Brexit Referendum

Annachie wrote:Don't worry. It looks like Scotland will try and save you.

Nope, Spain's slapped them down.
If Scotland goes independent and remains in the EU, a certain Spanish region (Catalonia) will try to do the same and Spain has been preventing the Catalonians from seceding from Spain for quite some time (especially since Catalonia is the de-facto powerhouse of Spain).

So, Spain literally cannot afford the political cost of allowing Scotland to Secede from the UK while remaining part of the EU.

Michael Everett wrote:

Annachie wrote:Don't worry. It looks like Scotland will try and save you.

Nope, Spain's slapped them down.
If Scotland goes independent and remains in the EU, a certain Spanish region (Catalonia) will try to do the same and Spain has been preventing the Catalonians from seceding from Spain for quite some time (especially since Catalonia is the de-facto powerhouse of Spain).

So, Spain literally cannot afford the political cost of allowing Scotland to Secede from the UK while remaining part of the EU.

A fundamental misunderstanding of Spanish constitutional politics. What they're opposing are EU talks with Scotland, on the basis it sets a precedent for EU talks with Catalonia.

The Spanish position is that secession has to occur within the constitutional limits of whatever state is in force at that time. Spanish's constitution requires that a referendum be held across all of Spain if any part of Spain wishes to leave.

This is why Spain does not recognise Kosovo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain%27s ... dependence

Any deal that allows a Scotland in UK to negotiate and remain in the EU will threaten Spain's constitutional position. Therefore they will accept the results of a Scottish referendum on independence so long as Westminister gives its consent for it, because that allows Spain to maintain the position that, in order for Catalonia to leave, all of Spain must agree.

In other words, "Blow for Sturgeon as Spanish PM says Scotland must go independent to remain in the EU." Yup.

I actually ment Scottish MP's blocking the enabling legislation.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:I actually ment Scottish MP's blocking the enabling legislation.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

They've tried to block legislation before. 59(or 56 or 54) do not make a decision in a house of 650.

Unless you meant Holyrood and the Sewel Convention? Still a no there, as it's only 'good practice' and not a legal requirement. Westminister reserves the right to override this consent.

Could it be that England does not consider the EU very democratic. The EU legislature has no real power. Unlimited immigration being allowed by Brussels. The continued bailouts of certain countries. Having the EU override it's laws. The EU about to form the EU army (offensive force).

Why was it OK for the EU to be able to throw out Greece but it's not ok for England to leave. Maybe England does not want to become part globalist goal of a one world government. Look at how the EU is trying to subtly threaten Britain since their exit. Just Food for thought.

smr wrote:Could it be that England does not consider the EU very democratic. The EU legislature has no real power. Unlimited immigration being allowed by Brussels. The continued bailouts of certain countries. Having the EU override it's laws. The EU about to form the EU army (offensive force).

Why was it OK for the EU to be able to throw out Greece but it's not ok for England to leave. Maybe England does not want to become part globalist goal of a one world government. Look at how the EU is trying to subtly threaten Britain since their exit. Just Food for thought.

That's a good point there - if you judge Britain to be the standard of democracy, then the EU doesn't seem democratic. Unelected head of state who is lauded for a long reign. Unelected upper chamber(second in size only to China's). Lower elected chamber being cut from 650 to 600 MPs. Unequal devolution across the regions and nations.

Also, the EU threw Greece out? I missed that happening. Looks like they still have a Commissioner, whereas Britain's quit a day or two after the referendum result. In fact, the EU does not have the power to throw any of its members out - made obvious by Britain's refusal to activate Article 50 immediately.

The EU is asking for this to happen as soon as possible - they are green-lighting the UK's exit. What's lacking is the political will in Britain to do so.

Supreme irony. The EU is trying to support the democratic will of the UK against the UK's own political establishment - and the English think the EU is undemocratic! Lots of uncomfortable truths being exposed here.

Couple of problems here. Britain has not even applied to leave so there is no "since their exit".
The EU legislature does have real power.
The EU wasn't about to enact "able to throw out Greece". There had been some discussions about conditions, and "If you don't like it, leave".
What one world government? Europe is just one corner of a big world. There had been some talk of a counter balancing block to contain China, and the USA's ambitions.

smr wrote:Could it be that England does not consider the EU very democratic. The EU legislature has no real power. Unlimited immigration being allowed by Brussels. The continued bailouts of certain countries. Having the EU override it's laws. The EU about to form the EU army (offensive force).

Why was it OK for the EU to be able to throw out Greece but it's not ok for England to leave. Maybe England does not want to become part globalist goal of a one world government. Look at how the EU is trying to subtly threaten Britain since their exit. Just Food for thought.

They were going to throw out Greece if they did not agree to stipulations of EU. The EU lay down the ultimatum to Greece. Dress the language up however Daryl sees fit but that does not change the reality of what the EU did. Why did the EU not address the major issue of unlimited immigration that caused Great Britain to leave the EU.

Daryl wrote:Couple of problems here. Britain has not even applied to leave so there is no "since their exit".
The EU legislature does have real power.
The EU wasn't about to enact "able to throw out Greece". There had been some discussions about conditions, and "If you don't like it, leave".
What one world government? Europe is just one corner of a big world. There had been some talk of a counter balancing block to contain China, and the USA's ambitions.

smr wrote:Could it be that England does not consider the EU very democratic. The EU legislature has no real power. Unlimited immigration being allowed by Brussels. The continued bailouts of certain countries. Having the EU override it's laws. The EU about to form the EU army (offensive force).

Why was it OK for the EU to be able to throw out Greece but it's not ok for England to leave. Maybe England does not want to become part globalist goal of a one world government. Look at how the EU is trying to subtly threaten Britain since their exit. Just Food for thought.

smr wrote:They were going to throw out Greece if they did not agree to stipulations of EU. The EU lay down the ultimatum to Greece. Dress the language up however Daryl sees fit but that does not change the reality of what the EU did. Why did the EU not address the major issue of unlimited immigration that caused Great Britain to leave the EU.

It is astonishing to me how a keen observer of european politics such as yourself has entirely missed the fact that there are no provisions in the core treaties defining the EU and its organs that would allow for a country to be ejected from the Union against its will. All the EU can do (as it has done in the past) is enact sanctions against a member state found to be in violation of the treaties. Ejection of a country would require unanimous consent of all member states (including the country to be ejected), which is highly unlikely to occur.

Secondly, that "major issue of unlimited immigration"? It's an inescapable consequence of the free market. As a union, we decided that citizens of EU member states should be free to move within the EU, whether as tourists or immigrants, a freedom british citizens have made enthusiastic use of over the past few decades. There is a certain level of hypocrisy in the british desire to retain that freedom for themselves while at the same time denying it to others that is hard to swallow.

smr wrote:They were going to throw out Greece if they did not agree to stipulations of EU. The EU lay down the ultimatum to Greece. Dress the language up however Daryl sees fit but that does not change the reality of what the EU did. Why did the EU not address the major issue of unlimited immigration that caused Great Britain to leave the EU.

The highest four principles of the EU are:

Free movement of goods
Freedom of movement for workers
Right of establishment and freedom to provide services
Free movement of capital

Notice what's second? Telling Europe to get rid of it is like telling the USA to get rid of its second amendment.

As I've told Leave campaigners repeatedly, they want to look at who the Home Secretary of the UK for the last six years has been and get their answers regarding any perceived immigration failures from there.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 95341.html

"In real terms, EU immigration was up from 246,000 to 257,000, while non-EU immigration was down from 289,000 to 273,000." (2014 and 2015)

When that Home Secretary started the job in 2010, she had promised to bring it down to 100,000 a year by 2015. As you can see, that was totally unattainable and the EU is only responsible for the smaller part of it.

The rest of it was media coverage. SCREAMING media coverage.