brexit?!!?

[thalbergmad]

If i end up paying import duty on banjos bought in Europe due to lack of a trade deal, it will still be nothing compared to the horrific charges i paid when importing from the USA.

The incompetent fools at the EU failed to get a trade deal with the USA, perhaps we can do better. Bilateral deals are somewhat easier to secure.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

It would not have been pointless; after all, precedents for anything are never set until they are set for the first time.

Personally, if i knew it was only advisory, i would not have bothere voting. It would be like winning the lottery and then Parliament deciding to change all the numbers so you lose.

Thal

[ahinton]

Personally, if i knew it was only advisory, i would not have bothere voting. It would be like winning the lottery and then Parliament deciding to change all the numbers so you lose.

I agree wholeheartedly, but in so doing I am very conscious of the fault at play here, for which so many can be blamed on both sides and in all parties.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

If i end up paying import duty on banjos bought in Europe due to lack of a trade deal, it will still be nothing compared to the horrific charges i paid when importing from the USA.

The incompetent fools at the EU failed to get a trade deal with the USA, perhaps we can do better. Bilateral deals are somewhat easier to secure.

Sometimes, maybe - but then membership of EU and the ability to get decent trade deals with US should not be mutually exclusive, either for UK for for any other EU member states; EU would do well to appreciate and remember this if it wants to continue.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21706470-theresa-mays-ministers-are-carefully-avoiding-specific-answers-she-systematically

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/09/brexit-department-spends-more-than-250000-on-legal-advice-in-jus/

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/guy-verhofstadt-appointed-european-parliaments-brexit-negotiator

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37315544

and yet another legal challenge:

https://www.itv.com/news/utv/2016-09-09/brexit-legal-challenge-to-be-heard-next-month/

That'll do for now...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3777922/Jobless-couple-eight-children-say-neglected-council-offered-new-five-bed-home-didn-t-dining-room.html 

Thanks to the EU freedom of movement, the British taxpayer now has to provide for this group of ingrate scum. The bill will probably end up in the millions.

The sooner Article 50 is triggered the better as this nonsense happens far too often and needs to stop.

Thal

[ahinton]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3777922/Jobless-couple-eight-children-say-neglected-council-offered-new-five-bed-home-didn-t-dining-room.html 

Thanks to the EU freedom of movement, the British taxpayer now has to provide for this group of ingrate scum. The bill will probably end up in the millions.

The sooner Article 50 is triggered the better as this nonsense happens far too often and needs to stop.

That won't stop this kind of thing happening. It shouldn't happen, of course, but unless UK wants to place seriously drastic curbs on immigration and gets away with it in its negotiations with EU (should they ever commence), I see little sign of any change here.

Anyway, it's only in the Daily Fail!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I don't know what you mean by "only the Daily Fail"as this was reported in a couple of other newspapers. Probably not reported in the left wing immigrant loving trash that you read.

I do have confidence that our PM can make some inroads into stopping this nonsense, but Europe itself needs to take some action and start turning the boats around. You never know, even the stupid tart Merkel might eventually see the error of her ways.

In addition, benefits paid to migrants need to be drastically slashed so they have only enough to survive and not enough to live more comfortable lives than many hard working Brits. In this case, the parents should be sterilized.

Thal

[ahinton]

I don't know what you mean by "only the Daily Fail"as this was reported in a couple of other newspapers. Probably not reported in the left wing immigrant loving trash that you read.

I read all sorts of news media ad certainloy do not confine myself to any wing driven ones. I did sayu that the example concerned, if accurately reported, is one that does not merit repetition.

I do have confidence that our PM can make some inroads into stopping this nonsense, but Europe itself needs to take some action and start turning the boats around. You never know, even the stupid tart Merkel might eventually see the error of her ways.

I do not see how you could conclude any of this. People who are displaced - tens of millions of them - will vote with their feet and some of them will perish (as many have already done) in their efforts but it will not stop as long as there are genuinely displaced people (and I'm not here referring to those portrayed in the Daily Wail example that you cited).

In addition, benefits paid to migrants need to be drastically slashed so they have only enough to survive and not enough to live more comfortable lives than many hard working Brits. In this case, the parents should be sterilized.

The last sentence here would invite so many expensive lawsuits that the raft of human rights cases concerned would bankrupt many a country should the need for them occur in practice.

You forget in any case that by no means all immigrants to UK or indeed anywhere else (and here I'm not referring to displaced people from wherever they might come) are entitled to benefits or claim them. Yes, of course there's a lot wrong here - we both know that - but, for that very reason, it ill behoves anyone to try to over-simplify a massively complex and increasingly problematic situation by means of recourse to scaremongering noisy Daily Mail / Daily Express outpourings that are of less than no use to anyone. Again, I speak as an immigrant.

All that aside, I remain a composer first, an European next, a Scotsman next and a Brit last - and all flag-waving attitudes are anathema to me and divisively dangerous to everyone (indeed, IO take them with an appropriate pinch of Saltire).

Best,

Alistair

[georgey]

All that aside, I remain a composer first, an European next, a Scotsman next and a Brit last - and all flag-waving attitudes are anathema to me and divisively dangerous to everyone (indeed, IO take them with an appropriate pinch of Saltire).

Best,

Alistair

But you were not born a composer.  If you were born in Great Britain, would you not be a Brit first?    I hope there are no hard feelings over the ivory thing.  Regards.

[ahinton]

But you were not born a composer.  If you were born in Great Britain, would you not be a Brit first?    I hope there are no hard feelings over the ivory thing.  Regards.

In the order in which you wrote:

I didn't say that I was and, in any case, I was referring to what I consider myself to be now; I didn;t consider myself to be anything in any order at the time of my birth.

Not necessarily.

Not at all!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The last sentence here would invite so many expensive lawsuits that the raft of human rights cases concerned would bankrupt many a country should the need for them occur in practice

And there lies the problem. We have given the wrong people too many rights.

Thal

[ahinton]

And there lies the problem. We have given the wrong people too many rights.

No. These things have to be dealt with on a case by case basis with intelligence; some people assume that they have more greater rights than is actually the case. Cutting back on human rights because of cases like this not being handled appropriately does no one any good.

There are in any case no such people as the "wrong" people; there are only people, of whom some do not always do the right thing.

Not that this has anything directly to do with Brexit; free movement of people (without which our musical lives in UK would be severely curtalied) is not of itself an open invitiation for some of them to take undue and unfair advantage and the case that you cited is not only atypical but is one where the people concerned have no more or less rights in law than anyone else.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3777922/Jobless-couple-eight-children-say-neglected-council-offered-new-five-bed-home-didn-t-dining-room.html 

There is a certain irony in that particular "newspaper" running that story. They are fulminating about immigrants coming to this country and taking taxpayer-funded benefits, when the proprietor has made himself resident outwith this country (in France, iirc!) in order to minimise his and the Mail's tax liability. Now that's what I call scrounging. A similar scenario applies to Murdoch, who pays next to no tax in this country.

We have given the wrong people too many rights.

That's not (or shouldn't be) how it works. Human rights are for all, not just a select group. The problem is the UK has shown itself incapable of acting in a manner which is both fair and firm. Abu Hamza, for example, should have been locked up ages ago. It is one thing to argue about whether his human rights would be infringed by deporting him - but the fact remains that he was spouting seditious and treasonous nonsense, and that in itself is an offence. He should have been put behind bars where he could be forgotten about; instead of which he was given virtual free rein to propagate his own peculiar brand of race hatred and attract dangerous followers. Also, by acting in such a limpwristed way, UK governments encouraged others to start acting similarly, fomenting their bile on student campuses, for example.

[ahinton]

There is a certain irony in that particular "newspaper" running that story. They are fulminating about immigrants coming to this country and taking taxpayer-funded benefits, when the proprietor has made himself resident outwith this country (in France, iirc!) in order to minimise his and the Mail's tax liability. Now that's what I call scrounging. A similar scenario applies to Murdoch, who pays next to no tax in this country.

That's not (or shouldn't be) how it works. Human rights are for all, not just a select group. The problem is the UK has shown itself incapable of acting in a manner which is both fair and firm. Abu Hamza, for example, should have been locked up ages ago. It is one thing to argue about whether his human rights would be infringed by deporting him - but the fact remains that he was spouting seditious and treasonous nonsense, and that in itself is an offence. He should have been put behind bars where he could be forgotten about; instead of which he was given virtual free rein to propagate his own peculiar brand of race hatred and attract dangerous followers. Also, by acting in such a limpwristed way, UK governments encouraged others to start acting similarly, fomenting their bile on student campuses, for example.

Although once again not directly linked to the topic, everything that you write here is beyond all sensible and credible argument, except perhaps that putting Abu Hamza behind bars would encourage the fomanting of yet more of the same within whichever prison in which he's incarcerated unless put in indefinite solitary confinement; you may have read that UK is already considering the notion of "prisons within prisons" when such people are incarcerated in its own, for the very purpose of trying to minimise the risk of corruption of the prison population, by which I mean operating and administrative staff as well as inmates.

Human rights should indeed be available equally and to all, although with them must come human responsibilities and it is not credible to have the one without the other; to that extent, it is not materially different from copyright - with copyright ownership comes copy responsibilities.

Many thanks for your post.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Cutting back on human rights because of cases like this not being handled appropriately does no one any good.

It could well do the tax payer a lot of good.

Hopefully when we are released from the idiocy of the EU Human Rights nonsense, then cases like this will not exist.

Bollox.

Thal

[ahinton]

It could well do the tax payer a lot of good.

Hopefully when we are released from the idiocy of the EU Human Rights nonsense, then cases like this will not exist.

But Thal, UK has its own Human Rights Act (1998) which, whether or not UK leaves EU, will remain intact and continue to be amended to suit the circumstances of the day regardless. You write of (UK) "tax payers"; they have human rights too and these must not be undermined or abused

UK citizens' recourse to ECHR is only and has only ever been necessary when UK's own HRA or those who operate it might have let them down.

Bollox.

Is that one the the human rights enshrined in either UK's HRA or ECHR or both?

That said, this, again, has little direct connection with the thread topic. Whilst human rights and immigration issues are not irrelavant to discussions of that topic, they are each by nature and definition but a very small part thereof.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

UK citizens' recourse to ECHR is only and has only ever been necessary when UK's own HRA or those who operate it might have let them down.

And there again, lies the problem. The ECHR can make decisions against UK Courts albeit they do not appear to be legally binding. However, they continually interfered and held up the Hamza deportation, costing the British Taxpayer millions. We need to be rid of these interfering cretins.

Our Laws must always come first.

Thal

[ahinton]

And there again, lies the problem. The ECHR can make decisions against UK Courts albeit they do not appear to be legally binding. However, they continually interfered and held up the Hamza deportation, costing the British Taxpayer millions. We need to be rid of these interfering cretins.

Our Laws must always come first.

Whether or not "our" (i.e. UK's) laws come "first", it remains an embarrassingly unfortunate fact that at various times in recent years the possibility that UK might consider abolishing its own Human Rights Act (1998) reared itself, principally within the annals of the Tory party; OK, it has mercifully not actually been repealed but, if ever it were to be so, the need for ECHR would become paramount unless UDHR or ICCPR could be called upon in its absence of availability should UK leave EU, otherwise UK could become a very dangerous place indeed where the upholding of basic himan rights is concerned.

What of the human right to retain one's citizenship that would be removed from UK citizens should Brexit pertain? And now there's talk - hopefully no more than that - of the possibility of visa fees for UK citizens to enter other EU nations; whilst so far nothing appears to have been said about the possibility of charging the same to citizens from elsewhere in EU when visiting UK. All the more reason for people like me to apply for joint nationality should Brexit begin to proceed and Scotland then leaves UK, neither of which, however, I hope will turn out to be the case - howver, by no means all UK citizens would have such a step open to them.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Scotland will not leave the UK as they are not stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds it.

As to your other points, we need a British Bill of Rights, not a chancers charter.

Thal

[ahinton]

Scotland will not leave the UK as they are not stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds it.

Scotland will not leave UK unless a decision is taken to hold a second referendum on its continued membership thereof; that is as yet uncertain but, should it take such a decision, the likelihood is that Scotland will vote to leave UK. Let's wait and see. I suspect that, should Brexit be abandoned and seen to be so, Scotland would pull back from deciding to hold such a referendum.

As to your other points, we need a British Bill of Rights, not a chancers charter.

Something along similar lines had been proposed by some headstrong bully-boy Tories who wanted to ditch UK's Human Rights Act but their general perception of this idea was to replace UK's human rights legislation with a weaker Act. How would you propose that such replacement legislation be structured? - i.e. what would you drop from the current Act and what would you introduce into the new one?

All that said, as I mentioned above, even were Brexit to go ahead and, as a direct consequence thereof, UK would not longer be bound by ECHR, it would still be bound by UDHR and ICCPR and the only way for UK to exonerate itself from responsibility under those would be for it to cease its membership of UN which, almost every country in the world is a member thereof, is hardly likely to happen.

Many complainants about ECHR that I hear - including you, I suspect - conveniently try to avoid taking account of those other universally applicable human rights declarations / conventions, so even a pared down UK Bill of Rights of the kind that I assume you to advocate here would still rightly leave UK subject to UDHR and ICCPR, so the impact of Brexit (should it occur) on UK human rights would in any case be minimal.

And what would be your view on the possibility of paid-for visa requirements for UK citizens visiting other EU member states (and, for that matter, that of the introduction of paid-for visas for EU citizens to enter UK)?

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Scotland will not leave the UK as they are not stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds it.

Scotland may not leave the UK but that assuredly isn't the reason why. At the time of the referendum Scotland had been contributing more to the Exchequer than it was getting back for 33 years running. Economic statistics consistently rank Scotland as the third most prosperous area of the UK (I am aware this is a simplified generalisation - the deprivation in some areas of Glasgow, for example, is shocking). The question that everyone should be asking themselves is "if Scotland is an economic basket-case, why is Westminster so desparate to hang on to it?" (especially when governments of recent years have shown a disinclination to subsidise such things as disabled people's spare bedrooms, etc.) Therein lies an important truth.

The reasons Scotland probably won't leave the UK even in the event of a second referendum are various. A supine electorate who are happy to cheer on their country at football matches but when it comes to taking responsibility for themselves are not only unwilling to, but contemptuous of the opportunity to do so. The media are completely anti- it (at the last referendum, only one mainstream newspaper out ot 35 was pro-). Support is much stronger amongst younger voters, but they are less inclined to vote (there is a peculiar hangover of support for remaining in the Union amongst older male Labour voters who manifestly resent that the SNP have taken their leftist stance and managed to make it more populist than Labour ever did. Their nostalgia is especially peculiar because what have Labour actually done for the working class in the last 40-odd years other than minimum wage and sex discrimination legislation?) I won't bore everyone with details of how last time the No campaign broke the "purdah" rules by offering new terms and conditions in the closing weeks, after the point where no fresh policies are supposed to be announced. I'm also slightly skeptical that there will be another referendum.

Lastly, even if leaving the Union made Scotland slightly poorer (one of many predictions made by the No camp was £100 poorer per year) I would argue that is a price worth paying to be able to self-govern and construct one's own policy. Such small costs would be instantly recouped when we send Trident to Portsmouth or wherever.

[ahinton]

Scotland may not leave the UK but that assuredly isn't the reason why. At the time of the referendum Scotland had been contributing more to the Exchequer than it was getting back for 33 years running. Economic statistics consistently rank Scotland as the third most prosperous area of the UK (I am aware this is a simplified generalisation - the deprivation in some areas of Glasgow, for example, is shocking). The question that everyone should be asking themselves is "if Scotland is an economic basket-case, why is Westminster so desparate to hang on to it?" (especially when governments of recent years have shown a disinclination to subsidise such things as disabled people's spare bedrooms, etc.) Therein lies an important truth.

Good points well made - and clearly needing to be made!

The reasons Scotland probably won't leave the EU even in the event of a second referendum are various.

I don't quite understand where you're coming from here with yout use of the word "even"; Scotland won't leave EU unless there is a second referendum on its continued UK membership and only then if the vote goes for secession therefrom (which I imagine that it would). I'm not sure what you think but I would very much doubt that Scotland would advocate and then hold that second referedum for any reason other than with a view to retaining its status EU member state but thereafter in its own right.

I'm also slightly skeptical that there will be another referendum.

As stated, I would not expect there to be one unless the aim to ensure that Scotland remians in EU is deemed paramount.

Lastly, even if leaving the Union made Scotland slightly poorer (one of many predictions made by the No camp was £100 poorer per year) I would argue that is a price worth paying to be able to self-govern and construct one's own policy. Such small costs would be instantly recouped when we send Trident to Portsmouth or wherever.

Indeed - although, frankly, I'd send Trident somewhere else altogether where it could never be seen again (and, since it's a submarine, I don't just mean where the sun don't shine)!...

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

The reasons Scotland probably won't leave the EU even in the event of a second referendum are various.

Rather a clumsy typo on my part there! Of course I meant UK. I shall go back and edit it to make my point rather clearer.

[ahinton]

Rather a clumsy typo on my part there! Of course I meant UK. I shall go back and edit it to make my point rather clearer.

Ah, I'd not thought of that! It makes perfect sense now!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Economic statistics consistently rank Scotland as the third most prosperous area of the UK

Now that what is left of your oil is worth bugger all, perhaps that might no longer be true.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Lastly, even if leaving the Union made Scotland slightly poorer (one of many predictions made by the No camp was £100 poorer per year) I would argue that is a price worth paying to be able to self-govern and construct one's own policy.

Now we have something in common, as that is exactly what I feel about leaving the EU.

I therefore find it strange that if it is a price worth paying and many Scots want to leave the Union, then why did many Scots not want to leave the EU?. Surely leaving them will give the Scots more ability to self govern and construct policy.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Scotland will not leave UK unless a decision is taken to hold a second referendum on its continued membership thereof; that is as yet uncertain but, should it take such a decision, the likelihood is that Scotland will vote to leave UK. Let's wait and see. I suspect that, should Brexit be abandoned and seen to be so, Scotland would pull back from deciding to hold such a referendum.

Well, even if the Scots hold a second referendum, Westminster can declare it non binding. No doubt you will appreciate that as you are often grizzling about the "only advisory" nonsense.

How about a small friendly bet between us, say £100 about Brexit. I say it will not be abandoned. Prepared to put your money where your mouth is?

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Now that what is left of your oil is worth bugger all, perhaps that might no longer be true.

A few points:
the oil price is probably a temporary issue. It's been affected by events completely outwith the Western world's control (principally the Saudis playing geopolitics). Thus in a few years time it will probably return to more normal levels. This is borne out by the fact there has been considerable investment in the development of potential new fields.

The oil isn't as all-important as people make out. Prior to the referendum, oil constituted approximately 15% of Scottish GDP, according to statistics quoted. Other countries for whom oil is a revenue generator, such as Norway and Russia, don't seem to be collapsing, thus why would an independent Scotland, whose government would presumably doing considerably more to prop up the sector in difficult times. (Holyrood had a lot of difficulty getting any concessions out of George Osborne in this regard, and were they to truly be in charge of their own finances and budget, they would have the fiscal levers to control events and thus minimise problems.) Whilst there are of course problems within the oil sector (and the North Sea ports who would normally thrive on it), there appear to have been knock-on effects beneficial to the wider economy, such as lower transportation costs.

A third, tangential point, potentially relevant to the future. There are supposed to be significant oil deposits in the area around the Clyde and Faslane. These cannot currently be exploited due to the location of Trident there. In fact in the 80s Michael Heseltine signed an order prohibiting the industrial exploration and exploitation of that area for the duration of Trident's residency there (or some similar timespan).

A historical point: in the late 90s (iirc) Blair signed a treaty (of sorts) with the Scottish government of the day which moved the maritime border between Scotland and England so that it pointed more generally northward from Berwick. This brings more of the North Sea oilfields under what would potentially be English jurisdiction in the event of separation. It has certainly been claimed that the treaty is invalid under international / EU / UN law, but that bridge will have to be crossed should it be arrived at. It certainly is indicative that Westminster recognises the strategic value of the North Sea; perhaps, now that prices are low, Scotland could renegotiate that treaty? I suspect we wouldn't be allowed to. That would be telling..

Now we have something in common, as that is exactly what I feel about leaving the EU.

I therefore find it strange that if it is a price worth paying and many Scots want to leave the Union, then why did many Scots not want to leave the EU?. Surely leaving them will give the Scots more ability to self govern and construct policy.

There is a fundamental difference of political attitudes between the two issues. Those supporting Brexit in the main (please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure I'm not) are supporting it from a right-wing standpoint; they object to it as an constraint on their autonomy (which there is a certain truth in), and being too "liberal" e.g. reconstituting human rights' issues, deporting immigrants, to give two of the more common complaints. Those Scots who want rid of Westminster in the main want to do so because they view it as a force for imposition of illiberal, far right political constructs, and because it inhibits our ability to make policy. They are likely to have viewed the EU as a force which reduces and mitigates Westminster's ability to impose such measures. So, in very crude and generalised terms, the larger union is being rejected from a rightwing perspective, but pro-independence Scots want to reject the UK union from a  leftwing perspective. Most pro-independence Scots see the EU as somewhere between benign and the lesser of two evils (ie better that ultimate power resides in Brussels than in Westminster). Historically, of course, Scotland has been prone to ally itself with France and not with England: I don't know if that seeps into the subconscious psychology of the process, but I do believe that in a general sense the political mood of Scotland lies significantly to the left of that in England.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I should probably add that it's my belief that the general Scottish view towards the EU will be considerably more positive as long as Scots are part of the UK. The pro-EU view is certainly exists amongst independence-supporting Scots for the reasons I cited in my last post (ie benign, or lesser of two evils). I believe that, should Scotland gain independence, a lot of people will potentially arrive at a different view regarding the EU because the lesser of two evils argument will be rendered moot.

[ahinton]

Well, even if the Scots hold a second referendum, Westminster can declare it non binding. No doubt you will appreciate that as you are often grizzling about the "only advisory" nonsense.

I am not "grizzling" about anything, nor indeed do I need to.

Furthermore, Westminster won't even have to declare such a referendum non-binding because it is now far more widely known in any case that all referenda in UK are advisory only and not legally binding.

The first Scottish independence referendum was not legally binding either, but the outcome of that was in support of the maintenence of the status quo whereas the UK/EU in/out one was, albeing very marginally, in favour of changing the status quo, so the fact that neither was legally binding brings about a different effect, because maintenance of the status quo does not legally require Parliament to do anything anyway, whereas overturning it obviously does.

That said, were Scotland to hold a second independence referendum that goes in favour of independence, Westminster will be able to say whatever it likes about its non-legally binding status but Scotland will have spoken and it will be up to Scotland to turn the Scottish Parliament into the Scottish government; were that not the case, Westminster could stop the break-up of the Union forever.

How about a small friendly bet between us, say £100 about Brexit. I say it will not be abandoned. Prepared to put your money where your mouth is?

Thank you for the kind invitation but no thank you, for two reasons; firstly, I do not gamble (except on and with my work) and, secondly, I do not say and have never said that Brexit will be abandoned because I do not know whether or not it will; all that I do know is that

1. no date has been set for invoking Article 50 81 days after the opinion poll result was published

2. no advance planning was made for Brexit

3. no one yet seems to know what Brexit might mean (single market or no single market, for example)

4. no one yet knows what the results of next years' elections in France, Germany and Netherlands will be or to what extent they might impact upon EU and, in turn, upon any negotiations between it and UK

5. no one can know until those negotiations progress to the final fence (if indeed they do) whether the resulting deals will favour UK sufficiently to warrant its government ratifying Brexit; it might, in unfavourable circumstances, abandon Brexit then and there in UK's interests and it would indeed have a duty towards its citizens, including its electorate, to serve those interests as best it can.

So, given that none of us can predict how the government might assess the outcome of all those negotiations before we even know if they'll commence in the first place - and given also that it might be unable even to begin to do so until after the next General Election (when there might be a new government anyway) - the fact that neither you nor I nor anyone else can tell whether Brexit will or will not come about is plainly obvious.

So, while we can each maintain the friendliness, we should also each save our money!

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Incidentally I see that Cameron has now resigned, not only as PM, but also as an MP. What a fine abdication of responsibility that is.

[thalbergmad]

So, while we can each maintain the friendliness, we should also each save our money!

Thanks. I was rather confident of keeping hold of mine anyway.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Historically, of course, Scotland has been prone to ally itself with France and not with England: I don't know if that seeps into the subconscious psychology of the process, but I do believe that in a general sense the political mood of Scotland lies significantly to the left of that in England.

I have no doubt that is correct on both points, which makes the failure of the Independence vote even more of a mystery.

Thal

[georgey]

Incidentally I see that Cameron has now resigned, not only as PM, but also as an MP. What a fine abdication of responsibility that is.

I’m not sure if you are saying that Mr. Cameron’s resignation was a good thing or bad thing by this statement.  You will probably agree that he had the legal right to resign.  We live in a world of laws.  Cheers.

[thalbergmad]

Well, one can argue if it was a good thing or a bad thing, but it would be difficult to argue that it wasn't the right thing.

Thal

[georgey]

Well, one can argue if it was a good thing or a bad thing, but it would be difficult to argue that it wasn't the right thing.

Thal

"Right thing" is perhaps the same as a "good thing" from my point of view.  I will argue that his resignation was a "legal thing" to do (i.e. by law he was allowed to resign).  Cheers.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

He's essentially caused a huge legislative and diplomatic mess, and left everyone else to sort it out. Not that it isn't soluble, but the point is he bears a heavy responsibility for the mess existing in the first place. A bit like kicking a window in and running away. I expected little else of a man who never appeared to have any solid principles at all.

[georgey]

He's essentially caused a huge legislative and diplomatic mess, and left everyone else to sort it out. Not that it isn't soluble, but the point is he bears a heavy responsibility for the mess existing in the first place. A bit like kicking a window in and running away. I expected little else of a man who never appeared to have any solid principles at all.

By law, a person cannot kick a window in and run away (unless he has the permission of the owner of the window).  By law, Mr. Cameron had the right to resign.  These 2 actions are not the same when comparing the actions from a legal perspective.  Cheers.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

[ronde_des_sylphes]

By law, a person cannot kick a window in and run away (unless he has the permission of the owner of the window).  By law, Mr. Cameron had the right to resign.  These 2 actions are not the same when comparing the actions from a legal perspective.  Cheers.

I'm viewing his actions in a moral sense. There isn't really a legal framework for viewing his behaviour.

[georgey]

I'm viewing his actions in a moral sense. There isn't really a legal framework for viewing his behaviour.

At first there seems to be no distinction between law and morality. There are passages in ancient Greek writers, for example, which seem to suggest that the good person is the one who will do what is lawful. It is the lawgivers, in these early societies, who determine what is right and wrong.

I am however making no moral judgement of Mr. Cameron's decision. There is a legal framework for viewing his behavior, however.   I can review your laws and show you how it was in fact legal for Mr. Cameron to resign.  Cheers.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

There is a connection between law and morality, as in civil societies the law is *supposed* to be an attempt to codify morality. I suspect an enterprising lawyer could construct a case around misfeasance or something similar, but it probably wouldn't get very far, or there would be regular attempts to prosecute governmental officials every time something went wrong with the economy. Whatever, it doesn't make his action right. As long as he remained a public official he was at least technically answerable to them. His act is cowardly, expedient and an abdication of responsibility - even if he is within his legal right to do so. That said, good riddance to him.

[georgey]

His act is cowardly, expedient and an abdication of responsibility - even if he is within his legal right to do so. That said, good riddance to him.

This is your opinion, needless to say.

How is your new CD coming?  I am looking forward to getting this.   

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Ah, a more healthy topic! It's nearly ready. About to do final cosmetic editing and noise reduction, then I'll work out through what route it is to reach the market.

[georgey]

Ah, a more healthy topic! It's nearly ready. About to do final cosmetic editing and noise reduction, then I'll work out through what route it is to reach the market.

Wonderful!  Do you think the CD might be ready for public sale by the end of the year or is this a little too much to hope for?  Sometime before next summer perhaps?

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I think there is a good chance of that. I think I'm going to have my personal copy ready in a fortnight; it is likely that I'll have to start sorting out image rights for the cover artwork which wasn't too difficult last time. If I release it privately on CD Baby, for example, it will definitely be out soon as I will be inclined to do it just as a digital release (reproduction plus repeatedly sending their warehouse more CDs is not inexpensive), and such releases are easy enough to set up. If it comes out through a record label there will be more of an initial delay because it will need to be auditioned, paperwork be signed, etc. Whether or not that happens I'll have to wait and see. I remain optimistic it will be out before Christmas irrespective of which route.

[ahinton]

Thanks. I was rather confident of keeping hold of mine anyway.

Then on that at least we are in agreement!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I have no doubt that is correct on both points, which makes the failure of the Independence vote even more of a mystery.

I'm not so sure that it does, actually. Yes, Scotland's allegiance to France is something that I've experienced personally on an number of occasions but, in the first Scottish independence referendum, there was never any question of Scots' EU citizenship being removed from them, whereas now it would be in the forefront of the agenda for any second one.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I’m not sure if you are saying that Mr. Cameron’s resignation was a good thing or bad thing by this statement.  You will probably agree that he had the legal right to resign.  We live in a world of laws.

It wasn't just down to a legal right to resign, because he had just as much of a legal right not to do so - but see below...

Best,

Alistair