Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Information Analyst]

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Where have I said that?

How about this:

Public opinion in the UK was pro-Leave consistently more or less right up to the Indyref.

This is false, as your own citation shows. Public opinion shifted to being more pro-EU than pro-Brexit several months before the Scottish referendum, and became more pronounced subsequently.

It was clear there was a far greater risk of England voting to leave the EU than of Scotland being excluded.

It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that the EU made it clear that an independent Scotland would have to re-apply. Just how long that process would have taken place was and is unclear, but it is an exclusion. In contrast, as above, public opinion appeared to have turned against the idea of Brexit, so that it was less likely than a vote to Remain.

Maybe saying Brexit was a "done deal" is exaggerating a bit, but you have consistently claimed that Brexit looked more likely than Remain at the time of the Scottish referendum, which is simply untrue.

 

[Craig B]

No, it could not. It would require unanimity, and Spain have already said they would block such a move. They wouldn't want to encourage their own regions separatist ambitions* by backing separatist movements in other nations.

*The Catalan parliament has just voted for an independence referendum. The Basque region wants independence. So do a number of other areas.

Spain doesn't seem to be saying that now. The message is

“Spain cannot apply the United Kingdom’s solution for the Scottish issue: our historical origins and our legal-political systems are different,” a spokesperson for Spain’s ministry of foreign affairs told Buzzfeed News. “Spain has a written constitution, submitted to the vote of all Spaniards in 1978 and approved by 87.7% (and 91.4% of the Catalonian voters), which makes the rules of the game clear.

“The Spanish constitution enshrines the Spanish nation as a political and social reality prior to the constitution itself. Therefore, national unity is the basis of our constitution. There are established procedures to amend the constitution. Therefore, in our legal framework, a referendum in the form proposed by the United Kingdom to Scotland would only be possible if the constitution were amended.

“The British case is an exception to an overwhelming majority of written constitutions that do not recognise this possibility.”​

So what happens in Scotland has no relevance to Catalonia, according to the present view in Madrid.

 

[Mid]

Just thought I'd add the link below as people might be interested in a Brexit readiness index. On this one the UK is receiving a score of 9/100 so still a bit of room for improvement:

https://piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/brexit-readiness-score

 

[ceptimus]

What does 'Brexit readiness' even mean? If it's about trading then the people that made the index should realize that it takes two sides to trade - so if the UK isn't ready it means that the EU isn't ready either.

 

[abaddon]

What does 'Brexit readiness' even mean? If it's about trading then the people that made the index should realize that it takes two sides to trade - so if the UK isn't ready it means that the EU isn't ready either.

What a disconnect. There are two sides, the EU and the UK.

The EU is ready but the UK is absent.

 

[Mid]

In the case of that index it seems to mean thought out policies where applicable (which seems to give a 5 out of 10) and agreements (which should give a 10 one imagines) on the 10 topics they are scoring on. So if for instance the UK caved to all EU demands it would have 100/100 and conversely if the EU caved to all UK demands then it would also give 100/100. Of course a negotiated settlement (along with other planning related issues) would also give 100/100.

 

[The Don]

What does 'Brexit readiness' even mean?

The article made it abundantly clear, it was an assessment of whether the UK is in a position to execute Brexit. Of course more than a year away a score approaching 100 would be unreasonable.

If it's about trading then the people that made the index should realize that it takes two sides to trade - so if the UK isn't ready it means that the EU isn't ready either.

A friend and I are going to play golf together, we're travelling together in the same vehicle. He has all his gear packed into the car and is ready to go - I'm still fast asleep, my clubs are in the garage and my shoes are in the utility room sink- filthy from the last game - but sure, if I'm unready, so is he

 

[Hellbound]

The article made it abundantly clear, it was an assessment of whether the UK is in a position to execute Brexit. Of course more than a year away a score approaching 100 would be unreasonable.



A friend and I are going to play golf together, we're travelling together in the same vehicle. He has all his gear packed into the car and is ready to go - I'm still fast asleep, my clubs are in the garage and my shoes are in the utility room sink- filthy from the last game - but sure, if I'm unready, so is he

And of course, when I go into a store to buy something (you know, trade) and I find the item I want, go to the register to check out, and have my wallet in hand...and the cashier is asleep in the breakroom...we're both unready.

 

[ceptimus]

The article made it abundantly clear, it was an assessment of whether the UK is in a position to execute Brexit. Of course more than a year away a score approaching 100 would be unreasonable.



A friend and I are going to play golf together, we're travelling together in the same vehicle. He has all his gear packed into the car and is ready to go - I'm still fast asleep, my clubs are in the garage and my shoes are in the utility room sink- filthy from the last game - but sure, if I'm unready, so is he

Ludicrous and inapplicable analogy. It's about trading. Let's make your friend analogy about trading and see just how ludicrous it is:

A friend and I want to sell each other things. We meet up to trade. He is able to buy my stuff and sell stuff to me - I accept his money and he accepts mine.

However, at the same time, I can't sell anything to him or buy anything from him - he can't accept my money and he won't use any of his money to buy my stuff.

See the contradiction? As I said, if the UK isn't ready for post-Brexit trade, it means the EU isn't ready either - you can't have one without the other.

 

[3point14]

So, just to check again - Everyone got to vote in the referendum, regardless of how utterly out of touch with reality their perception of the situation was or is?

I think I know why we're in this total mess.

 

[Craig B]

So, just to check again - Everyone got to vote in the referendum, regardless of how utterly out of touch with reality their perception of the situation was or is?

I think I know why we're in this total mess.

We'd be in an even bigger mess, if election officers were examining people's intellects to decide whether they were entitled to vote or not.

 

[ceptimus]

So, just to check again - Everyone got to vote in the referendum.

Of course. What is your proposed alternative? You want to restrict voting in referendums and/or elections somehow? How do you propose to decide who gets a vote and who doesn't?

 

[Garrison]

What does 'Brexit readiness' even mean? If it's about trading then the people that made the index should realize that it takes two sides to trade - so if the UK isn't ready it means that the EU isn't ready either.

Nonsense, to pursue a football analogy the EU team are on the pitch waiting for the kick off, the UK team are still arguing what colour shirts to wear.

Ludicrous and inapplicable analogy. It's about trading. Let's make your friend analogy about trading and see just how ludicrous it is:

A friend and I want to sell each other things. We meet up to trade. He is able to buy my stuff and sell stuff to me - I accept his money and he accepts mine.

However, at the same time, I can't sell anything to him or buy anything from him - he can't accept my money and he won't use any of his money to buy my stuff.

See the contradiction? As I said, if the UK isn't ready for post-Brexit trade, it means the EU isn't ready either - you can't have one without the other.

Even worse nonsense. The reality is 'your friend' has turned up with the stuff they want to trade, money to buy stuff and a clear idea of prices. You on the other hand are still looking up the definition of trade in a dictionary.

 

[ddt]

No, it could not. It would require unanimity, and Spain have already said they would block such a move. They wouldn't want to encourage their own regions separatist ambitions* by backing separatist movements in other nations.

*The Catalan parliament has just voted for an independence referendum. The Basque region wants independence. So do a number of other areas.

What's happening right now in Catalonia has little relevance to the UK situation. Spain has a written constitution in which the indivisibility of the country is laid down. The referendum that the Catalonian government is organizing is in violation of that constitution. The UK has a make-up-on-the-go-constitution and the 2014 Scottish Indyref was therefore legal.

There's no evidence that Spain would have blocked a Scottish application, and certainly no Spanish politician is on record saying they would object. Here's fullfact.org on the matter, and according to this Buzzfeed article there are some on record that they would not object.

 

[ddt]

Nonsense, to pursue a football analogy the EU team are on the pitch waiting for the kick off, the UK team are still arguing what colour shirts to wear.

Even worse, it seems the UK team is constantly bickering who gets to be captain.

 

[3point14]

We'd be in an even bigger mess, if election officers were examining people's intellects to decide whether they were entitled to vote or not.

I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I'm not suggesting anything, to be fair, just wondering how we ended up where we are.

 

[ceptimus]

No. To trade you need agreement.

The UK is perfectly ready to trade on its terms. The EU is somewhat ready (and might be ready in time) to trade on its terms.

The UK terms are to trade exactly as at present - the EU should grant full trading access to its single market in return for the UK granting full trading access to the UK market to the EU.

The EU terms are that the UK should pay many tens of billions of Euros for continued access to their single market, and also be bound by most of the current EU rules concerning free movement of people, supremacy of EU courts and so on.

What you should be saying is that neither side is prepared to accept the other side's proposals - and if the situation remains like that then neither side will be ready to trade in a manner acceptable to the other side. There is already a mechanism in place if this remains the case: WTO rules.

 

[Garrison]

I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I'm not suggesting anything, to be fair, just wondering how we ended up where we are.

Well in no small part because David Cameron was more worried about a Tory backbench revolt than the good of the country.

 

[Garrison]

No. To trade you need agreement.

The UK is perfectly ready to trade on its terms.

Hilarious, the notion that the UK has any idea what its terms would be is not supported by the pronouncements of May, Davis, or Johnson.

 

[Craig B]

I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I'm not suggesting anything, to be fair, just wondering how we ended up where we are.

I understand how you feel, but I really don't think there's a desirable or even viable alternative to universal suffrage.