The result of the EU referendum:

[jakswan]

It would be a loss for the Leavers because, with a Norway style deal, the main difference compared to now is that we won't have voting rights in the EU. All the reasons given for leaving would not happen. The immigration rules would be the same as now. The need to abide by European regulations would be the same as now. The need to pay money to the EU would be nearly the same as now.

There are some losses on both sides, its a compromise.

There would be no change except we have slightly less control over the rules which is the opposite of what the Leavers want.

No, rules that apply to the single market would applied the rest of the rules return to UK.

But they have separate bilateral treaties with the EU on fishing. Do you think the EU is in any mood to give us a better deacon fishing than what we have now?

They are our waters, any deals to fish there are within the control of the UK not the EU.

All the people that currently get EU grants will be begging the government to maintain them. If we don't maintain them, it spells catastrophe for the people that receive them. For instance, if you get rid of farming subsidies, most farms would immediately go out of business.

I never mentioned getting rid of them suggest you understand the differance between "reform" and "abolish".

Furthermore, when you say "we" you mean "the new right wing Conservative government". Chances are that £10 billion will just fund a very small income tax cut.

The one that gets elected, if that is in their manifesto and they get elected.

You mean like the one we already have?

There is no evidence, by the way, that European courts are less able to apply justice correctly than British ones.

But British courts rule over Britain not any EU courts.

I thought we already had some leeway not to give new immigrants out of work benefits. Anyway, after a while, you have to start giving them money so they don't go round starving to death in the streets.

Not that it is a huge problem, most immigrants who can't get work just go home. On average, EU immigrants contribute more to the Treasury than they take out.

OK so not a huge problem, we agree.

The Swiss were never in the EU. The EU will play hardball with us because, politically, we can't be seen to get a good deal.

So we are best to leave then and not join the EEA?

I think that's the most likely outcome but it represents defeat for the Leavers.

The leavers wanted to leave the EU, we would have left, spin that to defeat if it helps you get through the day!

[Gordon]

Thanks for the reply, but Scotland is not an independant country. What may happen in the future is another thing, but at the moment all she is doing, is posturing.

Or she is making useful contacts for future substantive discussions.

I expect it will be time well spent since it seems (having just watched PMQ's) that this idiocy of Brexit will go ahead and since, hopefully, the door of No.10 will shortly have a 'Welcome Boris' banner on it.

Given the combination of both these disasters I'd expect that many more of us Scots will vote to ditch the UK compared with 2014, when we were assured that if we left the UK we'd be out of the EU: the irony of recent events hasn't been missed, and the prospect of PM Boris is simply perverse and unacceptable.
   

[Nearly Sane]

The three professors on European law who were on radio 4 yesterday disagree with you.

that's nice. As noted they are talking about law, I'm talking about politics.

[Nearly Sane]

How is a Norway deal a compromise? The vote was to be in or out. Norway is out.

[JP]

Basic English lesson 2: The future tense

If somebody says "x is going to y" it means it will happen at some point in the future but isn't happening right now. So when I wrote

"Scotland is going to be independent (nb spelling of "independent")"

I was saying Scotland is not independent now but it will be in the future.
There is no "may" about it. It will happen if article 50 is triggered (that's one of the reasons Boris has got cold feet).  What Sturgeon is doing now is making sure that, when it happens, there will be a coherent plan for getting back into the EU. If the EU Leavers had been as thoughtful, maybe we wouldn't be in the current mess.

And the patronising post makes it. Typo on my part. If you care to look at #2615 you will see the correct spelling, and I also get the tense thing thank you. Can you grasp we were talking about different things, I am in the here and now, not in some mythical place where Scotland may be in a year or two depending on how this whole thing pans out.

[JP]

that's nice. As noted they are talking about law, I'm talking about politics.

But the EU has legislation about joining.

[Nearly Sane]

But the EU has legislation about joining.

and how do you think legislation gets made?

[JP]

Don't ask me I'm a thicko. Perhaps Jeremy might help me out.

[Nearly Sane]

Don't ask me I'm a thicko. Perhaps Jeremy might help me out.

But I am asking you.

[L.A.]

Or she is making useful contacts for future substantive discussions.

She is being seen talking to the EU just when they have announced that they won't negotiate with the UK:

"First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is holding a series of meetings with leading EU officials on her visit to Brussels to discuss Brexit."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36656980

I'd say that was quite a result for her.

I expect it will be time well spent since it seems (having just watched PMQ's) that this idiocy of Brexit will go ahead and since, hopefully, the door of No.10 will shortly have a 'Welcome Boris' banner on it.

God help us!

Given the combination of both these disasters I'd expect that many more of us Scots will vote to ditch the UK compared with 2014, when we were assured that if we left the UK we'd be out of the EU: the irony of recent events hasn't been missed, and the prospect of PM Boris is simply perverse and unacceptable.

I would be very surprised if the independence vote didn't go through this time.

[jeremyp]

There are some losses on both sides, its a compromise.

Oh yes, Remain has already lost. A Norway type deal means that Leave loses too. Everyone's a loser.

No, rules that apply to the single market would applied the rest of the rules return to UK.

What rules are those?

They are our waters, any deals to fish there are within the control of the UK not the EU.

We can say "British waters for British fishermen only". The EU can then say "OK no British fishermen in EU waters" or they could say "no deal, bye".  What will happen is we will have a bilateral deal with the EU which will look remarkably like the common fisheries policy except a bit worse for British fishermen.

I never mentioned getting rid of them suggest you understand the differance between "reform" and "abolish".

Even reform means taking money away from some people who get it now. Which EU grants would you take away from whom?

The one that gets elected, if that is in their manifesto and they get elected.

We can hope for a general election but there doesn't need to be one until 2020.

But British courts rule over Britain not any EU courts.

While we are in the EU we are under the jurisdiction of their courts. What's the problem? Do you think them incompetent?

So we are best to leave then and not join the EEA?

How is that relevant? The Swiss got a relatively good deal from the eU because they have not tried to wreck the EU project. We won't get that deal because we can't be seen to benefit from what we have just done.

The leavers wanted to leave the EU, we would have left, spin that to defeat if it helps you get through the day!

Because the objectives of the Leavers were never just to leave the EU. There were allegedly many benefits to doing so, none of which will be realised if we enter into a Norway type deal.

[jeremyp]

And the patronising post makes it.

You deserved it. I made the point that Scotland is going to be independent and you tried to rebut it by saying it is not independent now. The spelling thing was a bit childish, I admit.

Can you grasp we were talking about different things, I am in the here and now, not in some mythical place where Scotland may be in a year or two depending on how this whole thing pans out.

You are basing your arguments on erroneous reasoning. You say Scotland is not independent therefore Sturgeon is wasting her time. You are effectively saying she should not be planning for the future. I say good for her and, if only the Leavers had planned for the future.

[jeremyp]

But the EU has legislation about joining.

Does it have legislation to say that independent Scotland cannot join? If not, then why shouldn't Nicola Sturgeon plan for the future?

[Bubbles]

No some people in Scotland want to be independant.

It's not a certainty.

We don't have to offer it.

They had their vote.

It would have to be agreed by London.

London can say no.

[jeremyp]

No some people in Scotland want to be independant.

It's not a certainty.

We don't have to offer it.

They had their vote.

It would have to be agreed by London.

London can say no.

Can you imagine what would happen if Scotland said "can we have a new referendum please" and they were denied by the UK government?

[wigginhall]

We wanted to leave the EU, but we won't allow you to leave the UK.   Yeah, right.

[JP]

But I am asking you.

There is legislation in place regarding membership of the EU, this law is made by politicians. What is your point?

[JP]

You deserved it. [......]

Really, for disagreeing with you on an internet forum where I am talking about the present situation, not one that may exist somewhere in the future, timescale unknown, after who knows what wrangling will take place. There is a lot of mileage in this yet, it could be years away. The people who are Nicola's new best friends may not even be there when that time comes.

For this you are patronising enough to point out a typio when I had previously, on other occasions spelt the same word correctly.

Is there not a "law" on t'internet about that, akin to Godwin's where if you need to be so trivial it is an admission you are losing.

[Nearly Sane]

There is legislation in place regarding membership of the EU, this law is made by politicians. What is your point?

So if the politics changes what happens?

[JP]

So if the politics changes what happens?

It's your bag, you tell me.

My point is that there is legislation in place which sets out the criteria a country needs to meet when they apply to join the EU. This is written into EU law and applies to all applications.

[jakswan]

Everyone's a loser.

I disagree and I think it is what will happen. I don't think there is much point in debating further your asserting things will happen which you can't possibly know.

[Nearly Sane]

It's your bag, you tell me.

My point is that there is legislation in place which sets out the criteria a country needs to meet when they apply to join the EU. This is written into EU law and applies to all applications.

And is changeable, and adaptable based on politics.

[JP]

And is changeable, and adaptable based on politics.

Are you suggesting the EU politicians will change the legal requirements for entry.

[Bubbles]

I disagree and I think it is what will happen. I don't think there is much point in debating further your asserting things will happen which you can't possibly know.

Jeremy is unable to accept its going to happen.

He's in denial.

[ProfessorDavey]

No some people in Scotland want to be independant.

It's not a certainty.

We don't have to offer it.

They had their vote.

It would have to be agreed by London.

London can say no.

Wrong - Westminster cannot stop the government in Holyrood running a second referendum in Scotland - that is entirely in the hands of the Scottish parliament. What Westminster can do is refuse to acknowledge its validity and refuse to act on it. But that would be tricky and would open a can of worms if they were accepting the validity of the EU referendum. Note that both would merely be 'advisory' in legal terms.