British PM May: Willing to listen to Scotland's EU proposals

[rooster59]

British PM May: Willing to listen to Scotland's EU proposals

GREGORY KATZ, Associated Press


LONDON (AP) — British Prime Minister Theresa May sought Friday to dampen speculation about another Scottish vote for independence, while insisting she is willing to listen to proposals about Scotland's future relationship with the European Union.

The two issues have become intertwined since Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the EU in the June 23 referendum while Britain as a whole decided to leave.

"I want to get the best possible deal for the United Kingdom out of our negotiations for the U.K. leaving the EU, but I'm willing to listen to options," May said after a meeting with Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in Edinburgh.

Sturgeon said she welcomed May's willingness to consider Scotland's goals and that she had received assurances that the British government will be "open and flexible" in future discussions regarding Scotland and the EU.

Sturgeon is seeking various ways for Scotland to remain in the EU even if other parts of Britain withdraw.

EU officials have declined to negotiate separately with Sturgeon and the Scottish Parliament.

May's decision to make her first official trip as prime minister a visit to Scotland was an indication of the high priority she is placing on keeping Scotland within the United Kingdom despite differing views over Britain's decision to leave the EU.

May, who became prime minister Wednesday after David Cameron stepped down, discouraged talk of another Scottish independence referendum. In September 2014, Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom, which also includes England, Northern Ireland and Wales.

Sturgeon, whose Scottish National Party has campaigned for Scottish independence, has said another referendum is "highly likely" in light of the British vote to leave the EU, so-called Brexit.

"As far as I'm concerned the Scottish people had their vote, they voted in 2014, and a very clear message came through, both the United Kingdom and the Scottish Government said they would abide by that," May said.

The prime minister also said she and Sturgeon had discussed the timetable for implementing Article 50 of the EU treaty, which will start a two-year process of taking Britain out of the 28-nation bloc.

"I've already said that I won't be triggering Article 50 until I think that we have a U.K. approach and objectives," May said.

She has indicated she does not plan to invoke Article 50 until next year, although some EU leaders are pressuring her to begin the process earlier.

-- (c) Associated Press 2016-07-16

[daveAustin]

Nothing to see here, just May making it appear a priority to keep the old crow quiet.

[SheungWan]

Nothing to see here, just May making it appear a priority to keep the old crow quiet.

I would suggest au contraire and rather significant in how this issue is played.

[mommysboy]

Nothing to see here, just May making it appear a priority to keep the old crow quiet.

I would suggest au contraire and rather significant in how this issue is played.

I agree. It's the perfect 'stale mate' for someone who might want to be seen consenting to the will of the people, but who might be wanting otherwise. One of many blocks that might occur.

Political chicanery aside, it's unreasonable to present two countries with an invidious choice. They are equal partners, friends, and colleagues in the Union.

[phuketandsee]

Agreed. This is just the first of a number of issues that will "suddenly" arise preventing Article 50 from being invoked. Only now are people starting to understand what an impossible position the government is in. EU rules prevent any nation from negotiating trade agreements with a non-EU nation so the UK can't even start figuring out what it's trade position is until it is out.

The EU has made it plain it won't start negotiations with the UK until it gives notice under Article 50 at which point the clock is ticking. What's to stop them just saying "goodbye then"? And all this talk of "well, we buy more from them than they do from us so they'll negotiate." Well, I buy a lot more from Makro that it buys from me but that doesn't seem to help my negotiating position.

Odds are Brexit isn't going to happen.

[soalbundy]

Agreed. This is just the first of a number of issues that will "suddenly" arise preventing Article 50 from being invoked. Only now are people starting to understand what an impossible position the government is in. EU rules prevent any nation from negotiating trade agreements with a non-EU nation so the UK can't even start figuring out what it's trade position is until it is out.

The EU has made it plain it won't start negotiations with the UK until it gives notice under Article 50 at which point the clock is ticking. What's to stop them just saying "goodbye then"? And all this talk of "well, we buy more from them than they do from us so they'll negotiate." Well, I buy a lot more from Makro that it buys from me but that doesn't seem to help my negotiating position.

Odds are Brexit isn't going to happen.

hopefully,May has already closed down the global warming and environment department and the minister for work and pensions didn't want the minimum wage agreement,seems i was right, once we are out who cares about pollution or workers rights once that pesky EU is out of the way.

[stag4]

Agreed. This is just the first of a number of issues that will "suddenly" arise preventing Article 50 from being invoked. Only now are people starting to understand what an impossible position the government is in. EU rules prevent any nation from negotiating trade agreements with a non-EU nation so the UK can't even start figuring out what it's trade position is until it is out.

The EU has made it plain it won't start negotiations with the UK until it gives notice under Article 50 at which point the clock is ticking. What's to stop them just saying "goodbye then"? And all this talk of "well, we buy more from them than they do from us so they'll negotiate." Well, I buy a lot more from Makro that it buys from me but that doesn't seem to help my negotiating position.

Odds are Brexit isn't going to happen.

Is that the same odds that the bookies were giving for Remaining?

[bkkcanuck8]

Agreed. This is just the first of a number of issues that will "suddenly" arise preventing Article 50 from being invoked. Only now are people starting to understand what an impossible position the government is in. EU rules prevent any nation from negotiating trade agreements with a non-EU nation so the UK can't even start figuring out what it's trade position is until it is out.

The EU has made it plain it won't start negotiations with the UK until it gives notice under Article 50 at which point the clock is ticking. What's to stop them just saying "goodbye then"? And all this talk of "well, we buy more from them than they do from us so they'll negotiate." Well, I buy a lot more from Makro that it buys from me but that doesn't seem to help my negotiating position.

Odds are Brexit isn't going to happen.

Is that the same odds that the bookies were giving for Remaining?

Not to mention there seems to be confusion on what brexit actually is by people on all sides of the argument. Is brexit going to be the "Norway option", "CETA trade style arrangement", or actually ... "real" brexit.

Executing article 50 without figuring if there is some accommodation acceptable to Scotland ... almost guarantees a very messy situation as it starts the clock ticking on the Scottish question...

I just don't know if there is an answer that can keep Scotland in the EU and England out without full sovereignty and be acceptable to both the EU and to the UK. If PM Theresa May can figure out something she would be a magician, and Scotland would actually be in one of the most advantageous trading position of any nation... (and in the case where England would be the "CETA option" vs Scotland being the "Norway option" -- probably to the detriment to England since it will probably mean many HQ and financials in London would migrate north over time -- similar to what happened in Canada 30 or 40 years ago.... when things moved down the highway from Montreal to Toronto).

[sanukjim]

Nothing to see here, just May making it appear a priority to keep the old crow quiet.

I would suggest au contraire and rather significant in how this issue is played.

I agree. It's the perfect 'stale mate' for someone who might want to be seen consenting to the will of the people, but who might be wanting otherwise. One of many blocks that might occur.

Political chicanery aside, it's unreasonable to present two countries with an invidious choice. They are equal partners, friends, and colleagues in the Union.

For the "Time Being".

[mommysboy]

Agreed. This is just the first of a number of issues that will "suddenly" arise preventing Article 50 from being invoked. Only now are people starting to understand what an impossible position the government is in. EU rules prevent any nation from negotiating trade agreements with a non-EU nation so the UK can't even start figuring out what it's trade position is until it is out.

The EU has made it plain it won't start negotiations with the UK until it gives notice under Article 50 at which point the clock is ticking. What's to stop them just saying "goodbye then"? And all this talk of "well, we buy more from them than they do from us so they'll negotiate." Well, I buy a lot more from Makro that it buys from me but that doesn't seem to help my negotiating position.

Odds are Brexit isn't going to happen.

Is that the same odds that the bookies were giving for Remaining?

Not to mention there seems to be confusion on what brexit actually is by people on all sides of the argument. Is brexit going to be the "Norway option", "CETA trade style arrangement", or actually ... "real" brexit.

Executing article 50 without figuring if there is some accommodation acceptable to Scotland ... almost guarantees a very messy situation as it starts the clock ticking on the Scottish question...

I just don't know if there is an answer that can keep Scotland in the EU and England out without full sovereignty and be acceptable to both the EU and to the UK. If PM Theresa May can figure out something she would be a magician, and Scotland would actually be in one of the most advantageous trading position of any nation... (and in the case where England would be the "CETA option" vs Scotland being the "Norway option" -- probably to the detriment to England since it will probably mean many HQ and financials in London would migrate north over time -- similar to what happened in Canada 30 or 40 years ago.... when things moved down the highway from Montreal to Toronto).

The 'financials' argument is a 'bit of a whopper' told by the remain camp I think. The City of London mainly operates in a wholesale market which is not threatened, and in any case UK has equivalence which would likely over ride the need for financial passporting. The City is top for a variety of reasons. It is questionable whether UK would lose 'financial passporting' anyway.

I agree regarding trade deals: a clear bit of thinking tells you there are only 2 options - don't leave, or leave without a deal The Chancellor has already indicated the latter.

When (if) the UK leaves, then Scotland leaves too. It could not become a member of the EU again unless it ceded from the UK and then satisfied the EU it was capable of joining. It would then have to be voted in by all members, including Spain. UK Government stance is no second referendum: it was agreed the previous referendum was once and for all and was a vote on the Union, and not membership of the EU.

If financials or HQ's are to migrate anywhere, it would likely be Hamburg, Amsterdam, Paris, or Dublin. It will happen with those who are very Eurocentric: it was going to happen anyway. But we are not really talking about factory operations here, where all the activity moves lock, stock and barrel. Leaving might just involve setting up a token offic

[bkkcanuck8]

Agreed. This is just the first of a number of issues that will "suddenly" arise preventing Article 50 from being invoked. Only now are people starting to understand what an impossible position the government is in. EU rules prevent any nation from negotiating trade agreements with a non-EU nation so the UK can't even start figuring out what it's trade position is until it is out.

The EU has made it plain it won't start negotiations with the UK until it gives notice under Article 50 at which point the clock is ticking. What's to stop them just saying "goodbye then"? And all this talk of "well, we buy more from them than they do from us so they'll negotiate." Well, I buy a lot more from Makro that it buys from me but that doesn't seem to help my negotiating position.

Odds are Brexit isn't going to happen.

Is that the same odds that the bookies were giving for Remaining?

Not to mention there seems to be confusion on what brexit actually is by people on all sides of the argument. Is brexit going to be the "Norway option", "CETA trade style arrangement", or actually ... "real" brexit.

Executing article 50 without figuring if there is some accommodation acceptable to Scotland ... almost guarantees a very messy situation as it starts the clock ticking on the Scottish question...

I just don't know if there is an answer that can keep Scotland in the EU and England out without full sovereignty and be acceptable to both the EU and to the UK. If PM Theresa May can figure out something she would be a magician, and Scotland would actually be in one of the most advantageous trading position of any nation... (and in the case where England would be the "CETA option" vs Scotland being the "Norway option" -- probably to the detriment to England since it will probably mean many HQ and financials in London would migrate north over time -- similar to what happened in Canada 30 or 40 years ago.... when things moved down the highway from Montreal to Toronto).

The 'financials' argument is a 'bit of a whopper' told by the remain camp I think. The City of London mainly operates in a wholesale market which is not threatened, and in any case UK has equivalence which would likely over ride the need for financial passporting. The City is top for a variety of reasons. It is questionable whether UK would lose 'financial passporting' anyway.

I agree regarding trade deals: a clear bit of thinking tells you there are only 2 options - don't leave, or leave without a deal The Chancellor has already indicated the latter.

When (if) the UK leaves, then Scotland leaves too. It could not become a member of the EU again unless it ceded from the UK and then satisfied the EU it was capable of joining. It would then have to be voted in by all members, including Spain. UK Government stance is no second referendum: it was agreed the previous referendum was once and for all and was a vote on the Union, and not membership of the EU.

If financials or HQ's are to migrate anywhere, it would likely be Hamburg, Amsterdam, Paris, or Dublin. It will happen with those who are very Eurocentric: it was going to happen anyway. But we are not really talking about factory operations here, where all the activity moves lock, stock and barrel. Leaving might just involve setting up a token offic

I guess that the upsurge of Singapore Bankers based in London returning home is just co-incidence then....

I don't believe CETA (trade agreement prototype) contains "passporting" for banks. So right now the blueprints are "Norway option" (not really brexit) have passporting, and CETA (bespoke model - deep trade agreement but outside the Union completely) none.

Does not mean that a special agreement cannot be had, but I fail to see how there would be much real interest on the EU side to give Britain a special deal (EU does not need passporting in the UK) just GATS (UN/WTO)

Edited July 16, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[mommysboy]

The 'financials' argument is a 'bit of a whopper' told by the remain camp I think. The City of London mainly operates in a wholesale market which is not threatened, and in any case UK has equivalence which would likely over ride the need for financial passporting. The City is top for a variety of reasons. It is questionable whether UK would lose 'financial passporting' anyway.

I agree regarding trade deals: a clear bit of thinking tells you there are only 2 options - don't leave, or leave without a deal The Chancellor has already indicated the latter.

When (if) the UK leaves, then Scotland leaves too. It could not become a member of the EU again unless it ceded from the UK and then satisfied the EU it was capable of joining. It would then have to be voted in by all members, including Spain. UK Government stance is no second referendum: it was agreed the previous referendum was once and for all and was a vote on the Union, and not membership of the EU.

If financials or HQ's are to migrate anywhere, it would likely be Hamburg, Amsterdam, Paris, or Dublin. It will happen with those who are very Eurocentric: it was going to happen anyway. But we are not really talking about factory operations here, where all the activity moves lock, stock and barrel. Leaving might just involve setting up a token offic

I guess that the upsurge of Singapore Bankers based in London returning home is just co-incidence then....

If Singapore bankers are leaving, it is not a coincidence but was going to happen at some point anyway. It would be more significant if they were moving to Hamburg I guess.

As you know, MiFID2 will be enacted in a couple of years, which will allow third party contries to conduct trade as if they were part of the EU.

Yes undoubtedly, the City will slim down but not nearly by as much as the crazy predictions that go around.

[bkkcanuck8]

The 'financials' argument is a 'bit of a whopper' told by the remain camp I think. The City of London mainly operates in a wholesale market which is not threatened, and in any case UK has equivalence which would likely over ride the need for financial passporting. The City is top for a variety of reasons. It is questionable whether UK would lose 'financial passporting' anyway.

I agree regarding trade deals: a clear bit of thinking tells you there are only 2 options - don't leave, or leave without a deal The Chancellor has already indicated the latter.

When (if) the UK leaves, then Scotland leaves too. It could not become a member of the EU again unless it ceded from the UK and then satisfied the EU it was capable of joining. It would then have to be voted in by all members, including Spain. UK Government stance is no second referendum: it was agreed the previous referendum was once and for all and was a vote on the Union, and not membership of the EU.

If financials or HQ's are to migrate anywhere, it would likely be Hamburg, Amsterdam, Paris, or Dublin. It will happen with those who are very Eurocentric: it was going to happen anyway. But we are not really talking about factory operations here, where all the activity moves lock, stock and barrel. Leaving might just involve setting up a token offic

I guess that the upsurge of Singapore Bankers based in London returning home is just co-incidence then....

If Singapore bankers are leaving, it is not a coincidence but was going to happen at some point anyway. It would be more significant if they were moving to Hamburg I guess.

As you know, MiFID2 will be enacted in a couple of years, which will allow third party contries to conduct trade as if they were part of the EU.

Yes undoubtedly, the City will slim down but not nearly by as much as the crazy predictions that go around.

oops, updated it after reply

I agree that there is not going to be an armageddon type situation and that it won't happen over time.... just as new major plans are implemented over time things will as you put it "slim down".

[mommysboy]

The 'financials' argument is a 'bit of a whopper' told by the remain camp I think. The City of London mainly operates in a wholesale market which is not threatened, and in any case UK has equivalence which would likely over ride the need for financial passporting. The City is top for a variety of reasons. It is questionable whether UK would lose 'financial passporting' anyway.

I agree regarding trade deals: a clear bit of thinking tells you there are only 2 options - don't leave, or leave without a deal The Chancellor has already indicated the latter.

When (if) the UK leaves, then Scotland leaves too. It could not become a member of the EU again unless it ceded from the UK and then satisfied the EU it was capable of joining. It would then have to be voted in by all members, including Spain. UK Government stance is no second referendum: it was agreed the previous referendum was once and for all and was a vote on the Union, and not membership of the EU.

If financials or HQ's are to migrate anywhere, it would likely be Hamburg, Amsterdam, Paris, or Dublin. It will happen with those who are very Eurocentric: it was going to happen anyway. But we are not really talking about factory operations here, where all the activity moves lock, stock and barrel. Leaving might just involve setting up a token offic

I guess that the upsurge of Singapore Bankers based in London returning home is just co-incidence then....

If Singapore bankers are leaving, it is not a coincidence but was going to happen at some point anyway. It would be more significant if they were moving to Hamburg I guess.

As you know, MiFID2 will be enacted in a couple of years, which will allow third party contries to conduct trade as if they were part of the EU.

Yes undoubtedly, the City will slim down but not nearly by as much as the crazy predictions that go around.

oops, updated it after reply

I agree that there is not going to be an armageddon type situation and that it won't happen over time.... just as new major plans are implemented over time things will as you put it "slim down".

The other thing is remember we are talking about workers leaving, that's not the same as businesses leaving.

But I have just about reached my limit of understanding on the subject now.

[The manic]

I just wish the sweaties would f*** off. Their bleating victim hood is Scoth Myth. The Majority of the UK voted out of the European Nightmare let's get on with it.

[soalbundy]

I just wish the sweaties would f*** off. Their bleating victim hood is Scoth Myth. The Majority of the UK voted out of the European Nightmare let's get on with it.

not a large majority, hardly a mandate,certainly not sufficient to strip me of my EU citizenship

[vogie]

Freedom?

[Keesters]

Scotland voted to remain in the UK.

The UK voted to exit the EU.

Personally I don't care what Scotland voted regarding the EU as they are and voted to be still part of the UK.

Isn't that how democracy works. The greater wins...no place for we want this but not that.

[happy Joe]

I just don't know if there is an answer that can keep Scotland in the EU and England out without full sovereignty and be acceptable to both the EU

Impossible.

This would open the door to other separatist member, mainly Basques, Catalans and Flemish.

[Richard W]

I just don't know if there is an answer that can keep Scotland in the EU and England out without full sovereignty and be acceptable to both the EU

Impossible.

This would open the door to other separatist member, mainly Basques, Catalans and Flemish.

What about Greenland? By area, the greater part of the Kingdom of Denmark left the EU. Indeed, of the three countries making up the Kingdom of Denmark, only the one partly on the continent is in the EU. (The other country is the Faroe Islands.) The residents of Greenland are EU citizens; the residents of the Faroes are not.

[phuketandsee]

"a clear bit of thinking tells you there are only 2 options - don't leave, or leave without a deal"

Your mum taught you well mommysboy, this is it in a nutshell. But how many in the UK, including the so-called pundits, are aware of this yet. Maybe May is waiting for her Brexiters to face up to this and once reality sets in and they admit it they will be vanquished and we will stay in.

One can only dream.

[Kiwiken]

Scotland voted to remain in the UK.

The UK voted to exit the EU.

Personally I don't care what Scotland voted regarding the EU as they are and voted to be still part of the UK.

Isn't that how democracy works. The greater wins...no place for we want this but not that.

Apparently in a Westminster system you only agree with Democracy if you win?

[dick dasterdly]

Scotland voted to remain in the UK.

The UK voted to exit the EU.

Personally I don't care what Scotland voted regarding the EU as they are and voted to be still part of the UK.

Isn't that how democracy works. The greater wins...no place for we want this but not that.

Apparently in a Westminster system you only agree with Democracy if you win?

Not really. Voters accept the 'first past the post' voting procedure in general elections, even though it far from accurately reflects the votes cast.

The referendum was better in that it really did rely on the votes cast.

The Scottish voting population is far lower than the English voting population, and its ridiculous to suggest that the tiny Scots vote should hold sway over the far larger population in the rest of the UK!

Even so, this is a 'Scotland' topic - so presumably its up to the Scots to hold their own referendum to leave the UK in the hope of joining the EU as a separate country.

Edited July 17, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[Kiwiken]

Scotland voted to remain in the UK.

The UK voted to exit the EU.

Personally I don't care what Scotland voted regarding the EU as they are and voted to be still part of the UK.

Isn't that how democracy works. The greater wins...no place for we want this but not that.

Apparently in a Westminster system you only agree with Democracy if you win?

Not really. Voters accept the 'first past the post' voting procedure in general elections, even though it far from accurately reflects the votes cast.

The referendum was better in that it really did rely on the votes cast.

The Scottish voting population is far lower than the English voting population, and its ridiculous to suggest that the tiny Scots vote should hold sway over the far larger population in the rest of the UK!

Even so, this is a 'Scotland' topic - so presumably its up to the Scots to hold their own referendum to leave the UK in the hope of joining the EU as a separate country.

The most interesting Outcome would be if the Scots get another referendum. Vote to leave the UK. Take their apportioned UK debt with them. And then find the EU does not want them. What them Mc Tavish?

[dick dasterdly]

And good luck to the Scots if they decide to take that route .

[John1012]

If article 50 is not invoked and there is too much delay in leaving the EU, the will of the majority of the UK population is ignored, then the conservative party will be wiped out at the next election. The UK needs to offer free trade agreements to USA,Australia, India, Canada, New Zealand and all European countries. Where tariffs or quotas are imposed the we should reciprocate in like terms. EU citizens with proven 3 years of EU citizenship should be allowed free movement into and out of the UK. Australian,Canadian, US citizens should be allowed 90 days visa on entry (extendible), providing they have adequate funds to support themselves. Why negotiate with the EU , nobody loses except the economic migrants from the cess pits of the world. Too simple??

[phuketandsee]

If article 50 is not invoked and there is too much delay in leaving the EU, the will of the majority of the UK population is ignored, then the conservative party will be wiped out at the next election. The UK needs to offer free trade agreements to USA,Australia, India, Canada, New Zealand and all European countries. Where tariffs or quotas are imposed the we should reciprocate in like terms. EU citizens with proven 3 years of EU citizenship should be allowed free movement into and out of the UK. Australian,Canadian, US citizens should be allowed 90 days visa on entry (extendible), providing they have adequate funds to support themselves. Why negotiate with the EU , nobody loses except the economic migrants from the cess pits of the world. Too simple??

"the conservative party will be wiped out at the next election"

Not necessarily. Given a) the general ignorance of what was involved, the lies spread by the Brexiteers that have now been revealed, c) the gradual realization of what it really means and d) the likely economic fallout becoming apparent, I suspect "the will of the majority of the UK population" will evolve quite a bit over the next few months.

[Nbarch]

I get extremely irritated by that Sturgeon woman; she wants full independence, but wants to keep the British Pound! So that is a non-starter, if Scotland leaves, they will get the (disastrous) Euro.

I doubt if Ms Sturgeon realises that the price of oil has halved since the last referendum - that was a very close call!

I suggest she takes a trip to Aberdeen, the 'Scottish oil capital', it has gone into hibernation.

I am sure the Scottish people would love to leave the very corrupt EU!

If Ms Surgeon gets her way, Scotland could remain in the EU and be twinned with Romania!

[RuamRudy]

I doubt if Ms Sturgeon realises that the price of oil has halved since the last referendum - that was a very close call!

I suggest she takes a trip to Aberdeen, the 'Scottish oil capital', it has gone into hibernation.

I am sure the Scottish people would love to leave the very corrupt EU!

If Ms Surgeon gets her way, Scotland could remain in the EU and be twinned with Romania!

Why do you think that she won't be aware of the oil price? Do you suppose we don't follow world affairs up north?

The Scottish people voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU - that is the source of the current tension.

Twinned with Romania? Care to elaborate, or is it just another baseless, petty dig?

[RuamRudy]

Scotland voted to remain in the UK.

The UK voted to exit the EU.

Personally I don't care what Scotland voted regarding the EU as they are and voted to be still part of the UK.

Isn't that how democracy works. The greater wins...no place for we want this but not that.

Not quite as simple as that - amongst the package of lies that flowed from the mouths of the remainders was the much repeated story that the only way we could be assured membership of the EU was to stick with the UK.

Now, 2 years later to be told that we are being taken out of the EU against our wishes despite voting to remain hitched to this unequal union is sticking in a lot of people's throats.