Jump to content

Scotland's Sturgeon warns of catastrophic 'no deal' Brexit


webfact

Recommended Posts

Scotland's Sturgeon warns of catastrophic 'no deal' Brexit

By Alessandra Galloni and Alistair Smout

 

2018-05-14T195108Z_1_LYNXNPEE4D1IN_RTROPTP_4_BRITAIN-EU-SCOTLAND.JPG

Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, speaks at a Reuters Newsmaker event, in London, Britain May 14, 2018. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Theresa May's failure to come up with a coherent Brexit stance means the United Kingdom is at greater risk of spiralling towards a "no deal" Brexit with catastrophic consequences, Scotland's leader said.

 

In a step that will shape the United Kingdom's prosperity and global influence for generations to come, Britain is due to leave the European Union on March 29 next year, though the terms of the separation are still unclear.

 

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she felt there was no majority for a hard Brexit in the country but that the United Kingdom was at a juncture when momentum could swing either towards a softer Brexit or a "no deal" Brexit.

 

"At some point that majority for the least damaging Brexit, a softer Brexit, at some point has to assert itself," Sturgeon told a discussion at Thomson Reuters in London.

 

"The danger, if I am being less optimistic, or pessimistic, is that the whole process crashes before that can emerge because time is running out and the clock is ticking."

 

Both the EU and the UK need an agreement to keep trade flowing between the world’s biggest trading bloc and the sixth largest global economy, though a transition period until the end of 2020 could limit the disruption to global trade.

 

May is trying to strike a trade deal with the EU by October while at the same time negotiating with her party and senior members of her divided minority government over Brexit.

 

The other 27 members of the EU combined have about five times the economic might of Britain. They also have a strong incentive to deny the UK a deal so attractive it might encourage others to follow the British example.

 

"I guess there is a real risk - probably a greater risk today than there was three, six, nine months ago - of the whole process falling apart," Sturgeon said. "There is a real risk of a no deal Brexit and that would be pretty catastrophic."

 

Sturgeon, who commands 35 Scottish National Party lawmakers in the Westminster parliament, said there was a real chance of parliament forcing the government to remain in the customs union.

 

"INDEPENDENCE FOR EVER"

Sturgeon, who took the helm of the Scottish National Party after Scots voted to reject independence in a September 2014 referendum, said the idea was far from dead.

 

"There will be different opinions as to whether we should do that now or in five years or ten years' time, but with that body of opinion, a constitutional option like independence is not going to be off the table," she said.

 

Scots voted 55-45 to stay in the United Kingdom in a 2014 referendum, while the United Kingdom voted 52-48 to leave the EU in the 2016 Brexit vote.

 

Sturgeon, 47, said that when there was clarity on the shape of the Brexit deal between the United Kingdom and the EU then she would be ready to give more details about Scotland's attitude towards a new independence vote.

 

"I'm not sure independence will ever be off the table until it's realised," she said.

 

Sturgeon said her party had launched a commission to examine the policy options for its stance on the currency of an independent Scotland. It will report within the next few weeks.

 

"My party does not propose or support using the euro, so the options the commission has been looking at: sterling in a currency union, sterling outwith a currency union, or a process that would lead to a distinctive Scottish currency over time," she said.

 

When asked about a reported ban at Donald Trump’s luxury Scottish golf resort of Irn Bru, the nation's most popular soft drink, Sturgeon chuckled.

 

The ban on the luminous orange drink at Trump Turnberry, a sprawling estate on the west coast of Scotland with dramatic sea views, caused a furore in Scotland.

 

"It makes for a great headline: Trump bans Irn Bru from Turnberry," Sturgeon said with a smile. "He is very keen to proclaim his Scottish connections, his mother was born on the Scottish islands, so I'm sure he likes Irn Bru."

 

(Editing by Guy Faulconbridge and Andrew Roche)

 
reuters_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-05-15
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, webfact said:

Scots voted 55-45 to stay in the United Kingdom in a 2014 referendum, while the United Kingdom voted 52-48 to leave the EU in the 2016 Brexit vote.

Also worth noting Scots voted to stay in the EU 62-38.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

But the union is an agreement of 4 countries or states to work together; not for the desires of the largest member state to override the wishes of the other members.

 

The country is the United Kingdom. Your nationality is British.

 

Despite what FIFA and the IRB allow for sports purposes. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Cap in hand to UK or EU to solve her financial issues. 

They are going to need some money after that "NEW" War ship sent for sea trails  fiasco  last week. EU ? UK  ? Somebody .HELLLP!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, harleyclarkey said:

Far more clever and realistic to have had a vote AFTER having a good idea of what the exit terms would be? Voting to leave and have no idea of what is on the table was not the best idea.

 

The British peoples were sold a right dud, gung-ho chaps puppy by, amongst others, Boring Johnson and the laughing Hyena LaFrage.

Lies, more lies and downright lies by this duo surely influenced a lot of voters? 

 

The waffling and indecision by the UK government is a laughing stock. 

 

A final vote in Parliament seems the obvious (?).

 

It is a bit of a bind though - as you say, the UK public were hoodwinked and the vast majority of supposed experts predict little good coming from the outcome - why, then, should Scotland hang around to see just how painful it is? If there was no Brexit and we had voted for independence, that too would be painful - there is an argument to take the pain all in one hit rather than go through Brexit induced pain AND then independence induced pain at some point in the future.

 

Then there are a hardcore of independence supporters who want to break from the UK regardless of the outcomes of Brexit. The SNP manifestos for both Holyrood and Westminster stated that, in the event of a material change in the UK's relationship with the EU they would seek a second independence referendum. These hardcore want to see that mandate exercised.

 

That said, not all independence supporters are remainers - around 30%, I believe, backed Brexit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

bitching ''sweaty sox'' as usual .never happy

Thanks for a fine contribution to the topic. You have anything to say about the topic, or only about a person you clearly don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Emster23 said:

After all the Pollyanna BS of pro Brexit campaign, it seems to be dawning on even the ruling class there simply is no Brexit deal that will somehow make UK better off. Time for a another vote with the actual realistic projections from independent accounting on just what this ill thought out and deceptively promoted referendum would cost

I think that prospect will terrify the Brexiteers.  They really don't want to face up to the reality of Brexit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

But the union is an agreement of 4 countries or states to work together; not for the desires of the largest member state to override the wishes of the other members.

Wales voted for Brexit by the same margin as did England, so your contention falls at the starting gate.

 

In fact, of the UK's nine regions, only 3 voted to remain; Scotland, N.Ireland, and London.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

Wales voted for Brexit by the same margin as did England, so your contention falls at the starting gate.

 

In fact, of the UK's nine regions, only 3 voted to remain; Scotland, N.Ireland, and London.

I am not claiming that Scotland should have a veto - just that Scotland should not be forced into a position that its residents clearly don't want, especially as that situation being forced upon them is the opposite of one of the main promises which led to us rejecting independence.

 

Much as I would never suggest that England should be forced to follow the will of the Scots, clearly the union is not a union of equals when the wishes of 3 of the 4 partners are largely irrelevant. The union is not fit for purpose as it does not take into account the wishes of all its member states. It cannot - which is why it should be disbanded and a new era of mutual friendship and cooperation enbarked upon - better for everyone concerned.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worry not remember Boris Gove and Farangatang saying we will get a better deal out than in as they led the flat cap and whippet brexit north up the winding path to lala land. Should be any day now just trust us millionaires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

I am not claiming that Scotland should have a veto - just that Scotland should not be forced into a position that its residents clearly don't want, especially as that situation being forced upon them is the opposite of one of the main promises which led to us rejecting independence.

 

Much as I would never suggest that England should be forced to follow the will of the Scots, clearly the union is not a union of equals when the wishes of 3 of the 4 partners are largely irrelevant. The union is not fit for purpose as it does not take into account the wishes of all its member states. It cannot - which is why it should be disbanded and a new era of mutual friendship and cooperation enbarked upon - better for everyone concerned.

When was it decided it was supposed to be a union of equals?

 

Do you imagine that the EU is a union of equals? Why should Germany have 29 votes in the Council of Europe when Estonia only has 4?

 

So, better that the EU is disbanded, and a new era of mutual friendship and cooperation can be embarked upon - better for everyone concerned.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

When was it decided it was supposed to be a union of equals?

 

Do you imagine that the EU is a union of equals? Why should Germany have 29 votes in the Council of Europe when Estonia only has 4?

 

So, better that the EU is disbanded, and a new era of mutual friendship and cooperation can be embarked upon - better for everyone concerned.

Well, the union having never been put to plebiscite, and the resulting riots in Scotland when it was put in place show that regardless of the structure, it was not something that the Scottish people willingly walked into.

 

But let's put it this way - would you be happy if all powers in Westminster were transferred to Holyrood, and that the Scots took all major decisions facing England? Seems a bit unfair to me - if I were English I would not accept it.

 

Regardless of what happens with the the future of the EU post Brexit, Scotland will be out of it, so your final point is moot. One step at a time - let's disband this unequal and unsatisfactory union within the UK and then the Scots can decide their own future with respect to the EU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...