Brexit: Now What? Part III

[jimbob]

Well, it's a shame they were made such lying promises, and a shame that a sufficiency of Scots believed the lies.

You will remember that the government tried also to influence UK voters to remain in the EU - also by telling a pack of lies (IMO). This time the lies were mostly negative - dire threats about how terrible things would be if we dared vote leave. Fortunately (IMO) the majority of UK voters (though not a majority of Scots) were smart enough to see through the lies and vote to leave anyway.

Note the IMO: "In my opinion" qualifiers. I don't doubt that your opinion will be different to mine - and different to the majority of UK voters. The vast majority of posters in this thread are from the losing minority "Remain" side.

Given the age demographics of the two camps, and the narrowness of the margin, it's probably switched over by now.

Regardless of that, it's still a really bad idea, with little clear knowledge as to what actually will happen.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the UK break up, and the Troubles start in Northern Ireland.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I already explained that: A) the way our UK government voted on EU issues often didn't represent the will of the people. B) That sometimes the UK just went along with the crowd because they knew it was futile to vote against a measure that had overwhelming EU support.

There's no need for us to keep going over the same ground. I know you don't like the fact that a majority of UK voters voted to leave the EU, but it remains a fact anyway.

You fall back to saying they only voted that way because they were lied to - but that is naive in my opinion: In every political campaign / election / referendum we are fed truths and lies by both sides. It's up to voters to consider both sides of the argument, decide which things they are told they believe and which they don't and then vote accordingly.

The Scottish Nationalists in this thread think that the Scots didn't vote to leave the UK because the Scots believed the lies of the UK government, and they think that the UK voted to leave the EU because they believed the lies of the Leave campaign.

I offer the alternative (and undoubtedly unpopular in this thread) view that the Scots saw through the lies of the SNP campaigners and so voted remain - and the UK population saw through the lies of the Remain campaign and so voted leave.

Yes great except hen asked to support what you say with anything other than more conjecture you can't. You said the uk wanted to leave because t was at odds with the EU and outvoted and couldn't vote that out unlike the government but then when asked to give examples you can't and just say the people disagree with the government they voted for.

The lies told to Scotland are obvious as were the lies told about Brexit by leavers. The lies you claim are as yet unproven. You think your opinion is equal to facts?

And yet it remains the case that the only coherent case for Brexit yet made is that the bigots want to keep foreigners out. And their figurehead Nigel seems to be on a world tour of support Nazis bigots fascists and racists

 

[Craig B]

I'm quite happy for Scotland to secede from the United Kingdom if that is what the Scots want. The same goes for Wales and Northern Ireland.

I suspect though, that it's not what the majority of Scots want: last time they were offered the choice they chose to remain, and I suspect they will choose to remain again, if and when another referendum is allowed.

But you wrote this, after saying that the Scots couldn't prevail against the other UK countries, just as the UK can't inside the EU, and therefore.

... the best thing the UK can do under the circumstances is exactly what the UK is doing - leaving. It's a shame we didn't leave many years earlier - but we are, belatedly, doing the right thing.​

So I am asking you to confirm that "the best thing" the Scots could do, in your view, would be to leave the UK; and that if they choose again to remain, that will be the wrong choice. I didn't ask you what you suspect the Scots want, so I don't need a reply to that. I asked you to confirm that you are of the opinion that the Scots would be best advised to vote Yes to Indy, given the opportunity.

 

[ceptimus]

But you wrote this, after saying that the Scots couldn't prevail against the other UK countries, just as the UK can't inside the EU, and therefore.

... the best thing the UK can do under the circumstances is exactly what the UK is doing - leaving. It's a shame we didn't leave many years earlier - but we are, belatedly, doing the right thing.​

So I am asking you to confirm that "the best thing" the Scots could do, in your view, would be to leave the UK; and that if they choose again to remain, that will be the wrong choice. I didn't ask you what you suspect the Scots want, so I don't need a reply to that. I asked you to confirm that you are of the opinion that the Scots would be best advised to vote Yes to Indy, given the opportunity.

If they want to make their own decisions and not be overruled by the more populated England then sure, they should vote to leave.

But they would lose the financial and other support they currently get from the UK, plus there are undoubtedly many Scots who feel some attachment to the UK for whatever reason and wouldn't want to leave.

Also, there are also plenty of Scots who don't feel that their wishes are being overruled by the UK - just as there were plenty of UK voters who were perfectly happy inside the EU.

So it's up to the Scots - being English I won't get a vote on the matter. Nor should I have a vote, just as the other EU countries didn't get a vote on the UK being allowed to leave the EU.

If I lived in Scotland, I would have voted leave last time and I'd vote leave again if and when there is a second referendum. If, for some bizarre reason, the English did get a vote on Scotland being allowed to leave I would also vote in favour of them being allowed to.

I think, if and when Scotland leaves the UK, they will suffer short and medium term setbacks - just as the UK will in leaving the EU. In the longer term though, they may be better off and even if they're not they will still have the satisfaction of having greater control over their own destiny. Unless an independent Scotland chooses (and is allowed) to join the EU, of course. It makes no sense to me why a country would choose to secede from one union, only to join an even larger one where they would have even less influence.

 

[Belgian thought]

I think, if and when Scotland leaves the UK, they will suffer short and medium term setbacks - just as the UK will in leaving the EU. In the longer term though, they may be better off and even if they're not they will still have the satisfaction of having greater control over their own destiny. Unless an independent Scotland chooses (and is allowed) to join the EU, of course. It makes no sense to me why a country would choose to secede from one union, only to join an even larger one where they would have even less influence.

The wording of this argument has lots going against it.

 

[ceptimus]

What don't you like about the wording?

 

[Wildy]

No. I have no idea how you could read what I wrote and think that was what I was saying.

I don't expect the UK to hold any disproportionate power over the EU and, as I already said, the best thing the UK can do under the circumstances is exactly what the UK is doing - leaving. It's a shame we didn't leave many years earlier - but we are, belatedly, doing the right thing.

So why complain about other countries outvoting you then? You complaint suggests that an issue with the EU is that all the member nations can vote on stuff, not just the countries you think should be allowed to. It's quite literally complaining that democracy is bad because it's not doing the things you want it to.

 

[ceptimus]

Not a complaint at all. Just an observation of fact.

 

[The Don]

The reason the majority of UK voters were unhappy with the EU (IMO) is not so much to do with the UK being outvoted in the EU on a few occasions - rather it was the creeping loss of control to the EU. The UK governments of whatever flavour at the time may well have voted in favour of some measures, but that doesn't mean that their decisions were supported by a majority of UK voters.

Well that's your version of events - although remember it's all about immigration - or at least that's what it seems.

A closer examination would show that the version of the EU that some people in the UK were voting against was a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Just as "everybody" knows that the UK never gets its own way (despite only voting against 2% of measures and having all kinds of opt-out powers that other EU members don't have) and that the EU foists all kinds of unnecessary regulations on the UK (which when examined are highly inaccurate descriptions of the regulations, nothing to do with the EU or made up entirely) so goes public opinion.

For decades, any popular EU-inspired piece of legislation is immediately appropriated by the government of the day and anything unpopular, whether it relates to the EU or not, is blamed on the EU.

If you're worried about ceding control to foreign states then you'll never have any international agreements of any kind. Any agreement whether it relates to trade, military support, policing or diplomatic cooperation involves obligations of one state towards another - i.e. control. Now you could claim that the UK can withdraw at any time from any agreement that the UK population are unhappy with but:

• Unlike the EU, the details of those agreements are rarely published and as such are not subject to public scrutiny
• Those agreements aren't subject to the sort of scrutiny that the European Parliament provides
• Practically, the UK cannot make and opt out of treaties based on the current whim of the electorate.

The Brexiteer approach really does seem to be "we want everything our way the whole time and we'll take our ball home if we don't get it"

 

[Darat]

They were promised the sun, the moon and the stars in devo-max if they would stay in the Union. They were said that the only way for Scotland to remain in the EU was to vote stay.

There's been not a whit of extra devolution and now the UK pulls Scotland out of the EU. Both were massive lies.

The staying in the EU wasn't a lie. A nuScotland would have had to apply to join the EU.

At the time it was certainly not the policy of any party capable of forming a government in the UK to leave the EU. That came about as a result of Cameron's inability to lead his party as well as an inability to lead the country.

 

[The Don]

James Dyson, one of Brexit's most prominent business supporters, expects no Brexit deal.

This is great news for him, he manufactures outside the EU. He also appears to be delusional.

Leave campaigner Sir James Dyson expects the UK to leave the EU with no deal, and trade to default to World Trade Organization rules and tariffs.

Sir James, who founded the engineering firm Dyson, told the BBC such an arrangement would "hurt the Europeans more than the British".

No Sir James, almost half of our exports go to the EU, the vast majority of it in the service sector, one which is highly mobile and able to be relocated. OTOH most EU countries export single digit percentages to the UK.

Retailer John Lewis isn't happy...

However, the chairman of the John Lewis Partnership, Sir Charlie Mayfield, told the Today programme that the pound and business confidence had been hit by the Brexit vote.

"We should be under no illusions, Brexit is having an effect on the economy, no question. It's the same for everybody, and the main effects are sterling and confidence.

"Uncertainty is one of the consequences of this, and of course businesses never like uncertainty, because it makes it hard to plan for the future.

He called for "a serious parliamentary debate, to figure out what kind of Brexit we're going to have in the best interests of the country and the economy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41265718

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The staying in the EU wasn't a lie. A nuScotland would have had to apply to join the EU.

At the time it was certainly not the policy of any party capable of forming a government in the UK to leave the EU. That came about as a result of Cameron's inability to lead his party as well as an inability to lead the country.

It certainly was a lie. There was no indication that Scotland would be anything other than an eu member following independence and yet here we are put out of the eu thanks to English and Welsh bigots who want to get rid of foreigners.

 

[The Don]

It certainly was a lie. There was no indication that Scotland would be anything other than an eu member following independence and yet here we are put out of the eu thanks to English and Welsh bigots who want to get rid of foreigners.

Hey !

More people in Scotland voted Leave (just over 1 million) than voted Leave in Wales (850,000)

You've got more bigots than we do (albeit a much smaller proportion of same)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Hey !

More people in Scotland voted Leave (just over 1 million) than voted Leave in Wales (850,000)

You've got more bigots than we do (albeit a much smaller proportion of same)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

Our bigots tend to be of the religious variety mind you.

 

[Information Analyst]

I already explained that: A) the way our UK government voted on EU issues often didn't represent the will of the people. B) That sometimes the UK just went along with the crowd because they knew it was futile to vote against a measure that had overwhelming EU support.

Presumably you would be able to identify numerous specific instances of this, then? How about you give us a nice honest un-metric dozen to begin with?

 

[Tolls]

Of course that would also imply that the way our government votes on many things doesn't represent the "will of the people".

Considering that "the will of the people" would probably want to bring back hanging and smoking in pubs I'm not too sure that's a Bad Thing. That sort of democracy leads to demagogues.

 

[ddt]

The staying in the EU wasn't a lie. A nuScotland would have had to apply to join the EU.

At the time it was certainly not the policy of any party capable of forming a government in the UK to leave the EU. That came about as a result of Cameron's inability to lead his party as well as an inability to lead the country.

Voting "No" to Scottish independence was presented as the only option to remain within the EU. At the same time, Cameron already had made the election promise to organize a referendum on Brexit. And at the time of the Scottish referendum, IIRC, polls about Brexit were already close to 50/50. OTOH, I think a Scottish application as EU member would have met little obstruction. Exhibit A:

 

[Darat]

Voting "No" to Scottish independence was presented as the only option to remain within the EU. At the same time, Cameron already had made the election promise to organize a referendum on Brexit. And at the time of the Scottish referendum, IIRC, polls about Brexit were already close to 50/50. OTOH, I think a Scottish application as EU member would have met little obstruction. Exhibit A:

None of that contradicts my assertion that the staying in the EU was not a lie. For all three major parties at the time of the Scottish referendum they all supported staying in the EU.

Circumstances changed, that does not mean previous statements become lies.

 

[ddt]

From the Independent:

MPs have launched an inquiry into the state of Brexit negotiations after the latest round ended in recriminations about a lack of progress.

The Exiting the EU Select Committee will explore the strategy of the UK Government, as well as try to determine whether it has the capability to manage the process effectively.

That can become fun. They'll be lucky to meet Davis in person at the Brexit department, given his work ethos. In fact, it seems they'll be lucky to meet someone there who can give them some consistent-sounding answers.

 

[jimbob]

From the Independent:

That can become fun. They'll be lucky to meet Davis in person at the Brexit department, given his work ethos. In fact, it seems they'll be lucky to meet someone there who can give them some consistent-sounding answers.

So do you think his laziness is a bigger handicap than his lack of awareness of is ignorance? Or is it his stupidity?

I'm willing to accept that I might have missed something - feel free to correct me if you think it is something else?


Rule of So where it is valid?