brexit?!!?

[ahinton]

Then they should have voted for Independence. They had the opportunity.

They did indeed, but the goalposts have moved since then. The referendum over UK's continued membership of EU was not then on the cards. It is now. It's up to Westminster first and Holyrood thereafter. Over to each in that order.

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

If you are part of a Union and the Union votes a certain way, you accept the vote

And Scotland DIDN'T accept the vote. They want their independence so they can REMAIN in the EU.

Therefore... Scotland DID NOT vote to leave. Know your facts.

[thalbergmad]

They did indeed, but the goalposts have moved since then. The referendum over UK's continued membership of EU was not then on the cards. It is now. It's up to Westminster first and Holyrood thereafter. Over to each in that order.

It was on the cards only you didn't see it.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

And Scotland DIDN'T accept the vote. They want their independence so they can REMAIN in the EU.

Therefore... Scotland DID NOT vote to leave. Know your facts.

As a member of the UK, they did. Get your facts right.

Thal

[ahinton]

It was on the cards only you didn't see it.

Tarot cards?

Let's get this straight.

1. When Scotland voted to remain in UK, no referendum on UK's continued EU membership had been promised. No account of the possibility of such a referendum in the future could therefore have been be taken, so it could not have influenced Scotland's decision to remain within UK at the time that its voters did so. Scotland's continued EU membership (as part of UK) was therefore not in doubt at that time.

2. We move forward one year. It is well known why the Tories promised to address UK's future membership of EU, namely unfounded fear of defections from within it to UKIP, although quite why it chose to do this via referendum rather than Parliamentary debate and vote remains unclear; you have so far declined to offer your own view as to why the Tories adopted this cynical and (given the circumstances) unwarranted stance.

3. At the time when the Tories promised an UK/EU referendum (in its 2015 General Election manifesto), no other UK political party did the same - not SNP (which is just about the only representative party in Scotland), not Labour, not the LibDems, not the Greens, not Plaid Cymru or even UKIP (whom one might have expected to do so).

4. Why? What were the Tories - who were only in a coalition at the time in any case - think was such a good idea about this? especially when they knew that the only way to secure a legally binding result from addressing it would be for Parliament to decide.

5. The Tories didn't then and don't now represent an overall majority of UK voters; add up the votes from all the other parties in the 2015 election and the Tories' tally is less than all the others put together.

6. Had the Tories not won the election (which they were widely anticipated not to do), the referendum would have been buried.

7. The Tories and most others assumed that the result of the referendum would be Remain. If Scotland could have had any inkling when it held its own UK in/out referendum in 2014 that there might be a UK/EU in/out referendum in 2016 (which it's clear could not have been the case, crystal balls not being a major feature of Scottish culcure), the Scots would likewise have assumed that the result would have been a Remain victory so, for this reason also, Scotland's vote to remain in UK would have been based on the assumption that UK would remain in EU.

So, in sum, Scotland did not vote to leave EU; nor did NI or Gibraltar. England and Wales did so and, as the population of England is far larger than the total of all the other UK nations, the result of the opinion poll was as we know it to be.

As Scotland (and NI) voted to remain in EU, their wish is clearly different to that of England and Wales, just as almost all large UK cities' vote reveals a difference between their populations' wish and those of some other parts of UK.

Whilst it's clear that, like Bognor Regis, those cities cannot clamour for independence from UK because they are not countries in their own right like Scotland and NI, Scotland and NI could do so and might indeed do so should the Westmonster government proceed towards Brexit. However, I see no reason why either would do so otherwise so, as with all else in this matter, its a case of "wait and see".

An EU without UK will be a severely depleted one in many ways, not least in the likely ebbing away of its stability; the outcomes of next year's French, German and Netherlands elections might destanbilise it further. An incresingly endangered and unreformed EU might lead to its eventual demise which would have the knock-on effect of destabilising Europe as a whole. UK will always be in Europe so would be at least as adversely affected by this as would any other European state and likely worse than most.

If you nevertheless resolutely continue to keep your head in the sand and believe that all of this is untrue - and should you decline to read any post on the issue that points up such facts and exceeds, say, 200 words in length - that's up to you, but it does not and cannot alter any of those facts.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Tarot cards?

No, just a brain.

Here is a BBC article from 2013

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282

At this time, Ed Milliband was leader of the Labour Party and was completely unelectable. The referendum was as good as done and that is how it turned out.

No need for hundreds of words.

Thal

[ahinton]

No, just a brain.

You mentioned "cards", hence the nature of my response; I did not assume that your "brain" was manufactured therefrom.

Here is a BBC article from 2013

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282

At this time, Ed Milliband was leader of the Labour Party and was completely unelectable. The referendum was as good as done and that is how it turned out.

Not so. Promising something when you're in no position to do so and are able only to announce intent to do so when opportunity might arise (in this instance at the next General Election) is effectively synonymous with not doing so; Mr Cameron's announcement, at a time when no General Election was immediately pending, that this is what he might like to do if elected at the next one is no more than an expression of wish should future circumstances permit; it's not a manifesto pledge.

Yes, Miliband's Labour Party was indeed unelectable at that time, but the Tories had also been unelectable as the sole party of government at the previous General Election; had the 2015 election resulted in another coalition orr  had Labour got its act together, the referendum would have become history.

More importantly, though, it's pretty obvious that Mr Cameron wanted to have this issue addressed in order to settle it once and for all as a Remain outcome; this is what he openly advocated it and that outcome is what the vast majority of MPs in all parties except UKIP wanted. That revealed yet another fundamental division, between the views of the nation's MPs and those of the electorate. Mr Cameron put our money where his mouth was in funding the promotion and marketing of Remain;  what he lost was not onlyh the referendum but also taxpayer's money.

Almost everyone, including fervent Leave supporters, expected a remain majority, heence the ongoing mess in which we all now find ourselves.

Anyway, mportant as all of that is, it's all behind us now. What has now to be faced are the following:

1. the legal challenges (8 so far, I think)

2. whether Parliament will decide to debate and vote on the issue

3. whether and when Article 50 is invoked

4. whether Scotland and NI might hold referenda with a view to exiting UK

5. if the answer to 4. is yes in either case, whether either will succeed

6. how negotiations will go and how long they might take if Article 50 is invoked

7. the effect that next year's French, German and Dutch elections might have on UK, EU and Brexit

8. whether UK ultimately rejects Brexit should negotiations not favour UK's interests.

On top of all of that, another UK General Election has to be held in less than 4 years and might be held far sooner; the impact of the outcome of that has also to be taken into consideration, especially given that, should negotiations commence, they'll still be in progress by the time that election is called, thereby throwing yet another spanner into the Brexit works.

That Brexit is the certainty that some of its supporters blithely and loudly assume it to be simply has no credibility in the light of all of the above.

Who knows? By the time it's all over in 2021 or later, there might no longer even be an EU for UK to leave! How stupid will UK look then?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

That Brexit is the certainty that some of its supporters blithely and loudly assume it to be simply has no credibility in the light of all of the above.

Who knows? By the time it's all over in 2021 or later, there might no longer even be an EU for UK to leave! How stupid will UK look then?

1. Our new PM who is showing considerable sense thus far has said it is and I believe her. None of these silly court cases and other instances of sour grapes and pathetic childish tantrums will make any difference as she has already been advised she has the authority to press the Article 50 trigger. The remoaners need to learn how to lose gracefully.

2. The UK will not look stupid at all. We would have shown good sense in leaving an organisation that is corrupt to the core, never had its accounts passed, soaks up billions of other Countries money and has failed consistently.

Thal

[ahinton]

1. Our new PM who is showing considerable sense thus far has said it is and I believe her. None of these silly court cases and other instances of sour grapes and pathetic childish tantrums will make any difference as she has already been advised she has the authority to press the Article 50 trigger. The remoaners need to learn how to lose gracefully.

To the extent that she has said "Brexit means Brexit" (which of course means nothing) and that, whilst she does indeed have the authority to press the Article 50 Trigger (unless the law determines that she may not do so unless Parliament has debated and voted for her to do so), she has maintained the good sense not to do so and has yet to provide any timescale within which she might do so, I agree that she is showing considerable sense and, after all, she supported Remain herself and it was not her who put the referendum promise in her party's 2015 election manifesto.

The court cases might seem "silly" to you but they are clearly not so either to those bringing them or to those who will try them or those who may hear appeals (if any) to their initial outcomes; whilst you're entitled to your opinion, so are all those who will be involved in the conduct of those cases which are not in any case about which side should have secured the most votges in this opinion poll but about how the referendum campaign was conducted, whether it was right of the government to omit to declare at the outset that the outcome of the poll is not legally binding upon Parliament, whether ex-pats should have been allowed to vote and whether 16/17 year olds should have been allowed to vote as they were in the Scottish referendum, whether it's legal for the government to press the trigger without Parliament's prior endorsement, wheter it is legal for citizens to have part of their citizenship removed from them without their consent and authority and against their wishes - and so on. These are not "silly" or frivolous issues by any stretch of the imagination.

The UK will not look stupid at all. We would have shown good sense in leaving an organisation that is corrupt to the core, never had its accounts passed, soaks up billions of other Countries money and has failed consistently.

Please re-read the specific context in which I put this question, which was how stupid UK might look should EU have fallen apart by the time Brexit negotiations near their completion - no more, no less.

In more general terms, UK is already looking stupid to the extent that, having created and overseen a disgraceful shambles, it clearly has no clue what to do next and has given insufficient credence in any case to the fact that, whatever it might do next or when, it does not, cannot and will not call all the shots, which is hardly surprsing as it will be UK against a group of 27 nations of which none waned it to leave anyway.

As to EU's corruption - which is undeniable - are you seriously suggesting that UK is exempt from corruption? Would you trust its administration? What do you think about representation in an UK in which a far greater propoprtion of MPs in all parties other than UKIP supported Remain than was the case with their constituents?

Finally, the act of leaving EU (should UK ever do so) will never mean that UK will have rendered itself immune to the effects of anything that goes wrong there.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

On top of all of that, another UK General Election has to be held in less than 4 years and might be held far sooner;

Hopefully, the new boundaries will be sorted by then, which will take away some of Labour's unfair advantage that it has enjoyed for too long.

The "English" voted heavily for the Tories in 2010, but thanks to unfair boundaries and stupid Scots, we ended up with the Fib Dems wielding power that they were not elected to do so. Without those tossers, the referendum might even have been done years ago.

Anyway, the gormless cretins now competing for leadership of the opposition are so far removed from reality that a General Election will see them become far weaker than the imbeciles are now.

Thal

[ahinton]

Hopefully, the new boundaries will be sorted by then, which will take away some of Labour's unfair advantage that it has enjoyed for too long.

That may or may not happen but it will affect Tory as well as Labour MPs. There's no such thing as "unfar" or even "fair" advantage in such matters; boundaries will always change from time to time but cannot affect population movements and their effects.

The "English" voted heavily for the Tories in 2010, but thanks to unfair boundaries and stupid Scots, we ended up with the Fib Dems wielding power that they were not elected to do so. Without those tossers, the referendum might even have been done years ago.

So are you suggesting that the Scots alone scuppered a Tory majority in 2010? SNP's support was not as strong then as it was shown to be at the 2015 election when it wiped the floor with everyone else in Scotland (and no, I'm not an SNP member). If you are indeed suggesting that, it sounds as though you believe that Scots ought to be asked to leave UK in order that such an effect cannot recur; is that what you're implying?

Your statement about what the "English" voted for in 2010 sits uncomfortably alongside your assertions that UK as a whole voted to leave EU!

Whether or not that is the case, your description of Scots as "stupid" here is imbued with the very same emptiness as is your description of the impending Brexit court cases as "silly"; thinly disguised euphemisms in each case for "Thal disapproves of them"; it also carelessly omits to distinguish between Scots living in Scotland who can and did vote there and those living in England (such as me), Wales and NI where they couldn't - they're still Scots!

Anyway, the gormless cretins now competing for leadership of the opposition are so far removed from reality that a General Election will see them become far weaker than the imbeciles are now.

If that is indeed the case, why do you suppoe it is that Ms May has ruled out a General Election before one falls due in 2020?

The Labour leadership and aspects of the party are indeed in grave disarray which, as the right-wing Tory Nicholas Soames recently and rightly noted, is a bad thing because a government without a credible opposition is a dangerous thing; however, a large number of people have joined the Labour Party in recent times and no small number of them have even joined the LibDems and, after all, these are the voters that determine the successes or otherwise of parties in General Elections, so I'd be wary of trying to predict the outcome of any UK General Election whenever it might be held.

Anyway, isn't SNP now the main opposition? They may be made up of "stupid Scots" according to you, but they're in no disarray like Labour and they have captured almost every seat in Scotland.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

That may or may not happen but it will affect Tory as well as Labour MPs.

Yes, but not as many. The balance will be slightly addressed and hopefully this will mean a larger Tory majority in the next election.

The Labour Party will be blown away and the two tossers that are competing for its leadership can go back to the 1970's.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Your statement about what the "English" voted for in 2010 sits uncomfortably alongside your assertions that UK as a whole voted to leave EU!

Not at all, I was simply illustrating a point and was reasonably certain you would bite as you have done.

You won't find me throwing my toys out of the pram if something doesn't go my way or threatening silly court action.

Thal

[ahinton]

Yes, but not as many. The balance will be slightly addressed and hopefully this will mean a larger Tory majority in the next election.

If the boundary changes are indeed effected without opposition (which is not yet known) and they are deemed to constitute a human rights breach (which may indeed be the case) I have no doubt that another legal challenge about that will be brought; after all, the purpose of boundary changes is expressly not to create an unfair advantage for any political party, so any such challenge could well have merit.

The Labour Party will be blown away and the two tossers that are competing for its leadership can go back to the 1970's.

The Labour Party is indeed putting itself in an ever increasingly invidious position but, in order for any semblance of credible and viable democratic government to pertain, there must always be an opposition otherwise, for the alternative could risk leading to an elected dictatorship.

That said, although the party itself is in grave disarray and its leadership on more uncertain ground than it's been on in living memory, it's not the party that votes but the people and as long as the party fields candidates and people vote for them, no Tory landslide is likely to occur.

Not every Tory supporter is wholly enamoured of that party's conduct in any case - and don't forget that there were so many Remain supporters in every party apart from UKIP that, had Brexit been put to Parliament, Remain would have been the result. Now there's no "sour grapes, "prams" or "toys" involved in so saying; it's a well known and unchallenged fact. A stong Tory government is unlikely to makle Brexit any more certain. What is your view of this particlar aspect of the matter?

Lastly, you have still not answered with your view as to what you would expect the government of the day to do about Brexit if, at the end of all the negotiations, UK is left in a more parlous position as a direct consequnce of its lack of success in securing the deals that it would like. I would expect it to abandon Brexit then and there; if you would instead expect it to ratify it regardless as a matter of some kind of principle, your love of your country and support of its best interests might be questionable.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Not at all, I was simply illustrating a point and was reasonably certain you would bite as you have done.

Well, why not?! Scotland has been threatened by being forced into something for which its electorate did not vote and which a majority of it did not want. Scotland also did little in 2010 to vote in a Tory government at Westmonster and far less still to that end in 2015.

You won't find me throwing my toys out of the pram if something doesn't go my way or threatening silly court action.

I didn't expect you to do so. I'm threatening no court action either, although I would resent the Westmonster government withdrawing part of my citizenship from me against my will and without asking me. For the record, I also possess neither prams nor toys.

This is in any case not about whether this or that has or has not "gone my way", especially as none of it's gone anyone's way yet and none of us yet knows whether or when it will (or should I say "May")...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I'm threatening no court action either, although I would resent the Westmonster government withdrawing part of my citizenship from me against my will and without asking me.

They did ask you. We had a referendum and I assume you voted and you lost.

END OF.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Lastly, you have still not answered with your view as to what you would expect the government of the day to do about Brexit if, at the end of all the negotiations, UK is left in a more parlous position as a direct consequnce of its lack of success in securing the deals that it would like. I would expect it to abandon Brexit then and there; if you would instead expect it to ratify it regardless as a matter of some kind of principle, your love of your country and support of its best interests might be questionable.

It would take some pretty feeble negotiations not to succeed with a deal that would make our situation better by staying in the EU. If that was obviously the case, I would graciously admit defeat and would be happy with some reservations to remain.

I would not moan about it, demand another referendum or start off silly court cases.

Thal

[ahinton]

They did ask you. We had a referendum and I assume you voted and you lost.

I'm sorry - who asked me what? Yes, I did indeed vote and, like everyone else who did and those who didn't, I have neither gained nor lost anything because nothing has happened other than the announcement of the result of an opinion poll that has no legal clout. The government did NOT ask me what I felt about the possibility of having part of my citizenship removed from me against my wishes, any more than it asked anyone else the same question; that makes no difference to what I feel about that or indeed anything else to do with all of this.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

It would take some pretty feeble negotiations not to succeed with a deal that would make our situation better by staying in the EU. If that was obviously the case, I would graciously admit defeat and would be happy with some reservations to remain.

OK, that's very clear; thank you for that. I don;t think that it would be a case of "admitting defeat", though; it would be one of accepting that UK could not get what it wanted but was prepared to adhere to the status quo (assuming EU still to ecxist at that point) but try to encourage much needed reforms of EU thereafter. If nothing else, such a scenario would surely act as a warning to EU about its future. You mention "some pretty feeble negotiations not to succeed"; I would again counsel you to remember that, since any negotiations that might follow if Article 50 is invoked would involve UK fighting its ground against a group of 27 nations, it might be somehat unreasonable to blame UK if it couldn't get out of them what it wanted.

I would not moan about it, demand another referendum or start off silly court cases.

You would neither need nor be able to since, if the government of the day decided that its own and its predecessor's negotations had failed to bring home the economic bacon for UK and accordingly to abandon Brexit, there would be nothing to moan about, nothing to have a referendum about (for God's sake, why did we ever have one in the first place?) and nothing to have court cases about.

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

As a member of the UK, they did. Get your facts right.

You know what - your ignorance sometimes reaches levels almost unknown to man.

If more people in Scotland voted to remain in the EU than leave, you cannot claim that Scotland voted to leave, because they didn't.

My argument is for what SCOTLAND voted for... not the UK, and clearly there's a bias between what Scotland wants, and what England wants, so it's unfair to say that 'the UK voted to remain', given that England had about 15x more people than any other country.

[thalbergmad]

You know what - your ignorance sometimes reaches levels almost unknown to man.

Your brain is obviously in your arse, as what Scotland did on its own is completely irrelevant as it voted as part of a Union that it had recently voted to remain a member of.

So, tough titties.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I'm sorry - who asked me what? Yes, I did indeed vote and, like everyone else who did and those who didn't, I have neither gained nor lost anything because nothing has happened other than the announcement of the result of an opinion poll that has no legal clout.

If it had no legal clout why did you bother voting?

Thal

[ahinton]

You know what - your ignorance sometimes reaches levels almost unknown to man.

If more people in Scotland voted to remain in the EU than leave, you cannot claim that Scotland voted to leave, because they didn't.

My argument is for what SCOTLAND voted for... not the UK, and clearly there's a bias between what Scotland wants, and what England wants, so it's unfair to say that 'the UK voted to remain', given that England had about 15x more people than any other country.

I am of the mind that Thal's problem here is not so much ignorance per se but an attitude that appears to regard UK less as a union of four nations and more as a single country when it suits him, though not when he wants to have a dig at the Scots (which, as no doubt you'll have noticed, is far from infrequently).

What I believe that he's effectively trying to say here is that Scotland's vote to remain is of no overall relevance, since all that matters is how UK as a whole voted; I suspect this to be due at least in part to his personal view that, as England voted a certain way, the entire UK did so - in other words, the other three nations are of less importance to his view than England. The fact that England's population is so much higher than the total of the other three appears conveniently to support this view; how fortunate, then, that its population is bolstered as much as it is by immigrants!

The political climate is very different in Scotland to that in the other three UK nations, almost all of its HoC seats being occupied by MPs from a single party, SNP - so much so, indeed, that, while the Labour Party (though not Labour voters) continues to fall apart (what with their internecine wars and all the rest), SNP looks increasingly like the main opposition in Westmonster.

I cannot imagine such a situation to please Thal at all, yet he has expressed the hope that the latest boundary change proposals will be ratified because he believes that this will do even more damage to an already severely routed Labour Party; one might therefore wonder whether Thal's implicit preference would be for entire UK to be run by an unprecedentedly massive Tory majority government.

The problem with such a view in terms of the thread topic is that MPs on all sides other than UKIP largely favoured Remain, including the present and previous Tory Prime Minister and the present and previous Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer and, had the UK/EU in/out issue been subjected to Parliamentary debate and vote (as of course it should have been) instead of the referendum omnishambles, the Remain result that most people had in any case predicted would have occurred and we would not now be having this discussion as we'd all have moved onto something else.

As far as Scotland's referendum result is concerned, the largest majority in any of UK's nations on either side pertained in that country, so to suggest that this fact is of no relevance is short-sighted indeed. I have no reason to believe that, should Brexit ultimately fail or (better still) not proceed, Scotland will want or even need a second referendum; the only noises that I hear from my country on this subject centre on its determination to remain an EU member state and, if that has to be in its own right as an independent nation, so be it. I am very much of the view that, just as EU will be worse off without UK, so UK will be worse off without Scotland; I trust that UK will bear this in mind along with all the other relevant considerations when it decides what to do about proceeding with Brexit.

Thal has, however, the good sense to admit that, should Brexit negotiations proceed but ultimately end leaving UK substantially worse off, he would bite the bullet and accept that Brexit should be abandoned, demonstrating thereby that, when push comes to shove, he would laudably prioritise UK's best interests above Brexit; it would surely be senseless for anyone to disagree with him.

That said, it's going to be a very tough call. UK will find itself in an isolated position of its own making, already weakened by the stance adopted by Scotland and NI, yet seeking to call the shots despite pitting itself against a group of 27 European nations; the rancour and enmity that could and almost certainly will develop between the two very uneven sides over the negotiation period (should it ever commence) is likely to be immense, especially given the current Chancellor's plausible view that completion of Brexit negotiations will probably take longer than the Second World War (and, of course, the next UK General Election will have taken place before they're over, throwing yet another spanner into the works).

Juncker's latest position as declared in his "state of the union" speech yesterday is worrying and, I suspect, based on something rather more substantial than mere scare-mongering; he is obviously exercised by UK's unwanted annoucement of its desire to depart EU to the point at which he fears - rightly, I believe - a negative long-tem effect on it that will only likely be exacerbated should next year's French, German and Dutch elections go the wrong way.

A rise of populism and nationalism will always represent a threat to the stability of EU; one can only hope that Juncker & Co. take this salient fact on board as a warning signal that EU must reform, otherwise it could end up staring its own demise in the face and, should that happen, the risk that it might lead to those famous words of Neville Chamberlain in 1939 suddenly assuming an alarming contemporaneity is not to be dismissed lightly.

At present, however, Juncker appears to be trying to solve the issue by urging EU to go in the wrong direction of ever greater unity rather than that of reforming in order to preserve and develop such unity as it already has and which is desirable and would best serve the interests of all member states including UK.

I share, albeit to a limited degree, Thal's trust of Ms May as someone apparently possessed of the kind of pragmatism that might discourage her from the knee-jerk statements and actions and rash decisions that sometimes characterised her predecessor and, so far, at least, she seems to have demonstrated this by letting 84 days go by without so much as dropping a hint as to when and whether Article 50 might be invoked.

One therefore hopes that she will have the wisdom and patience to bear in mind what is happening and might yet happen in the near future within the rest of EU as well as the Scottish/NI question (in terms of the preservation of UK), the impending legal challenges to Brexit, the divisions that the referendum has opened up and the very real risk that, should Brexit negotiations commence, the fact that UK can't call all the shots against a group of 27 nations could well bring about an outcome so disadvantageous to it that it will believe itself to have little option than to abandon Brexit, thereby making UK the laughing stock of Europe and rendering redundant the massive rafts of of horrendously expensive preparatory changes to UK's laws, administration et al that will have been carried out during those negotiations on the assumption that UK will eventually leave EU.

Ms May and her government thus have far more to think about than has any UK government since WWII; let us therefore hope that trust in her and it will not turn out to be ill placed.

Thal will probably read one out of every 20 words of the above, although I could not possibly predict which ones...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Your brain is obviously in your arse, as what Scotland did on its own is completely irrelevant as it voted as part of a Union that it had recently voted to remain a member of.

So, tough titties.

No, not "tough titties" at all but gross deception on the part of a Westmonster government that had not promised such a referendum at the time that the first Scottish one took place; Scotland now quite understandably feels less a part of the union than ever, since it has hardly any MPs other than SNP ones and it's been sold a pup over EU membership. Ms Sturgeon is doubtless watching Ms May & Co.'s every mover in order to figure out whether to press the second Scottish referndum button.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

If it had no legal clout why did you bother voting?

That's an easy one to answer; I have already admitted that, like you, I did not realise at the time that I voted that the outcome of the opinion poll conferred no legal obligation upon Parliament otherwise - again, like you, as you have already admitted - I would not have voted and, yet again like you, I suspect that most people would not have done so either and so it would all have become an expensive and absurd waste of time far sooner than it actually did.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I have already admitted that, like you, I did not realise at the time that I voted that the outcome of the opinion poll conferred no legal obligation upon Parliament

Good God, now I am stunned. Ahinton did not realise something.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Thal will probably read one out of every 20 words of the above, although I could not possibly predict which ones...

Not even one out of every 20 as I expect you are covering old ground.

I don't play repeats in Schubert either.

Thal

PS. Junker is a knobend and it is because of people like him that many voted to leave.

[ahinton]

Good God, now I am stunned. Ahinton did not realise something.

What took you so long? I admitted that I did not know about this at the time of voting. So did you. I'll tell you what probably took you so long; even though I'd mentioned it previously, you omitted to read it!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Not even one out of every 20 as I expect you are covering old ground.

But if you don't read it you can't know that, can you?!

I don't play repeats in Schubert either.

I don't even play Schubert! Why do you keep citing him? Do you think that he would have supported Leave or Remain?

Junker is a knobend and it is because of people like him that many voted to leave.

Juncker certainly seems to be EU few favours and hardly helps the situation; whether it is because of him that as many Brits voted to leave EU I really cannot say.

Meanwhile:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37369917
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/710824/Herman-Van-Rompuy-European-Union-EU-Brexit-Theresa-May-UK-months-year-talks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37368193

...and if you were really stunned at my not realising anything, you'l probably fall off your chair at the fact of my having cited that dreadful rag the Daily Express!...

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

The Scottish case is particularly unreasonable when one considers that during the course of the Scottish independence referendum voters were repeatedly told that voting for independence would endanger EU membership, and platitudes like "stay in the Union and lead it". It turns out that voting against independence has done rather more than endanger EU membership, and so much for leading: the Scottish opinion is an irrelevance (yet again) due to weight of numbers. One perfectly reasonable solution, imo, would be to federate the UK/grant the various constituent nations full fiscal autonomy, and let those regions who wish to leave the EU leave, and Scotland and NI remain. The current situation is not reasonable - it is a travesty of democracy for Scotland in particular. It wouldn't be such a travesty if it had not been preceded by the arguments used in the Scottish independence referendum. Sturgeon will be completely right to ask for a second independence referendum as the first one has been conducted under false pretences.

What would worry me, if I lived in the south of England, and particularly if I voted to leave the EU and was concerned about immigrants, would be that the French now have absolutely zero incentive to solve the problems in the various migrant camps, and an active incentive to pass this over to the UK.

[ahinton]

The Scottish case is particularly unreasonable when one considers that during the course of the Scottish independence referendum voters were repeatedly told that voting for independence would endanger EU membership, and platitudes like "stay in the Union and lead it". It turns out that voting against independence has done rather more than endanger EU membership, and so much for leading: the Scottish opinion is an irrelevance (yet again) due to weight of numbers. One perfectly reasonable solution, imo, would be to federate the UK/grant the various constituent nations full fiscal autonomy, and let those regions who wish to leave the EU leave, and Scotland and NI remain. The current situation is not reasonable - it is a travesty of democracy for Scotland in particular. It wouldn't be such a travesty if it had not been preceded by the arguments used in the Scottish independence referendum. Sturgeon will be completely right to ask for a second independence referendum as the first one has been conducted under false pretences.

What would worry me, if I lived in the south of England, and particularly if I voted to leave the EU and was concerned about immigrants, would be that the French now have absolutely zero incentive to solve the problems in the various migrant camps, and an active incentive to pass this over to the UK.

All very pertinent points indeed, but a far better solution than the nevertheless interesting one that you propose in your first paragraph would be for Brexit to be dropped altogether, whereupon the UK union issue would disappear overnight, methinks.

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

Thank you ahinton for being smart enough to see through the crap... Thalbergmad does seem to bend the truth only when it suits him...

If he wants to see the world the way he wants it, then it may be best to leave him in the deluded mess that is his mind. That doesn't make it the truth though... so...

tough titties.

[thalbergmad]

I am suffering from no delusions at all. Scotland as part of the UK voted out. If you are sufficiently demented not to accept this fact, it is no fault of mine.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

What would worry me, if I lived in the south of England, and particularly if I voted to leave the EU and was concerned about immigrants, would be that the French now have absolutely zero incentive to solve the problems in the various migrant camps, and an active incentive to pass this over to the UK.

And we have zero obligation to accept them and should be sending them all back from whence they came.

If the EU got to grips with the situation and started to turn the boats around instead of offering a ferry service, this problem would not exist.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

And we have zero obligation to accept them and should be sending them all back from whence they came.

If the EU got to grips with the situation and started to turn the boats around instead of offering a ferry service, this problem would not exist.

And this essentially is my point. You're espousing leaving the EU on one hand (as is your right) but you're also wanting their assistance over this issue. Why should the EU help the UK if the UK is basically telling them to naff off?

And 'zero obligation' doesn't cut the mustard in the case of illegal immigrants. It is irrelevant what obligation exists. They're not playing by the book, and good luck finding them, frankly.

[ahinton]

Thank you ahinton for being smart enough to see through the crap... Thalbergmad does seem to bend the truth only when it suits him...

If he wants to see the world the way he wants it, then it may be best to leave him in the deluded mess that is his mind. That doesn't make it the truth though... so...

Thal is, as I'm sure you know, by no means the only person with a blinkered attitude to this issue, though some people seem more amenable than others to giving due consideration to the various matters involved.

Thal is quite right to point up the flaws and corruption within EU but seems as a rule to do so in a disproportionate manner insofar as he appears to suggest that UK can do little that's wrong (provided that it has a Tory government) while EU can do little that's right; that kind of implicit (and sometimes unequivocally explicit) quasi-xenophobic superiority of attitude can never be constructive and, en masse, is likely only to sour relations and exacerbate various kinds of divisiveness such as have been thrown into relief by the referendum, its campaign conduct and its uncertain aftermath.

Complacent and, frankly, self-righteous talk of "silly" court cases makes no sense when, if they really were so, no court would host them and no judge would try them.

The assumption (which is by no means only Thal's - it is widely held) that UK can call all the shots and secure every deal that it wants just as it wants it without compromise or sacrifice because it's somehow "better" than the other 27 nations put together is likewise Rule! Britannically fallacious.

To ignore the Tories' genuine motive for promising to address this issue (i.e. fears of defections to UKIP) is to fail to recognise a fundamental error of reason as well as judgement on their part which they then compounded by subjecting the issue to referendum rather than the usual Parliamentary debate and vote.

To hold such a referendum on so serious an issue for the future of UK and EU with no minimum turnout (not that turnout was at all bad) and no minimum majority made matters worse still and to deceive the public from the outset by (wilfully?) omitting to make it unequivocally clear that it would not be legally binding upon Parliament was likewise wholly unacceptable.

For the campaign then to be conducted in the utterly disgraceful manner that it was, not only with rafts of lies and pure speculations parading as factual statistics from both sides, with increasingly bitter acrimony and with government so overtly taking the Remain side as to allocate almost £10m of taxpayers' funds in support of Remain was downright immoral, if not actually unconstitutional; when in UK's recent history has its government spent such sums for the specific purpose of telling its electorate how it should vote on an issue that it had effectively subcontracted to them?

To have no plan for Brexit serves only to make matters yet worse again.

To expose and exacerbate divisions between young and old, city dwellers and others and MPs and their constituents, as well as between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland and NI on the other, as the holding, conduct and aftermath of this referendum has done, has hardly helped.

UK government's intent to withdraw EU citizenship from its citizens without their express prior written consent and against the will of many of them deserves to be challenged in court; whereas some citizens of NI and Scotland who live elsewhere might be able to find a way around this is no consolation to citizens of England and Wales who wish to retain their EU citizenship.

To do all of this in the full knowledge that not one EU leader favoured Brexit and many had warned Mr Cameron in advance against proceeding with this omnishambolic farce puts UK in the worst light possible - arguably a worse light, indeed, than it has put itself in since before WWII.

Thal deplores ECHR and appears to be desperate to see UK not only sever its responsibilities under it but also to replace its own Human Rights Act 1998 with a Bill of Rights (though he does not say in what ways he expects this to be different to current UK human rights leglslation); in so doing, he wilfully ignores that fact that, as an UN member state (like almost every country in the world), UK remains a signatory to UDHR and ICCPR whether or not it remains an EU member state.

All that we can hope for now is that either one or more of the court cases is sufficiently successful as to put a spanner in Brexit's works and/or that government finds other reasons to withdraw from any Brexit commitments (perhaps including putting it to debate and vote in Parliament) so that good sense can prevail.

Yes, EU is in desperate need of fundamental reform in the interest of all of its members states (which will include UK for at least 4-7 years in any case) but, should UK leave, such reforms will be far less likely to occur.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I am suffering from no delusions at all.

The fact that you're not actually suffering from them does not mean that you don't have them!

Scotland as part of the UK voted out.

To believe that one would have to believe that all four nations of UK "voted out"; failure to recognise that this was not the case cannot reasonably be described as other than delusional. It might be taken to imply that, even had everyone entitled to vote in Scotland, NI and Wales voted Remain without a single abstention or failure to vote, they would still in your view have "voted out" because they're part of UK; the only basis for such a view is that the population of England (including all its immigrants) is greater than all the other three nations put together. One condition of this referendum should have been that all four UK nations must turn in a majority for the same side (whichever side that may be) for its outcome to have an credible value whatsoever; that such a condition was not made to apply is just one of several flaws in the manner in which it was held. If you are sufficiently obdurate and intrasnsigent not to accept this fact, it is no fault of mine or indeed of anyone else.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I am suffering from no delusions at all. Scotland as part of the UK voted out.

This is logically equivalent to saying that you (and I also!), as part of the pianostreet community, accept the greatness of Schumann's piano music.   

[ahinton]

And we have zero obligation to accept them and should be sending them all back from whence they came.

If the EU got to grips with the situation and started to turn the boats around instead of offering a ferry service, this problem would not exist.

On this occasion (though not all past occasions) you imply that all those seeking to immigrate to UK should be refused entry and turned away. This exposes an unwillingness to engage with the fact that only part of any such immigration issue has anything to do with the free movement of people within EU, despite that fact that you are well aware that there are many trying to come to UK and other European countries who are economic migrants, more who are illegal immigrants and yet more who are dispossessed non-EU / non-European refugees - in other words, three other immigrant groups besides people immigrating to UK from EU.

As long as UK remains an EU member state (and that will be another 4-7 years at the very least), it has to take in EU citizens who wish to come; what it might choose to do at any time about members of any of the other three groups of immigrants has nothing to do with Brexit, which remains the topic of this thread.

You blame EU as well as UK for taking in those from the other three groups. Whilst of course I agree with you about illegal immigrants, there's no point in blaming any EU member state for having insufficient resources to find, interview and deport them; after all, who pays for that if not each EU member state's taxpayers? Any what do you think should or might happen to genuine economic migrants and genuine dispossessed non-EU / non-European refugees if every oneof EU's member states tried to turn them all away (again, at their own massive expense)?

All that said, immigration as an issue that does or might influence views on UK's continued EU membership is a comparatively small one that's been elevated by those with entreanched view and perceived vested interests into one of the most crucial of all, which is quite plainly arrant nonsense.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

This is logically equivalent to saying that you (and I also!), as part of the pianostreet community, accept the greatness of Schumann's piano music.   

DING! End of round 3!

Neat one, that! - to which I much look forward to a Thalbergmad response!

Best,

Alistair

[perfect_pitch]

I am suffering from no delusions at all. Scotland as part of the UK voted out.

No... that's crap. You seem to be misguided about statistics and numbers.

If every single person in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales voted one way, and only 10% of the voters in England took part in the Poll and voted the other - the vote would rely on which way the English voted for simply due to the numbers. The poll NEVER should have been allowed to take place in the form that it did...

Please don't drag your pitiful 'Scotland as part of the UK', excuse back into the forum... that's horsesh it, and you're either too ignorant or too stupid to see it.

What the other countries voted for wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome which ultimately proves that 'Scotland didn't vote to leave', given that they voted to remain (by almost 2:1).

Your inability to be rational makes you look idiotic on this forum... as up until yesterday - I had nothing but the highest regard for you. Now, you're sounding like a crank.





AND I LOVE THE MUSIC OF SCHUMANN!!!

[thalbergmad]

On this occasion (though not all past occasions) you imply that all those seeking to immigrate to UK should be refusd entry and turned away.

Not at all. I say that anyone seeking to immigrate ILLEGALLY should be refused entry and turned away. There is a proper procedure for entering into this Country and sneaking aboard trucks in Calais is not it.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Why should the EU help the UK if the UK is basically telling them to naff off?

Because stopping a migration of Exodus proportions is to their benefit as much as ours.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Your inability to be rational makes you look idiotic on this forum... as up until yesterday - I had nothing but the highest regard for you. Now, you're sounding like a crank.

I do not have nor have ever had any regard for you whatsoever and do not give a monkeys testicle what you think of me.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

One condition of this referendum should have been that all four UK nations must turn in a majority for the same side (whichever side that may be) for its outcome to have an credible value

Well it wasn't. Live with it.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

This is logically equivalent to saying that you (and I also!), as part of the pianostreet community, accept the greatness of Schumann's piano music.   

I do not recall there has any been a referendum amongst members and I would not be so certain of the result.

If someone would like to start a poll, I would be inclined to have a referendum amongst myself and vote to leave the forum should the forum vote for his greatness.

I have been here too long and am getting pissed off with all this Euro loving left wing crap.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

.. all this Euro loving left wing crap.

Now now. I'm probably one of the biggest lefties here and I'm really not that convinced by the EU. I award it 3 Schumanns out of 5.

[ahinton]

Please don't drag your pitiful 'Scotland as part of the UK', excuse back into the forum... that's horsesh it, and you're either too ignorant or too stupid to see it.

It's a specific agenda driven misppropriation  of "Scotland as part of UK"; Scotland IS part of UK and, as I've said, not only is UK as a whole better for it but also is will likely remain so if Brexit is either abandoned or otherwise comes apart at the seams.

What the other countries voted for wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome which ultimately proves that 'Scotland didn't vote to leave', given that they voted to remain (by almost 2:1).

Indeed; there's no rational argument against that.

AND I LOVE THE MUSIC OF SCHUMANN!!!

I love SOME of it!!!

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Because stopping a migration of Exodus proportions is to their benefit as much as ours.

Thal

It is only a small percentage of that exodus that end up in Calais, etc. Figures show that far more have ended up in Germany, for example. And in any case, my point is that if the French don't want to deal with immigrants they now have an active incentive to facilitate their passage, illegal or otherwise, to the UK. Previously they were at least slightly constrained by being part of the same formal community/quasi super-state, however you wish to define it.

[ahinton]

Not at all. I say that anyone seeking to immigrate ILLEGALLY should be refused entry and turned away.

I know that - and I agree, except that most illegal immigrants to UK do not and would not try to do so via official channels such as Calais (pre-Brexit) or Dover (post-Brexit) where they could be refused entry and turned away; they usually do so far more surreptitiously and undetected and the problkem that UK authorities have with this is finding them subsequently and interviewing and deporting them.

There is a proper procedure for entering into this Country and sneaking aboard trucks in Calais is not it.

Of course there is, but those people who try to do this are not for the most part illegal immigrants but refugees and economic migrants in a desperate situation who cannot possibly continue to survive in their own countries - and they all have to go somewhere. If you were from Aleppo, or Tripoli, or Baghdad or wherever, would you stay put and make no effort to escape from what life threw at you there and try to enter a coutry where you'd stand some chance of being treated like a civilised human being?

Best,

Alistair