The result of the EU referendum:

[jakswan]

It looks increasingly likely a variation of the Norway option is going to be the way to go. This would involve the 52% and 48% having to compromise on a few issues.

Free Trade - as now but UK retakes control of fishing, ability to negotiate our own free trade deals. Noticed that Australia and New Zealand have already stated they want to do a deal.
Contribution - Nett as now although UK take back control of £10 billion.
Sovereignty - UK takes back control but has to conform with any rules that apply to things sold in free market.
Free Movement - not sure of the difference between free movement of people and free movement of labour. The Britis won't be an EU citizens anymore. From what I've read Norway can apply time limited brakes to immigration, the Swiss can limit Croatians, so its possible EU would make some concessions.

The Tories are in control so I'm expecting the Tory leader candidates to campaign advocating an EU position, once one gets elected they will then announce another General election (especially if Labour spilt). All parties will have positions on the EU in their manifesto and whoever wins that is what will happen.

[jeremyp]

It looks increasingly likely a variation of the Norway option is going to be the way to go. This would involve the 52% and 48% having to compromise on a few issues.

Actually, it would be a loss for the Leavers.

Free Trade - as now but UK retakes control of fishing, ability to negotiate our own free trade deals. Noticed that Australia and New Zealand have already stated they want to do a deal.

Norway had to do a deal with the EU on fisheries. Likely we would too and it would probably be as good as the one we have now or worse.

Contribution - Nett as now although UK take back control of £10 billion.

How will we be "taking back control" if the contribution will be roughly the same as now?

Sovereignty - UK takes back control but has to conform with any rules that apply to things sold in free market.

You failed to demonstrate that we had ever lost any sovereignty.

Free Movement - not sure of the difference between free movement of people and free movement of labour.

Free movement of labour means you have to let people go where the jobs are or let the jobs go where the people are, but you could, theoretically come down hard on tourists.

The Britis won't be an EU citizens anymore. From what I've read Norway can apply time limited brakes to immigration, the Swiss can limit Croatians, so its possible EU would make some concessions.

The EU will not be making concessions. You live in fantasy land.

The Tories are in control so I'm expecting the Tory leader candidates to campaign advocating an EU position, once one gets elected they will then announce another General election (especially if Labour spilt). All parties will have positions on the EU in their manifesto and whoever wins that is what will happen.

This is the first time we have agreed about anything on this. There is a big danger that the only party that campaigns with a "we will trigger article 50" position is UKIP which means UKIP will make significant gains but, hopefully, not enough (from my point of view) to cause Brexit.

[JP]

Not sure if anyone heard it yesterday but Radio 4 Law in Action, 3 x professors of European law discussing the legal aspects. No hyperbole, just what is and what is not possibe under the law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07kdsdl

BTW, from what they said, although it looks good for public consumption, Nicola is completely and utterly wasting her time.

[L.A.]

Not sure if anyone heard it yesterday but Radio 4 Law in Action, 3 x professors of European law discussing the legal aspects. No hyperbole, just what is and what is not possibe under the law.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07kdsdl

BTW, from what they said, although it looks good for public consumption, Nicola is completely and utterly wasting her time.

I'm not sure that she is actually wasting here time. She can't legally stop the process, but if she is seen to do everything she possible can do and is overridden by the UK government - that might strengthen the case for independence.

[jakswan]

Actually, it would be a loss for the Leavers.

Why? They did actually lose so isn't that fair?

Norway had to do a deal with the EU on fisheries. Likely we would too and it would probably be as good as the one we have now or worse.

Norway are outside of the Common Fisheries Policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Fisheries_Policy

How will we be "taking back control" if the contribution will be roughly the same as now?

£20 billion gross, £10 billion nett, the £10billion we do get back is in control of the EU. We would be able to reform CAP, choose how the money is spent.

You failed to demonstrate that we had ever lost any sovereignty.

We would have our own supreme court.

Free movement of labour means you have to let people go where the jobs are or let the jobs go where the people are, but you could, theoretically come down hard on tourists.

As I understand it, if someone has a job they would be free to come to UK, if they don't they will be able to come as a tourist. They would not be able to claim out of work benefits? Not sure.

The EU will not be making concessions. You live in fantasy land.

Oh well just as well leave then, the Swiss have some concessions already how did they get them if the EU do not make concessions?

This is the first time we have agreed about anything on this. There is a big danger that the only party that campaigns with a "we will trigger article 50" position is UKIP which means UKIP will make significant gains but, hopefully, not enough (from my point of view) to cause Brexit.

So far every senior UK wide politician has indicated that they will "respect the result" apart from the LibDems (not sure about Greens). So we don't seem to agree.

Its getting really hard to predict anything in current climate but I can see; Corbyn winning leadership contest, centre left MP's joining LibDems en masse winning the early GE on a "we're not leaving" policy, UKIP a spent force, Tories in opposition and Labour more a socialist protest party. Wow I'd probably get odds of 10,000 to 1 on that. Result: UK remains

I can also see; somehow Labour remains a broad church but fails utterly in early GE, UKIP still banging on about immigration does well, LibDems much better as I think the 48% will easily flip to LibDems, Tories win the election possibly having to go into a coalition again. Result: UK leaves with Norway type deal.

Finally, no early GE, then it depends who becomes Prime Minister, most likely Boris who will go for a Norway type deal anyway, actually wasn't Boris suggesting negotiations early on in the campaign.

[jakswan]

I'm not sure that she is actually wasting here time. She can't legally stop the process, but if she is seen to do everything she possible can do and is overridden by the UK government - that might strengthen the case for independence.

Posturing is a skill she excels at.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure that she is actually wasting here time. She can't legally stop the process, but if she is seen to do everything she possible can do and is overridden by the UK government - that might strengthen the case for independence.

Indeed as previously noted elsewhere, the Scottish Govt has made clear it does not have a veto but witholding legislative consent puts it in the position of being over ridden. At no time did Nicola state that it had a veto.

[Bubbles]

Wrong. At least mine hasn't been.

You're a total idiot. Don't you understand how pensions work? You make contributions which get invested in the venal financial system so that they grow in value in real terms. Destroy the financial system and you destroy all pensions.

Which countries?


Oh just fuck off. British spirit doesn't pay the heating bill.

No but we can cuddle up together 

[Bubbles]

I'm not sure that she is actually wasting here time. She can't legally stop the process, but if she is seen to do everything she possible can do and is overridden by the UK government - that might strengthen the case for independence.

Wasting her time or not, I think she has to be seen to try and do the best for Scotland she can.

What other option does she have? Given that most Scots voted to stay.

Even if you take independance out of the question altogether, I think she still has to do it.

Because she is representing the majority vote in Scotland.

She can't afford to have the same accusation thrown at her that was thrown at Jeremy Corbin, that she was ineffective.

She has to be seen to be pulling out all the stops even if it is hopeless.

[Nearly Sane]

Interesting article by Aidan O'Neill

https://eutopialaw.com/2016/06/28/englands-difficulty-scotlands-opportunity/

[jeremyp]

lBTW, from what they said, although it looks good for public consumption, Nicola is completely and utterly wasting her time.

About what? Having a new referendum or trying to veto the article 50 invocation?

[JP]

About what? Having a new referendum or trying to veto the article 50 invocation?

Is that what she is off to see Junker about?

[Nearly Sane]

And a blog from Face Palm Man

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/andriukaitis/blog/thoughts-weareseat123_en

[jeremyp]

Why? They did actually lose so isn't that fair?

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

Norway are outside of the Common Fisheries Policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Fisheries_Policy

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?

£20 billion gross, £10 billion nett, the £10billion we do get back is in control of the EU. We would be able to reform CAP, choose how the money is spent.

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.

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.

We would have our own supreme court.

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.

As I understand it, if someone has a job they would be free to come to UK, if they don't they will be able to come as a tourist. They would not be able to claim out of work benefits? Not sure.

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.

Oh well just as well leave then, the Swiss have some concessions already how did they get them if the EU do not make concessions?

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 far every senior UK wide politician has indicated that they will "respect the result" apart from the LibDems (not sure about Greens). So we don't seem to agree.

We will see.

Finally, no early GE, then it depends who becomes Prime Minister, most likely Boris who will go for a Norway type deal anyway, actually wasn't Boris suggesting negotiations early on in the campaign.

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

[jeremyp]

Is that what she is off to see Junker about?

She is off to talk to Junker about Scotland joining the EU. That's not a waste of time even if the answer is no (it won't be).

[JP]

She is off to talk to Junker about Scotland joining the EU. That's not a waste of time even if the answer is no (it won't be).

Scotland needs to be an independent country to join the EU. Others have refused to talk to her as she is not a representative of the governent of the UK which Scotland is a part, however she will have a new best friend in Junker.

[jeremyp]

Scotland needs to be an independent country to join the EU.

Yes. It is going to be an independent country. If article 50 goes in, that is inevitable.

Others have refused to talk to her as she is not a representative of the governent of the UK which Scotland is a part, however she will have a new best friend in Junker.

I expect her to be the first Prime Minister of independent Scotland since 1707. Then they will talk to her.

[JP]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

And being listened to. And what she does now helps create that future.

[JP]

To be honest the UK vote has done her a favour. If Salmond had got the vote he wanted Scotland would have left the EU. Now they will already be out so the first step is complete. Now all his sidekick needs to do is get the vote he failed to get.

[JP]

And being listened to. And what she does now helps create that future.

By someone else who also has a dislike for the UK. Others in the EU hierarchy seem to have a bit more common sense.

[Nearly Sane]

To be honest the UK vote has done her a favour. If Salmond had got the vote he wanted Scotland would have left the EU. Now they will already be out so the first step is complete. Now all his sidekick needs to do is get the vote he failed to get.

I am unconvinced that Scotland will be out. The lack of plans and lack of precedent make such predictions mere flummery. Lawyers are all very well but this is politics. It is a very different beast especially given this is international law, a ghost of its civil parent.

[Nearly Sane]

By someone else who also has a dislike for the UK. Others in the EU hierarchy seem to have a bit more common sense.

Ah the 'common sense argument'. She us being listened to and you seem to think it was just two people. Given you are factually incorrect, can I ask what you mean by common sens?

[jeremyp]

Thanks for the reply, but Scotland is not an independant country.

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.

What may happen in the future is another thing, but at the moment all she is doing, is posturing.

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.

[JP]

I am unconvinced that Scotland will be out. The lack of plans and lack of precedent make such predictions mere flummery. Lawyers are all very well but this is politics. It is a very different beast especially given this is international law, a ghost of its civil parent.

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