crobe

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Aha! So any future UK referendum timings should coincide with what some EU-related treaty says? I think we've had enough of that already.

 

And Churchill? Really? 

No, the timing should reflect the UK general election, and the chance for Brexit to have settled down and the consequences to be known.

The fact that there HAS to be a referendum in Northern Ireland (signed and agreed by Boris), at the same time is a happy coincidence, but is built on the same premise. It was after all the UK who insisted on Northern Ireland having a final say in the process.

10 years is sufficient time between referenda given the changed circumstances, and 4 years on from Brexit should allow enough time to show whether the "sunny uplands of global UK" post-Brexit can be realised - or are the Bexiteers too scared?

After the Holyrood elections Nicola Sturgeon should call Westminster's bluff and request the indyref2 for December 2024 as this would seem reasonable to most people

Refusal by Westminster again would only stoke the independence movement.

So would you agree to a new referendum in 2024 - or are you really a "never let them vote again in case" brexiteer?

1 minute ago, vogie said:

There is no problem, the SNP are creating problems.

You call for people to respect democracy and yet want to deny people the opportunity to exercise their right? How democratic.

Nobody is being denied anything, you were given the opportunity to have a referendum, you accepted that offer and unfortunately for the nationalists you lost, you cannot any more democratic than that, you are being undemocratic by not repecting the wishes of the Scots people.

You fail to address the point of why, given the Northern Ireland people can have a vote by the end of 2024 on the changed circumstances post-brexit the people of Scotland cannot have the same option

You are a democrat only when it suits you and a hypocrite all of the time

In fact the Northern Ireland protocol may give the Scottish the legal precedent basis for challenging any refusal to accept a referendum on section 30 grounds under the supreme court- not a place where the current UK government has had much success.

I don't really care about whether the Scots vote for or against independence in a second referendum, but democratically they should be given the option - an external, or foreign seat of governance denying the right to self-determination is anti-democratic

An overwhelming victory in the May 2021 Scottish assembly elections can also be seen as a referendum on a second vote - much as Boris Johnson called the 2019 election in the UK a mandate for Brexit - or would the little-englander brexiteers still want to deny democracy in that case?

21 minutes ago, vogie said:

It is not what I prefer, it is what the Scots voted for, try to respect democracy for a change.

Nobody is interested in polls, the only factual 'poll' was the referendum where the SNP signed the Edinburgh Agreement to respect the outcome and if you think that you'll be getting another bite at the apple any time soon, you are going to be sorely disappointed, chomp chomp.

It is not what I prefer, it is what the Scots voted for - 62% to remain in the EU, try to respect democracy for a change.

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

The UK voted democratically to leave the EU and Scotland voted democratically to remain in the UK, it doesn't get much simpler than that.

So answer the point - why can Norther Ireland have a referendum on the new situation by 2024 but you would deny it to Scotland

Not really interested in democracy much are you

Independence is only for us (the Brexiteers) not for anyone else

Hypocrisy at its extreme

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Where-as the SNP didn't welch on the 2014 referendum decision made by the Scottish electorate, such hypocrisy. 

I think most of the hypocrisy is coming from your ilk

All talk about independence, sovereignty and self-determination when it comes to leaving the EU, but when it is Scotland wanting to leave the UK it is the exact opposite 

Remember "project fear" was not the remainers stoking anxiety about the cost of leaving the EU, before that it was the unionists arguing about the cost to Scotland of leaving the UK, and still ongoing today.

Personally I believe in self-determination - as in the UN General Assembly resolution 1541

 - UK votes to leave EU - Not my choice but I accept it 51.9% to leave

 - England voted to leave the EU - I accept it - 53.4% to leave

 - Wales voted to leave the EU - I accept it - 52.5% to leave

 - Scotland voted to remain in the EU - I accept it - 62.0% to remain

 - Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU - I accept it - 55.8% to remain

As to the SNP "welching" on the 2014 referendum, this is not the official view of the UK government.

In the Northern Ireland protocol - part of the withdrawal agreement signed by Boris Johnson on behalf of the UK, they have agreed that 4 years after the end of the transition period - i.e. by 31st December 2024, the people of Northern Ireland get to have a vote on whether to continue the arrangements 

So if the people of Northern Ireland can have a vote on their new circumstances 4 years after the implementation of Brexit, I see no logical or moral reason why the same should not be afforded to Scotland

I am in favour of the second Scottish referendum in 2024 should they wish to have one.

33 minutes ago, transam said:

Those who stay in your country can't afford the rubber dinghy ol' chap,????, or the thought of 'camps'....????...................................????

Those who disparage immigration do not care about facts - they are driven only by racist soundbites "coming over here, taking our jobs, collapsing the health service" etc. etc. 

Quite hypocritical when you consider Farage's wife is German and is an immigrant allowed in through EU rules and got her passport through the family "chain" immigration process.

It is a fact that the EU immigrants were net contributors to both the exchequer, and by extension the funding of the Health Service, but..but...but..., illegal immigrants - yes - but no-one from the EU was an illegal immigrant if they had EU nationalities.

Illegal immigration is a fairly recent concept - about 100 years old, due to declarations on refugee status, so you could argue that any immigrant prior to this was "illegal" as there were no legal processes to go through.

This would include the 11% of Westminster MPs who are first or second generation immigrants, or children of immigrants - so to label all immigrants as bad belies the fact that many become the bedrock of society.

When I was in the UK employing people I had the privilege of taking on a few who you would call "illegal immigrants" as they had fled war-zones or from families of refugees, and these had gone on to learn English, get their higher degrees (doctorates) and work in the most highly technically skilled areas - areas which the UK still wants people to come an work in (Boris's high value visas who do not even need a job offer).

So that person in a dinghy may be poor, but his or her kids could turn out to be a rocket scientist, brain surgeon or the internet billionaire - think on... 

5 minutes ago, transam said:

Then at this moment the EU has no right to demand anything from the UK space, nothing.

They have no right to demand anything, but also the Uk has no "right to demand" access to the EU markets - it is a negotiation after all.

3 minutes ago, transam said:

Do the UK waters belong to the UK or not......Yes or No...?

yes they do, because the UK tried to pillage the Icelandic waters in the 1970s and then an international standard of the 200 mile economic exclusion zone was established.

But the common fisheries policy not only regulated the fishing waters but also the markets and the environmental conditions. I am against the common fisheries policy due to the lack of environmental safeguards and overfishing particularly by Spanish and other trawlers. 

The problem is that the majority of fish caught in UK waters are sold in EU markets, so do the EU own their markets yes or no, obviously yes, so in the longer term the UK may have to find other markets for their catch and also try to prevent other nations (Russia, China etc.) trawler fleets from operating

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

All of which do not respect UK sovereignty, which is a key part of the withdrawal agreement.

 

You can't get around that. They have not abided by the terms of the WA in demanding such things for an FTA.

 

It's really not that complicated, no matter how you try to dress it up.

Fake news.

There is no content in the Withdrawal agreement which states that the UK have "sovereignty" over everything - in fact the word sovereignty is only used in one particular case - the protocol on Gibraltar

"UNDERLINING that this Protocol is without prejudice to the respective legal positions of the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom with regard to sovereignty and jurisdiction,"

As to good faith the WA treaty states that:

"The Union and the United Kingdom shall, in full mutual respect and good faith, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from this Agreement. They shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from this Agreement and shall refrain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement."

You cannot provide evidence of where the EU has not abided by this as you assert

The Withdrawal Agreement states that both sides are committed to negotiate a future trading agreement, but does not state that the EU has to accept an FTA, or that the UK has to either - so your assertions there are also wrong 

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

And of course when we leave with a 'no deal' it will be the fault of Boris and nothing what-so-ever to do with the EU, the bond some remainers have with the EU is quite touching really.

The EU has been much better at presenting a united front on negotiations than the UK, so of course it appears that they are more interested in a deal, whereas in the UK there is a lot of noise from people who would prefer no-deal (and no negotiations) anyway.

There will be no reconciling of the two partisan sides anyway, but as Boris took credit for negotiating the withdrawal agreement when Theresa May could not, he also has to "own" the no-deal if that is the outcome

19 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

This is true.

 

The only hitch is that the Withdrawal agreement says that both sides must act in good faith. The EU has not done, as you have pointed out.

You mischaracterise by intent - in fact I have to say that most of your posts are fake news.

While it is incumbent on both sides to act in good faith both have their negotiating positions, the EU wants to have a level playing field on state aid, jusrisdiction by ECJ in some areas and maintain current agreements on fishing rights - the UK has other positions - taking a negotiating position is not acting in bad faith.

In contrast you have not pointed out any specific instance where the EU has gone against the withdrawal agreement - the fact that you do not like their positions is no proof that they have not abided by the terms of the agreement.

In the withdrawal agreement - signed by Boris Johnson, the UK does agree to be bound by European rules on state aid during the transition period and up to 4 years after as stated in Article 93

"In respect of aid granted before the end of the transition period, for a period of 4 years after the end of the transition period, the European Commission shall be competent to initiate new administrative procedures on State aid governed by Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 concerning the United Kingdom."

So contrary to your assertion, in this particular case, it is the UK, not the EU, which wants to back out of the agreement as written.

The withdrawal agreement signed by both UK and EU is an internationally binding treaty - it set out the financial terms of the divorce but did not have any content dealing with the future trading relationship such as "level playing field" and UK-wide fishing rights which were left to be decided in the following negotiations on trade and other issues.

Only the access of Northern Ireland fishing fleets access to the Union market were in the agreement - as part of the (revised) Northern Ireland protocol.

It is rumoured that the UK Government is planning now to override parts of the protocol with domestic legislation - which is bad news on two fronts - the integrity of the UK and the UK standing on the status of international treaty obligations.

It is well known that there was an explicit bargain between the Cummings/Johnson government and the ERG and spartan factions of the UK conservative party - agreed with the go-between John Baron MP -that in return for their support on the withdrawal agreement vote - which was basically a rehash of the Theresa May deal that they had voted down - that the UK government would pursue a "maximum benefit or no-deal" strategy in the negotiations - i.e. the UK would negotiate full bilateral access for goods and services with no barriers as was under the membership of the EU, while retaining full sovereignty over all matters including fishing rights, state aid, etc. and if this was not accepted then the UK would force the negotiations to collapse and crash out on a no-deal (WTO terms) basis. 

Over-riding the NI protocol by national legislation would of course collapse the negotiations leading to the short-term scenario of a no-deal Brexit on Dec 31st 2020, but this will have consequences in the longer term.

It is not certain that the EU would agree to an Australia-style agreement once the negotiations have collapsed - or even an Australia-minus agreement on just WTO terms - as there will be increasing pressure then from various national governments within the EU to use or erect trade barriers in dealing with the UK - this could mean access to markets for UK fishing or even higher tariffs than set under WTO terms for sectors such as the automotive sector (France has already suggested this as an outcome).

On the UK integrity side crashing out with a no-deal would provide further impetus to the Scottish independence debate,  where already the latest polls are suggesting a 50%-52% majority for independence against 40-42% for remaining, and the SNP have the vast majority of Scottish constituency seats under both Westminster and Scottish Assembly elections, with new Scottish assembly elections in May next year.

The Northern Ireland protocol also states that within 4 years of the end of the transition period - i.e. by December 31st 2024, the Northern Ireland people have to vote on the status of their trading relationship with the UK and the EU - basically a referendum on being in the UK.

There is, therefore, a real risk that overriding the protocol could provide the catalyst for both Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK.

The effect on international treaties is also not minor - if national legislation were able to override international treaty obligations then this would have far-reaching consequences - for example Scotland could introduce national legislation in the Scottish assembly to override the section 30 approval needed from the Westminster government for any new independence referendum - and would also allow Spain to override the treaty of 1771 and formally cede the control of the Falkland Islands to Argentina.

There are many, many other examples, not least the UN treaties, where the overriding by national legislation would allow countries to ignore their obligations - a dangerous path.

2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I agree and that goes for the fishing too. The trouble with the EU, the Scottish mafia on here and the EU sympathisers is that they are a protectionist racquet.

 

When a country like the UK wants to protect itself like its fishing, like its business then the named lot start stamping and kicking their feet.

 

Finally the UK has a person in Frost who is putting the UK first. So the Dutch, French and the Irish posters are in arms over the fact that the UK is looking after itself.

 

 

I think you also need to know a bit of history

It was the UK in the 1970s who were overfishing and exploiting another country's sea territory around Iceland claiming "historic rights".

In fact the UK lost out, as Iceland threatened to withdraw from NATO and then the UN mandated a 200 mile exclusion zone which is now the normal sea-border rule.

This is just to point out that there is some hypocrisy involved from those who insist on protecting "British National Waters"

It is however, true that the EU agreements on fishing have led to widespread overcatching and decimation of some fish species so any new "policy" should be geared to replenishing the fish stock otherwise there will be no fishing industry to protect.

12 minutes ago, hobz said:

The real 'conspiracy' is that covid19 is not actually dangerous and that the cure (lockdowns, shutdowns etc) are worse than the disease. 

 

Average age of people dying from covid-19 in sweden is 82. Average life expectancy in sweden is 82.

Only 6% of people dying from covid in sweden didn't have underlying medical issues as cause of death.

Sweden had no lockdown and no masks etc.

 

The entire world is seriously overreacting to this thing. It was understandable in the early days when we didn't know, but now we know.

 

Also, imagine if we put as much effort into preventing the regular flu every year. Or road deaths.. 

Yeah, imagine if we had put as much effort into eradicating smallpox or polio  .... oh wait...

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

A poll this morning from Opinium has the SNP on 6% - I don't think I have ever seen them poll so high UK wide. 

 

In the same poll, Sturgeon has the highest approval rating across the UK of any other party leader. 

 

Andrew Marr predicts the UK will cease to exist by 2024 and Mark Blyth comes out in favour of independence. 

 

What a great week its been! 

I agree with Andrew Marr on this - as I have said before 2024 would be a good compromise date for a second Scottish referendum - 10 years after the previous one.

There are also 3 other statistics that point to a "triple-lock" for independence by 2024.

 - In the last UK elections in 2019 the SNP took 48 out of 59 Scottish constituencies - a massive majority under a "first-past-the-post" electoral system.

 - In the last Holyrood (Scottish Parliament) elections the SNP lost their overall majority - but this was due to the electoral system - the proportional representation of additional members - the SNP won 59 out of 73 "first-past-the-post" constituencies - again a massive majority - but the proportional representation allocated many more seats to the Labour and Conservative parties.

- Since the 2019 election the polling for Scottish independence has swung markedly in favour - now at around 50%-51% for independence, 40%-42% against and 7%-9% don't know.

To quote Boris Johnson's own words against him - he touted the UK election results as an "irrefutable mandate for Brexit" and the Scottish results should then be seen as an "irrefutable mandate for independence"

The next Scottish parliament election due in May 2021 may restore the SNP majority as the overall voting numbers for both Labour and Tories has been declining, meaning they may not receive so many proportional seats.

It would not be unforeseen to have a second independence referendum question at the same time as the next UK elections due on 2024 (barring unforeseen circumstances in which Westminster calls for an early election).

There would of course be a transition period (probably 1 year taking the Brexit formula), during which time the financial settlement between UK and Scotland would have to be hammered out - and also some other aspects such as redeployment of the nuclear fleet, as well as repatriating existing UK legislation.

During this time the Bank of Scotland would start to issue government bonds to cover the agreed proportion of UK debt and ongoing spending pending tax receipts - the idea that Scotland would immediately be in default is a non-starter and just fear-propaganda by unionists.

30 minutes ago, johng said:

There's no way they will finish by October 2021...surely some mistake in this report ?

The date of October 2021 is the two-year deadline on the SRT side to have appropriated all the land necessary and removed all obstacles such as utilities and pipes so that the construction could actually begin. This is the obligation on SRT and the government in the contract with CP.

Any delay will of course impact the completion, which is now said to be in 2024 but I believe will still be at least 2 years after that.

14 hours ago, CorpusChristie said:

Both defending their property ?

Actually, from the latest reporting, that may change - is that the shooter of the two protesters was not from the area - he was from the next state, so was not in any way "defending his property" which is the definition under the law.

Also it is reported that he is 17 years old so should not have legally been possessing a weapon.

The question will arise as to why the police did not disarm these groups, including the one with the 17-year old shooter, the implication being that White vigilante groups they turn a blind eye to - with fatal consequences.