CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Do we need an EU referendum thread? (Brexit thread)

(1832 posts)
  • Started 3 years ago by I were right about that saddle
  • Latest reply from Nelly

  1. LaidBack
    Member

    Court of Session getting involved. Cross party.
    http://www.thenational.scot/news/15790858.Legal_action_by_Scots_politicians_to_reverse_Brexit_gets_go_ahead/

    "The UK Government must respond within three weeks before the Court of Session sets a date to hear the case, which will centre on the legality of stopping the Article 50 withdrawal."

    Posted 9 months ago #
  2. neddie
    Member

    "A responsible government would be leading the British people to stay in Europe while also tackling, with massive vigour, the social and economic problems within Britain which contributed to the Brexit vote."

    This.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42514117

    Posted 9 months ago #
  3. chdot
    Admin

  4. LaidBack
    Member

  5. LaidBack
    Member

    Former FM Henry McLeish has written for National.
    He thinks / hopes that Jeremy Corbyn can now start to support customs union and single market despite workers in NE of England voting for Brexit.
    This would have to be coupled with more constructive relationship with Scotland and working with the fact that things are different here.
    http://www.thenational.scot/news/15811186.What_is_the_point_of_a_Britain_that_has_simply_lost_its_way_/

    Posted 9 months ago #
  6. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Henry, oh Henry. He'll know that page 28 of the 2017 Labour manifesto says; 'Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union.'

    The 'four freedoms' being inseparable that means no Single Market. And no 'benefits of the Single Market....which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses' either.

    Poor man must be horrified by what his party has become.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  7. unhurt
    Member

    I find I care much more viscerally about freedom of movement than I do about the single market. Maybe not sensible but I'm glad they can't be sliced apart...

    Posted 9 months ago #
  8. LaidBack
    Member

    The article by Henry McLeish really is confirming that Scotland woukd be better off running its own relationship with Europe. I don't think intermediaries in London care enough for affairs outside the metropolis.
    The old guard think the Brexit melt down means they can ignore any noises from north of the border - this is undermining the concept of the multi-national Britain concept. Demographically younger voters aren't wedded to the idea of Britain. Freedom of movement is very important for all Ireland(s) and also for Scotland.
    In indy ref a telling moment was when a train load of politicians visited Glasgow to deliver the 'Scotland, don't leave us'. Many people visit England several times a year - family and work connections etc. So with this and over 90% of media being from a southern perspective people in Scotland are pretty wel briefed on attitudes there. Younger generation though are more likely to fly directly to European destinations and are less interesed in London as the place. (I worked in London for four years btw!)

    Posted 9 months ago #
  9. chdot
    Admin

  10. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    The forthcoming stooshie is over this;

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0147/cbill_2017-20190147_en_2.htm#pb4-l1g11

    which proposes to remove competence from the Scottish parliament to legislate in areas which are both

    1) not currently reserved to Westminster and
    2) currently in the competence of the EU

    The Scotland Act 1998 was written on the understanding that everything not reserved elsewhere was in the competence of Holyrood. When the EU treaties cease to have effect here at 23h00 on 29/03/2019 Holyrood automatically gains legislative competence over agriculture and fisheries unless that's removed by Westminster.

    Insofar as the UK of GB&NI has a constitution this is part of it. Brexit means altering the foundations of the country and it would be nice if we got a say on that wouldn't it?

    Posted 9 months ago #
  11. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Scottish Secretary David Mundell is facing claims that he misled the Commons after it emerged controversial Brexit legislation at the centre of claims of a Westminster “power grab” will not be amended until it reaches the Lords.

    However, shortly before a deadline for amendments to be tabled at the Commons report stage yesterday, the UK government was forced to admit it would not keep its commitment, catching its own MPs off guard.

    "

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/brexit-david-mundell-facing-claims-he-misled-commons-over-withdrawal-bill-1-4657005

    Posted 9 months ago #
  12. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Yes, yes, leave it to the House of Lords where the Seventh Earl of Verulam, Baron Darling of Roulanish, Baron Reid of Cardowan etc will protect our interests as they promised.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  13. chdot
    Admin

    "leave it to the House of Lords"

    It's fine, the SNP is well represented there...

    Posted 9 months ago #
  14. chdot
    Admin

    Events dear boy -

    "

    It is understood Damian Green’s resignation as first secretary of state five days before the Christmas holiday was to blame. Green had been leading the UK government’s Brexit negotiations with the Scottish government.

    His departure meant there was no minister or special advisers in Whitehall able to shepherd the amendment through over the Christmas recess. Whitehall civil servants had already been resistant to changing that clause, claiming it was too complex to immediately devolve so many powers after Brexit.

    "

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/09/uk-government-misses-deadline-brexit-bill-scotland

    Posted 9 months ago #
  15. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Perhaps the SNP recognise that they have no one of sufficient calibre to take on the mantle and responsibilities of the upper chamber?

    Posted 9 months ago #
  16. steveo
    Member

    Yes, yes, leave it to the House of Lords

    More chance of the Lords kicking into the touch than the current lot of "commoners" on either side of the house.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  17. chdot
    Admin

    @AyeRight

    In which case they would be unique among political parties in acknowledging their shortcomings(?)!

    Posted 9 months ago #
  18. Frenchy
    Member

    In which case they would be unique among political parties in acknowledging their shortcomings(?)!

    The Scottish Greens also have a policy of not allowing members to be in the HoL (or more accurately, not allowing members of the HoL to be members of the SGP). The English and Welsh Greens do not have this policy, hence Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  19. Roibeard
    Member

    I'm somewhat ambivalent about the unelected upper chamber. I'm concerned that modern politics is smitten with popularism and short-term thinking, perhaps driven by the need to be re-elected.

    Having a second chamber that is implacable in the face of elections might be a good way to counteract this.

    The proposed unicameral (independent) Scottish parliament risked having limited checks - committees made up of those seeking re-election to scrutinise the government (also seeking re-election) didn't seem likely to be any less risky (if perhaps more cross-party than government).

    Perhaps the upper chamber should be a public service, like a jury, except I suspect that it requires professionalism beyond that of a jury (probably not provided by all the current Lords!) and the ordinary bod might not like to be called to that level of time commitment and study!

    Robert

    Posted 9 months ago #
  20. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Mmmh, yes. See also the Church of England having Baron Williams of Oystermouth (who seems like a lovely chap) voting in the Lords on Scotland's future whereas the Church of Scotland trusts in the LORD.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  21. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Perhaps the upper chamber should be a public service, like a jury

    I think this is an excellent idea. If the upper chamber just says 'Yes, think again or no' to the lower house's proposals then anyone could take part.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  22. steveo
    Member

    I think we need only look to our "closest" friends across the pond to see the effect of an elected/lower upper house system where both houses are elected from the same partisan pool.

    I’m fairly sure NZ only has a single house, not sure what their system of checks are though. They run a PR system which does work though so perhaps perpetual coalition is the check.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  23. wingpig
    Member

    "...perhaps driven by the need to be re-elected..."

    The House of People Who Somehow Persuaded Their Electorate to Elect Them would be a better name. Thence they could be selected to move up to a House of Unbiased Competence, had they exhibited such, whereupon they might start to decide on things, though only with reference and further checking/balancing by the House of Demonstrable Expertise consisting of non-career politicians and not infiltrated by lying lobbyists. They could even be virtual Houses so that everyone wouldn't have to move to London, particularly handy for the Experts who would ideally still be connected to their real jobs in some capacity whilst serving their terms.

    I appreciate that expertise and competence is sometimes developed/aided by being up to the elbows in the same thing day after day after day but you'd want some sort of shuffling in the government of other people to prevent the evil or incompetent from becoming embedded or hidden. The idea of government as a national service sort of thing pops up here and there in science fiction.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  24. chdot
    Admin

    “The House of People Who Somehow Persuaded Their Electorate to Elect Them would be a better name.“

    Not as such.

    The electorate merely endorses (or not) someone from a short list of people which contains the names of people selected from other lists of partisan people selected by a small number of self-selected people who have banded together (seldom harmoniously) under the banner of a “Party”.

    Perhaps seats should be allocated in proportion to the number of paid-up members each party has...

    Perhaps the HoL could have a section reserved for organisation that have large memberships.

    http://www.vaguelyinteresting.co.uk/2160/

    Posted 9 months ago #
  25. LaidBack
    Member

    This caught my eye... (from N). EU is surprised that Davis is surprised. Of course planning is not 'his thing'.

    Commenting on Davis’s letter, the EU expressed “surprise” at Davis’s complaints about its planning for a “no deal” Brexit given the scenario was first put forward by May.

    European Commission chief spokesman Margaritis Schinas told a daily Brussels briefing: “We are somehow surprised that the United Kingdom is surprised that we are preparing for a scenario announced by the UK Government itself.

    “After all, it was Prime Minister May herself who said in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017, and repeated in her Florence speech in September, that ‘no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain, it is right that the Government should prepare for every eventuality’.

    “So we take these words by the Prime Minister very seriously and it is therefore only natural that in this house we also prepare for every eventuality.”

    Has the time finally come for BritGov to put the whole thing out to tender? Could they employ a third party to negotiate for us? In the end it's just business with freedom of movement (or not) :-)

    PS Survey shows that most people here would 'tolerate' EU freedom of movement for a trade deal.
    63% in Scotland -10% more than rUK. Most media ignoring this as doesn't fit the one nation narrative.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  26. acsimpson
    Member

    from chdot's link

    4 The organisation’s formal name is the National Trust for Scotland for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty

    Is that right? I can find a reference to a closed company on companies house in that name but the charity regulator simply has The National Trust for Scotland.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  27. I were right about that saddle
    Member

  28. Ed1
    Member

    The House of People Who Somehow Persuaded Their Electorate to Elect Them would be a better name.“

    The trouble with British “democracy “ is you vote an mp who’s party intends to pass secret laws and rules, then they get in and pass secret and hidden laws and rules (often exempt from freedom of information) and the voter does not know what has voted for or what got.
    Take a local favourite Allister Darling for example ( all parties same in this respect) I don’t recall his fliers saying vote me to help labour pass secret regs to introduce a system of blocked/ suppressed number plates so government types can have their plates blocked from dvla system so can treat the road like a race track and may avoid paying insurance if crash and strong chance of avoiding prosecution for traffic offenses, no speed camera tickets or parking tickets, and a good chance of no trace. This was missing from the manifestoes. It was also missing when people discuss the government historically.
    Until the uk get rid of the secretary culture/ official secret act etc; then you don’t get what it says on the tin.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  29. neddie
    Member

    Either Farage is seeking self-interested publicity, or maybe, just maybe, he's afraid of the repercussions to him later in life of ruining the country.

    I suspect mostly the former, since he's been an unabashed publicity seeker since birth.

    Posted 9 months ago #
  30. unhurt
    Member

    Guy next table in Caffè Nero is having a barking mad conspiracy theory phone conversation about how the EU is a globalist banking conspiracy that wants a global army and has been funding and protecting ISIS. Russia is our true saviour apparently.

    Now we're on to the evils of immigration. Apparently the banks want immigration because we have to feed and house immrants and the banks gain from this by...

    Oh. He's onto the Rothschilds now.

    And religion - Jesus, Satan, Mohammed, all name checked.

    And JFK's assassination because he was going to shut down the federal banking system.

    This is conspiracy theory bingo. I'm not sure it's not performance art.

    Posted 9 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin