to Europe’s financial markets, under plans being considered in Brussels.

German government officials told the Bloomberg news agency that a trade deal with the UK could only include financial services if the UK makes payments to Brussels and continues to follow EU law.

the independent 5 days ago

Now may is never going to agree to that but it is essential for the EU. so no deal on financial service on anything like the basis you think it will happen

Its been categorically rules out by all major players in europe

But he re-stated that with Britain leaving, its “financial service providers can no longer enjoy the benefits of a passport to the single market nor those of a system of generalised equivalence of standards”.

Barnier

Not quite true. You can still produce lamb and beef more cheaply than we can and ship it half way round the world and still make a profit. That would appeal to those in the UK really pushing for Brexit (i.e. those with enough money to benefit from very lax tax rules once out of the EU) as it would put our marginal hill farmers out of business and free up all those lovely properties in the countryside for 2nd homes.

Which makes it all the more perplexing as to why they voted to leave. Most of my clients, I'm based in Brecon, are hill farmers who are now wondering what they have done.

Good to see Borris has decided to take the bus out for a run
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42698981

The controversial claim that the UK sends £350m a week to the EU was a "gross underestimate", Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has said.

He told the Guardian the UK's contribution was already £362m a week and would rise to £438m by the end of the post-Brexit transition period.

Vote Leave's claim that £350m could go to the NHS instead was hotly disputed during the EU referendum.

Labour accused Mr Johnson of returning "to the scene of his previous crimes".

A campaign bus used by Vote Leave, including Mr Johnson himself, during the referendum campaign was emblazoned with the slogan: "We send the EU £350 million a week - let's fund our NHS instead."

It was widely criticised because £350m per week is an approximate sum for the UK's "gross contribution" to Brussels.

It doesn't take account of the country's rebate of £75m a week which means that the true amount leaving the Treasury's coffers is significantly lower.

I don't see ~THMs posts - not worth looking at.

Despite revelling in being the centre of attention of cougars “deal” thread you clearly missed its intention and tone 😯

A deal on financial services is not going to happen on anything like the terms you want and indeed no deal is far more likely.

The chance of no deal on financial service is next to nothing. Why? Because that would be very damaging for the interest of EU corporate and households this is clear form all their research briefings.

Barrier is merely creating negotiating noise.

He may well be, it's the sort of noise the UK government is trying to supress - see the Scotland report for example.

Plus in today’s FT Ireland’s Lane not only reiterates the importance of London’s role in providing European finance but also the financial stability issues that are raised by the idea of no deal. It won’t happen (no deal) for obvious reasons

but also the financial stability issues that are raised by the idea of no deal. It won’t happen (no deal) for obvious reasons

We shall see.

I am more confident in the negotiatiors on both sides. They are not fools despite the accusations levelled at them on here. They have already shown that.

Ah, Waterloo......

They are not fools despite the accusations levelled at them on here.

True but Barnier wants to be EU President when Juncker goes.

Indeed

Borris & Farage both putting out deliberately controversial statements lately.
Desperate to keep themselves relevant.

It's almost as if the whole Brexit farce was driven by the egos of a handful of over-privileged popinjays.

and Boris wants to be PM here, so do a few others. Is this really politicians in being politicians shocker?
But if you want to be the big man in the EU delivering them a great deal at the expense of the UK seems to be a good way to get votes.

If I may say so its like all the critism I got on here for saying 4 years ago immigration was a major issue, people ignored it and it came back to bite.

It wasn't a major issue 4 years ago and it is not a major issue now.
I am talking actual issue to the country not an 'I don't like foreigners' issue.

kerly has it. See the Scottish report. each eu national in Scotland makes a large positive contribution to the economy

ON a deal - simply read whatthe major players in the EU are saying

"Olly Robbins, suggested in a recent cabinet meeting that the UK would operate on three levels post-Brexit with the EU, with some sectors being entirely free from Brussels regulation while others were fully converged to allow frictionless trade. In a third “basket” of sectors, the two sides could share the same goals but “achieve them through different means”.

One senior EU official said: “It’s what we always thought the UK would be going for and that’s why we have been quite clear that we don’t think that it is on.”

“They’re asking Germany to wreck the single market that made Germany rich,” noted one Eurocrat, Chris Kendall, “by carving out an exception for financial services to stop them relocating to Germany.”

As Dieter Kempf, president of the Federation of German Industries, acidly observed:

I was surprised to hear it was now up to the EU to make an offer to the UK on how to deal with the UK in future. I understand you don’t want to be like Norway or Switzerland, or an agreement like the one with Canada. But for God’s sake, give us a bit of an idea of what you do want.

But for God’s sake, give us a bit of an idea of what you do want.

It's pretty obvious to everyone now why they can't do this. Even the Leave cheerleaders I know have given up on the idea that it is being kept secret for negotiation reasons. Everyone now knows that the government does not have a plan as regards what should replace EU membership… and is constantly kicking that decision down the street… as soon as it has to form a plan, the cabinet splits, and as soon as it is public, most of the public rejects it. Only once we are no longer members, or we are so close to Leaving that there can be no political way of stopping it happening, will the government set out what they should have set out before triggering the A50 process.

And to counter the assertions from the leavers on here that its all rosy, the basics are agreed and everything is going to be sorted for a trade deal
" Guy Verhofstadt

We must formalise the #Brexit withdrawal agreement. Besides the Irish issues, our priority is to get #citizensrights right. Because this is not done yet. We need rock solid guarantees."

"Guy Verhofstadt

The European Parliament won't allow cherry-picking in the #Brexit transition. All EU legislation, all EU policies will continue to apply. The only exception is that the UK will no longer be represented in the institutions that decide on legislation & policies"

And more to show the falshoods from the leavers

In a debate with European council president Donald Tusk and commission president Jean-Claude Juncker on the 14-15 December EU summit conclusions, MEPs cautioned the UK government not to take a Brexit transition deal for granted, and highlighted the need to [b]formalise the withdrawal[/b] agreement as fast as possible.

They also called on the UK government to lay out clearly its vision for the country’s desired future relationship with the EU, avoiding apparently celebrated priorities such as the colour of passports, which it was always free to choose. Some MEPs made it clear that no status outside the EU will ever be as good as full EU membership.

IE even the withdrawal agreement still needs to be formalised.

He said a transition deal was not inevitable. He said he wanted to deliver a “clear warning” that if the conditions for a transitional deal were not correct, then his MEPs would not back it. “The cliff edge is far from being avoided,” he said.

from the leader of the largest political group in the EU parliament.

So its clear that the deal on the transitional period is not yet done and needs more work from the UK side including giving cast iron legally binding guarentees. After Davis's words none of the EU side trust a word the UK government says.

this means no talks on trade is possible yet contrary to what the leavers on here assert.

"It's not about immigration… it's all about immigration…" pt253:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/non-eu-migration-is-what-uk-voters-care-most-about/

If I may say so its like all the critism I got on here for saying 4 years ago immigration was a major issue, people ignored it and it came back to bite.

Have you read the report by the Home Affairs Committee on the subject? It's highly damning... basically all of the negatives arising from immigration have been due to government incompetence, indifference and placing ideology over evidence. Their tinkering has stoked anti-immigrant sentiment while either making problems worse or introducing whole new ones.

I'm glad whoever ran the Home Office during this time will never work in politics again after causing such damage to the country. Oh, wait...

Depressing that the lies of Brexiters (press, Ministers, campaigners) over immigration and immigrants have such a lasting legacy of untruths, amounts to little more than ill- informed xenophobia

Luckily we have Johnson with his trusty sword of truth to cut through all the lies.

[url= https://visual.ons.gov.uk/the-uk-contribution-to-the-eu-budget/ ]£181m net UK contribution per annum, and rebate applied before any money sent[/url]

TJ the transition deal is very very far from done so we agree there. MEPs will NOT vote againat any deal which includes the EU receiving £35-39bn. If they vote it down they get NOTHING and E27 become net payers to the UK of £8-10bn pa. Also countries like France and, Ireland and Holland will face huge logistical challenges

It’s worth noting that to have a transition we will have to have a very clear idea kf the future trade deal otherwise it is the UK which will back out and keep our £35-39bn

@teeth the rebate is applied 12 months in arrears. The amount paid varies year to year and depends on many factors including relative economic performance. The ONS has exlcuded all the hiddens costs like loans (never paid back), grants and the pension deficit.

The figure of £363m per week is taken from a Government document and we DO NOT control what that money is spent on. It’s worth noting that around £20m per week is lost in fraud amongst the EU27

Also as we have discusses many times lets soend £180m a week on the NHS would have been just as effective. Remain couldn’t challenge the key Leave message that the EU receives large amounts of our money which most of the UK thinks is too way much given they sell us more than we sell them

Waving that £39 billion wad around isn't nearly as impressive as you seem to think it is. What's the combined GDP of rEU27? Is it about $15trillion and rising? Of course the EU want to plug the gap left by one of its richest members pulling out, and of course a decent deal is in the interests of all the EU/EEA countries, but that doesn't mean we can dictate terms.

the EU receives large amounts of our money which [b]most of the UK[/b] thinks is too way much given they sell us more than we sell them

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

The amount we pay and/or get back has no relationship to what we/buy sell. The Leave vote wasn't about money, it was xenophobia and harking back to a non-existent golden age.
And won't the leave voters be disappointed when they realize that the price of trade deals with other countries will be that we will have to let more people in from those countries....and they won't be Caucasian.

And won't the leave voters be disappointed when they realize that the price of trade deals with other countries will be that we will have to let more people in from those countries

I missed that!

Starmer get’s it. Tells Labour MPs to stop trying to reverse Brexit. He is quite right to say Farage is talking of a second Referendum as he knows Leave would win again.

http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-tells-parliamentary-labour-party-to-stop-trying-to-rub-out-brexit-vote-second-referendum-practical-problems_uk_5a5d1ae4e4b0fcbc3a12b39e?utm_hp_ref=uk-homepage

Labour leadership out UKIPing UKIP again.

TJ if EU ask (demand - cough cough) for payments into the EU budget in order to allow financial services access I STRONGLY suspect May will just pass that cost onto the banks directly. At that point the banks will say they don’t want / need such access.

Only 30% of our services are financial. Much is being made of passporting etc but IMO it’s a total red herring.

If the EU lost access to London’s financial services they’d be in a big mess very quickly and the higher costs would be passed onto them immediately at a time they can least afford it.

@Kelvin they are not blind to how the North voted and Corbyn is a eurosceptic anyway. IMO they are well aware frustrating Brexit is not a vote winner for them. Yes by all means make trouble for the Govt (remember Labour voted against Maastricht) but focus on other things NHS, “inequality” etc

Much is being made of passporting etc but IMO it’s a total red herring.

I'd love to agree with you, Jambs, but then we'd both be wrong.

And

[b]Only [/b]30% of our services are financial.

That's alright then...

^^ 🙂

TwoDogs if we had to fill some extra forms, setup / expand an EU subsidiary it’s really not a big deal. I suspect a lot of firms wouldn’t bother they’d either sign a JV with an EU entity or just withdraw from their European business in the way Barclays didnway before the referendum

Oh good grief.

Only 30% of our services are financial. Much is being made of passporting etc but IMO it’s a total red herring.

It isn’t a red herring

But it is fair to say that most UK banks are prepared for the likely/different outcomes (two are still setting up subsidiaries but one of those is pretty domestic anyway). But that’s not to conclude that the issue is a red herring

jambalaya - Member

^^

TwoDogs if we had to fill some extra forms, setup / expand an EU subsidiary it’s really not a big deal.

And that has been categorically ruled out. Firms working with EU finance must have the main operation in the EU including all senior staff and all computer systems so they fall under EU law. Shell operations are not going to be allowed. Luxembourg is being softer on this hoping to pick up some crumbs but the big players are staying firm.

Why do you keep on posting that things will happen that have been ruled out?

Not true sorry

Its nice that so many different EU politicians are making it clear that Brexit can be reversed if we like

belies the brexies on here & elsewhere that like to say it cant

not say it will, the appetite for self-harm doesnt seem to be diminishing from the hardcore

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/17/brexit-uncertainty-prompts-employers-to-cut-graduate-jobs

Take that, snowflakes.

Why kimbers?

(Budget?)

Why kimbers?

(Budget?)

Very

Plus other lose:lose issues INCLUDING financial services

Hence the position is very different to how it is normally presented - is that a card on the floor?!!!

Interesting presentation from PRA yesterday plus the Swissies questioning FoM (?) and how this will affect their deal in financial services

Nothing is black or white

No but the EU are happy to have the UK back along with an increasing proportion of the UK (some would call it a majority soon) when May gives in on another red line the come back option will be floated, especially as MP's can enact it. How bad does it have to get for it to be worth stopping?

As the saying goes when your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Brexit is not the only solution or option.

Both Swiss and Norway threatening to redraw their own arrangements if UK/rEU deal threatens their own positions. Dominos…

Its nice that so many different EU politicians are making it clear that Brexit can be reversed if we like

Good to hear key rEU players keeping open the possibility that the UK can change its collective mind. Unfortunately, the leading lights of both main parties (have to) stay deaf to this idea, for their own (or their own party) reasons.

I would be nice to imagine that their motives were altruistic