The result of the EU referendum:

[Aruntraveller]

It is quite clear that the SNP wishes Scotland to be in the EU if it becomes independent.

Any statement to the contrary is just bollocks.

[ad_orientem]

Though only God knows why.

[Spud]

The problem I have with the EU is the language barrier. I feel comfortable with France, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc, as we all learn one or more of their languages anyway at school. When it comes to the Slavic languages, however, I have doubts about giving countries whose languages most of us can't understand such unlimited access to Britain.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The thought formers in this country will be happy to leave Europe because.
1) They will gain personally
2) Fellow countrymen will be in the shit thus improving the chances of cheap labour.
3) Non EU migrants are cheaper to hire....better for the cheap labour. 

There in a nutshell is the no campaign

When are you guys going to learn the real meaning of Cameron's alleged 'failure' to reduce immigration?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Steve Baker MP leader of new Conservative party pressure group for gross repatriation of powers has stated that British people do not want a cap on immigration as much as wanting immigration decided in London.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, it won't be on 6th May 2016, if we find out date by ruling dates out it may take some time

[Hope]

It is quite clear that the SNP wishes Scotland to be in the EU if it becomes independent.

Any statement to the contrary is just bollocks.

I think the problem is that whatever the SNP wants is unlikely to match reality, if EU rules are adhered to - and from my experience of the EU, they usually are unless you are France or Germany when they are occasionally 'overlooked'.  In other words, a vote for Scottish Independence will initially see Scotland having to leave the EU, apply for admission as with any other country - and there is no guarantee that that application would be successful.

[Nearly Sane]

It is quite clear that the SNP wishes Scotland to be in the EU if it becomes independent.

Any statement to the contrary is just bollocks.

I think the problem is that whatever the SNP wants is unlikely to match reality, if EU rules are adhered to - and from my experience of the EU, they usually are unless you are France or Germany when they are occasionally 'overlooked'.

Before we get onto this argument are you now accepting that when you stated they wanted to leave, you were wrong?

[Nearly Sane]

And for when we do get onto the discussion, the post below is s good starting point in terms of the rules rather then the politics. It's a little old but the actual rules haven't changed.

http://tinyurl.com/c5lm5ke

[Nearly Sane]

And o have posted this before but it is a good clear look at the issues and politics.


http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/independent-scotland-eu-2/

[Hope]

Before we get onto this argument are you now accepting that when you stated they wanted to leave, you were wrong?

NS, I have never stated that they wanted to leave; I have stated that their policy for independence is tantamount to wanting to leave - as the policy would require them to do so.  I have tried to make the distinction clear every time I've dealt with the issue.

[Hope]

And for when we do get onto the discussion, the post below is s good starting point in terms of the rules rather then the politics. It's a little old but the actual rules haven't changed.

http://tinyurl.com/c5lm5ke

The problem, as I see it, is that if Scotland were to opt for independence, they would be withdrawing from an existing EU member state.  As such, they would be choosing to withdraw themselves from any international treaty/ies that they were part of as members of the UK.  As such, they would have to negotiate re-entry into those treaties.  If the boot were to be on the other foot, and the 'rUK' was to vote to effectively expel them from the United Kingdom, then I think that a better case could be found for allowing them to remain within those treaties.

I have to admit that I hadn't really thought about the possibility that Scottish Independence might effectively see both elements 'outside' the treaties, as David suggests - or at least implies could happen - might occur.

[Nearly Sane]

Nicola Sturgeon warns of EU exit 'backlash'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729

Yikes this is a dangerous game, Sturgeon is toxic in many parts of the UK, threatening them is going to lead to voters away from a Yes. It this stupid or very clever as it delivers what SNP wants, another referendum.

I think it is the latter, as it is clear the SNP secretly wants Scotland out of the EU - their leaders just don't want that to get into the public domain.

By the way - and we were discussing this in the TWAM unit in Penarth this morning - how long will it take for a newly-independent Scotland to be expelled from the EU?

See comment above that the SNP leadership quite clearly secretly want out of the EU

[Nearly Sane]

 

And for when we do get onto the discussion, the post below is s good starting point in terms of the rules rather then the politics. It's a little old but the actual rules haven't changed.

http://tinyurl.com/c5lm5ke

The problem, as I see it, is that if Scotland were to opt for independence, they would be withdrawing from an existing EU member state.  As such, they would be choosing to withdraw themselves from any international treaty/ies that they were part of as members of the UK.  As such, they would have to negotiate re-entry into those treaties.  If the boot were to be on the other foot, and the 'rUK' was to vote to effectively expel them from the United Kingdom, then I think that a better case could be found for allowing them to remain within those treaties.

I have to admit that I hadn't really thought about the possibility that Scottish Independence might effectively see both elements 'outside' the treaties, as David suggests - or at least implies could happen - might occur.

Do you know David Edward? I have to admit that having only met him once, I wouldn't feel comfortable referring to him as David. As he points out, while treaties need renegotiated the assumption from his point of view is that this would take place prior to separation. It does call into question the timescales put forward but not the feasibility. Further since you are disagreeing with his position, can you out up your legal qualifications?

[Nearly Sane]

I see that Labour have abstained on the amendment to reinforce govt purdah on run up to referendum. With the Tory rebels and SNP and others they could have got it introduced.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is quite clear that the SNP wishes Scotland to be in the EU if it becomes independent.

Any statement to the contrary is just bollocks.

I think the problem is that whatever the SNP wants is unlikely to match reality, if EU rules are adhered to - and from my experience of the EU, they usually are unless you are France or Germany when they are occasionally 'overlooked'.  In other words, a vote for Scottish Independence will initially see Scotland having to leave the EU, apply for admission as with any other country - and there is no guarantee that that application would be successful.

Highly unlikely they would be turned down.

[Hope]

Highly unlikely they would be turned down.

That's not what Barroso (iirc) suggested prior to the September 2014 referendum.

[Hope]

Do you know David Edward? I have to admit that having only met him once, I wouldn't feel comfortable referring to him as David.

Not that this is particularly relevant but I called him David because I thought the article referred to him as Edward David: I may have been wrong. 

Regarding his point about treaties having to be renegotiated, I understand that such a process can take some time, especially when there are so many countries who such renegotiations have to be agreed by.  I suspect that the 2 year limit he refers to might well be breached.

[Hope]

Nicola Sturgeon warns of EU exit 'backlash'
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32961729

Yikes this is a dangerous game, Sturgeon is toxic in many parts of the UK, threatening them is going to lead to voters away from a Yes. It this stupid or very clever as it delivers what SNP wants, another referendum.

I think it is the latter, as it is clear the SNP secretly wants Scotland out of the EU - their leaders just don't want that to get into the public domain.

By the way - and we were discussing this in the TWAM unit in Penarth this morning - how long will it take for a newly-independent Scotland to be expelled from the EU?

See comment above that the SNP leadership quite clearly secretly want out of the EU

I thought that I'd put a smiley emoticon after that comment.  Obviously I didn't.  My apologies. 

[Nearly Sane]

Do you know David Edward? I have to admit that having only met him once, I wouldn't feel comfortable referring to him as David.

Not that this is particularly relevant but I called him David because I thought the article referred to him as Edward David: I may have been wrong. 

Regarding his point about treaties having to be renegotiated, I understand that such a process can take some time, especially when there are so many countries who such renegotiations have to be agreed by.  I suspect that the 2 year limit he refers to might well be breached.

Well we will just out your getting his name wrong to a misreading, but why cut out the bit in my post where I mentioned the issue with timescales?

Oh and on Barroso, he did suggest it would be difficult if not impossible for Scotland to join/continue membership on the basis of Spain being likely to object which subsequently to that the Spanish govt denied.

[Hope]

Oh and on Barroso, he did suggest it would be difficult if not impossible for Scotland to join/continue membership on the basis of Spain being likely to object which subsequently to that the Spanish govt denied.

I didn't hear or read the bit about Spain objecting.  I'd actually understood him to have referenced some of the newer, ex-Eastern Bloc nations.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh and on Barroso, he did suggest it would be difficult if not impossible for Scotland to join/continue membership on the basis of Spain being likely to object which subsequently to that the Spanish govt denied.

I didn't hear or read the bit about Spain objecting.  I'd actually understood him to have referenced some of the newer, ex-Eastern Bloc nations.

Only in relation to Spanish objection see link, which also includes a dissenting opinion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26278237

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Highly unlikely they would be turned down.

That's not what Barroso (iirc) suggested prior to the September 2014 referendum.

Scare tactics. people spout Bollocks and sometimes people swallow it. George Osborne is particularly gifted at it. In fact I can envisage a time when they lumpen yeomen realise that he is billying them but string along within because the love him.

[Nearly Sane]

At a complete loss with this argument on the electorate and franchise


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/letting-teenagers-vote-make-vulnerable-5905830

[Nearly Sane]

And the amendment to change electoral role to allow 16/17 year olds to vote is defeated 310- 265