Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So you accept that since the SNP are a minority government they have no mandate for a further referendum. The people of Scoitland voted against independence in the referendum, then the SNP went from a majority to a minority party. Seems to me two successive votes giving a message about the will of the Scottish people.

What's minority government got to do with the price of fish? Complete red herring. If there's a majority for the referendum then they can make it happen, if there isn't they can't.

So was it a lie about the referenda being a once in a generation vote? Was it a lie about Scotland being able to remain in the EU.

The once in a generation thing is another red herring. It was a Salmond turn of phrase not a policy pledge. In any case so what if Salmond did say it, how does that tie anyone else to it?

I put a lot of time and worry into my once in a lifetime vote. I resent that sore losers want to waste that effort.

Feel free not to vote in the next one if it's too much time and effort. That's your choice.

Perhaps it would be easier on us all if there could just be a referendum on having a referendum. Then we could just vote on whether we wanted a year of campaigning every four years when we had an election, just add a question to the ballot, Do you authorise the government to hold an independence referendum in the next four years.

Or maybe you could stop talking nonsense?

The problem about mandate arguments is that one may vote for the SNP but not vote for independence. As it happens the SNP did not commit to a repeat referendum in their election manifesto so they cannot claim that as justification. So the current SNP government is a minority government without a clear commitment to a repeat referendum in their manifesto.

Yes there's a shell of an argument there. But if you vote SNP and are opposed to independence then you are a bit daft really. It's a bit like voting UKIP and being for the EU. I've already said my ideal scenario would be to have another Scottish election then a referendum but that may not be possible. Nicola will have to play the hand she is dealt and in this case timing is crucial. Scotland needs to have voted for independence before the Tories yank us out of the EU in my opinion.

At least we have some honesty, that for some people the plan is a referendum every four years until they get the decision they want then never again. Statistically a very dubious process.

Well no you don't. You are just reading into what i have said things to suit your prejudices. I don't think we should have a referendum every four years nor does anyone else as far as i know. What I have said is that a government has the right to do it. Otherwise who on Earth do you suppose should stop them?

 

[Andy_Ross]

1. If the referendum is the people of Scotland's wish, and only Scots get to vote in it, then who do you think should pay for it?

2. If the Scots get independence, how often should they subsequently hold referendums on whether or not they wish to rejoin the UK?

If we leave the EU how often should we subsequently hold referendums on whether or not we wish to rejoin?

 

[McHrozni]

2. If the Scots get independence, how often should they subsequently hold referendums on whether or not they wish to rejoin the UK?

I don't know about Scotland, but anti-EU crowd in the UK demanded referendums were repeated infinitely until they got the result they wanted and then demanded this was the final referendum to settle the question for all eternity.

By the same measure the Scottish independence referendum should be repeated until such time as Leave wins, and that settles the matter once and for all.

McHrozni

 

[ceptimus]

I don't know about Scotland, but anti-EU crowd in the UK demanded referendums were repeated infinitely until they got the result they wanted...

I don't think so. There was one previous referendum in 1975 (and it's at least one 'generation' since that date) but that referendum was on whether Britain should remain in the EEC (aka 'common market') which was a very different entity compared to the EU it's evolved into.

I've no objection at all to future referendums to rejoin the EU after we've left - providing the EU indicates that it would be prepared to have us back and there is majority support in Britain to hold a referendum.

I've no fears that we would ever rejoin as 1) The EU may collapse in the near future anyway and 2) Even if the EU survives there is no chance that Britain would vote to rejoin once the British have had the opportunity to see how much better things are once they're outside it.

 

[Tolls]

I've no objection at all to future referendums to rejoin the EU after we've left - providing the EU indicates that it would be prepared to have us back and there is majority support in Britain to hold a referendum.

Surely just a majority in Parliament...

 

[Lothian]

I don't think so. There was one previous referendum in 1975 (and it's at least one 'generation' since that date) but that referendum was on whether Britain should remain in the EEC (aka 'common market') which was a very different entity compared to the EU it's evolved into.

I've no objection at all to future referendums to rejoin the EU after we've left - providing the EU indicates that it would be prepared to have us back and there is majority support in Britain to hold a referendum.

McHrozni was not talking about the distant past rather the leave campaigners in the recent referendum for example
The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

I can't remember, what was the result this time?

 

[ceptimus]

Like I say, I've no objection to having another referendum to rejoin after we've left - providing the EU are prepared to allow us to rejoin and if a majority of the British population want such a referendum.

So no conflict with what Mr Farage said - the two possible outcomes have perfect symmetry:

If we voted remain then we would have remained and maybe had another referendum down the line if that's what people wanted.

As we voted leave, we'll leave and then maybe have another referendum to rejoin down the line if that's what people want - but of course, if the EU say we can't rejoin then such a referendum would be pointless.

 

[ceptimus]

Surely just a majority in Parliament...

I suppose if a referendum is promised in a party's election manifesto and that party wins a majority at an election then that would be sufficient - that's the way 'call me Dave' engineered last year's referendum.

 

[Rat]

Like I say, I've no objection to having another referendum to rejoin after we've left - providing the EU are prepared to allow us to rejoin and if a majority of the British population want such a referendum.

If we were to rejoin, of course, we would almost certainly have to join the Euro and Schengen, and lose all of the other benefits that we've whinged our way into over the years.

 

[Craig B]

If we were to rejoin, of course, we would almost certainly have to join the Euro and Schengen, and lose all of the other benefits that we've whinged our way into over the years.

But if we leave, according to Politico Brexit Bulletin

The Parliament note also suggests that EU regional funds handed to U.K. companies or government bodies in the 10 years before Brexit (small businesses are exempt) will need to be repaid to the European Commission. That’s because the funded activities will have 'relocated outside the Union'.​

Oh dear me. I wonder what Nicola Sturgeon and her pals will make of that. I think Scotland has been a significant beneficiary of such funding.

 

[ceptimus]

All the EU talk of the UK making payments to the EU in order to leave is nonsense on stilts. They want €60 billion so they can pay pensions to retired EU officials after we've left. Hahaha!

No one pays to leave a club. When you leave a club you just walk away and if the club asks you for money you tell the club to get stuffed.

 

[Rat]

All the EU talk of the UK making payments to the EU in order to leave is nonsense on stilts. They want €60 billion so they can pay pensions to retired EU officials after we've left. Hahaha!

No one pays to leave a club. When you leave a club you just walk away and if the club asks you for money you tell the club to get stuffed.

It's not payments, it's repayments.

 

[ceptimus]

Call them what you will. The answer is the same. No!

 

[Craig B]

All the EU talk of the UK making payments to the EU in order to leave is nonsense on stilts. They want €60 billion so they can pay pensions to retired EU officials after we've left. Hahaha!

No one pays to leave a club. When you leave a club you just walk away and if the club asks you for money you tell the club to get stuffed.

And then you try to join another club?

 

[Strawberry]

Call them what you will. The answer is the same. No!

They are payments that the UK has already signed up to. And the answer from the government will not be no, regardless of what you post here.

 

[Rat]

Call them what you will. The answer is the same. No!

And you think that one of the first things we should do as a newly 'independent' nation is to make it clear to the world that we cannot be relied on to fulfill obligations that we signed up for?

 

[ceptimus]

But we didn't sign up for them! The EU are lying!

Even at £350 million per week, a figure that I'm sure most of you say is too high the amount they're bandying about represents about 3 years worth of our normal contribution as full members. If we take our net contribution figure as being about half the £350 million then what the EU are requesting is that after leaving we should continue to pay into their corrupt organization for another 6 years!

You can wail all you like about it, but I promise you that this will not happen. We'll see what happens in due course and then you can all admit that I was right and you were wrong.

 

[Strawberry]

But we didn't sign up for them! The EU are lying!

Even at £350 million per week, a figure that I'm sure most of you say is too high the amount they're bandying about represents about 3 years worth of our normal contribution as full members. If we take our net contribution figure as being about half the £350 million then what the EU are requesting is that after leaving we should continue to pay into their corrupt organization for another 6 years!

You can wail all you like about it, but I promise you that this will not happen. We'll see who's right in due course and then you can all admit that I was right.

The UK has already signed up to the multiannual financial framework for the next five years, and on top of that there are pension commitments to UK MEPs and civil servants based in Brussels.

Nobody's wailing about it apart from you.

 

[ceptimus]

We won't be paying the pensions of retired EU bureaucrats after we've left. Currently their average pension is about three times the average British worker's salary.

We paid into their pension pot for all the time we've been members (that's part of the £350 million per week). Why on earth do you think we should continue to pay after we've left? If you leave a job, do you expect your ex employer to continue making contributions towards your pension? If so, I wonder what colour the sky is in your universe.

 

[Strawberry]

We won't be paying the pensions of retired EU bureaucrats after we've left. Currently their average pension is about three times the average British worker's salary.

We paid into their pension pot for all the time we've been members (that's part of the £350 million per week). Why on earth do you think we should continue to pay after we've left? If you leave a job, do you expect your ex employer to continue making contributions towards your pension? If so, I wonder what colour the sky is in your universe.

If there was a commitment to contribute towards my pension in the employment contract, yes I damn well would. And so will they.