The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

.string.

I was watching a broadcast just now with Dvis facing a Commons Committee monitoring Brexit. (No SNP rep there ?? Surprised at that)

It went as one would expect,with no secrets of negotiation being divulged.

Apparently Davis's Brexit Dept will have around 400 people up from its present 200 (compared with 25 for the EU equivalent) plus what I would call "functional support" in ministries who support them with specialist analyses, so probably nearer the equivalent of 600 people full time in total. As one would expect, there are wide-ranging trade-off going on and much effort on interactions between different negotiation issues. I liked the approach.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's not only her. I've posted links before about this issue. I can't be bothered scrolling back though, but there was an LSE post that also indicated that Scotland should use Article 50 ( ie remove all references to Scotland ). Hold on, found it.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/a-brexit-could-make-it-easier-for-scotland-to-join-the-eu-as-an-independent-state/

Full article at link. This was written in March this year well before the referendum and nothing to do with Ms Douglas-Scott. Sometimes the very simplest solutions are also the best and most pragmatic. England and Wales leave via Article 50. Scotland doesn't. No need for veto's or long term reapplication's and admittance. Everyone's happy right ?

No one is saying there aren't massive challenges ahead on all sides regarding Brexit, lets face it. But the above solution has been advocated as a potential way forward by a few separate EU legal experts now. Is likely to be one the Scottish Govt explores in depth.

The term wishful thing has been used by many here (including you and me) in an aggressive way, but please believe me that when I use that term here I truly think that summarises that piece. I'm not trying to be rude, however much you might think I have succeeded in being just that. O truly do think it is wishful thinking without solid argumentation.

The article makes several assumptions that Article 50 could be used for this and that but does not take a piece of Article 50 text and show how it could be interpreted as claimed.

The full text if article 50 is:

"Document 12008M050
eur-lex.europa.euSeptember 5, 2008
Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article .

The article assumes that there is a unified approach to this by the UK which is not the case; it assumes that a Referendum can be held which is legal and it assumes that article 50, or rather the event of it can be used to persuade EU Member States to act in a way which was never foreseen by Article 50.

To come back to the start of my comments at least on this; Sturgeon is naturally aware of all this and in June went to Brussels to sound out the EU on, clearly, this approach. She was, however, rebuffed and in the light of the argumentation in these articles you have referenced, the forms of that rebuff reveal themselves as being direct answers to the major claims, specifically that Scotland a could not take the UK's seat at the Council's table and that an independent Scotland would have to apply as a new member, from scratch. That was quoted to have been said by EU officials as a response. I gave the remarks a few posts back.


I really don't think the argument stands, Shakey. But good try.

It may be that the SNP attempts, in a faux referendum, to persuade the Scots that their arguments are sound but they would soon be found out.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

The term wishful thing has been used by many here (including you and me) in an aggressive way, but please believe me that when I use that term here I truly think that summarises that piece. I'm not trying to be rude, however much you might think I have succeeded in being just that. O truly do think it is wishful thinking without solid argumentation.

The article makes several assumptions that Article 50 could be used for this and that but does not take a piece of Article 50 text and show how it could be interpreted as claimed.

The full text if article 50 is:

"Document 12008M050
eur-lex.europa.euSeptember 5, 2008
Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article .

The article assumes that there is a unified approach to this by the UK which is not the case; it assumes that a Referendum can be held which is legal and it assumes that article 50, or rather the event of it can be used to persuade EU Member States to act in a way which was never foreseen by Article 50.

To come back to the start of my comments at least on this; Sturgeon is naturally aware of all this and in June went to Brussels to sound out the EU on, clearly, this approach. She was, however, rebuffed and in the light of the argumentation in these articles you have referenced, the forms of that rebuff reveal themselves as being direct answers to the major claims, specifically that Scotland a could not take the UK's seat at the Council's table and that an independent Scotland would have to apply as a new member, from scratch. That was quoted to have been said by EU officials as a response. I gave the remarks a few posts back.


I really don't think the argument stands, Shakey. But good try.

It may be that the SNP attempts, in a faux referendum, to persuade the Scots that their arguments are sound but they would soon be found out.

No rules, no former precedents on a Brexit String. Don't get too hung up on legalities and rules that aren't there.

It'll be up to the EU as a whole how they interpret a Brexit and what it means for a possible independent Scotland. Easiest way all round is just to let England and Wales leave as they wish. And interpret Article 50 in order to let Scotland remain as they wish. There are no precedents here and is therefore completely useless quoting previous 'understandings' of Article 50.

ruggedtoast

The substantive change here is that previously the EU didn't want to have to accommodate some kind of internal balkanisation caused by Scottish independence. And was going to offer nothing to encourage it.

Scotland conversely didn't want to abandon the pound for the euro.

But thanks to England's red top inspired xenophobia, quite the opposite has occurred. Scottish Independence and immediate accession to the EU would be a massive coup for the EU. And adoption of the euro would be a price worth paying for Scots, whose noses have been tweaked once too often by their Southern neighbours.

Spain, enraged by Gibraltar, England's last petty bastion of imperialism, is not going to block Scotland from joining, and the rest of the EU is only to keen to show the world Scotland receiving the red carpet for remaining.

Meanwhile England's baffling obsession with pandering to right wing pensioners will be punished with the isolation it deserves.

This is a fantastic time to be Scottish, soon to become the anglophone and banking gateway to the EU, and an awful time to be English, a nation doomed to slowly disappear up its own 1950s timewarped derriere.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The substantive change here is that previously the EU didn't want to have to accommodate some kind of internal balkanisation caused by Scottish independence. And was going to offer nothing to encourage it.

Scotland conversely didn't want to abandon the pound for the euro.

But thanks to England's red top inspired xenophobia, quite the opposite has occurred. Scottish Independence and immediate accession to the EU would be a massive coup for the EU. And adoption of the euro would be a price worth paying for Scots, whose noses have been tweaked once too often by their Southern neighbours.

Spain, enraged by Gibraltar, England's last petty bastion of imperialism, is not going to block Scotland from joining, and the rest of the EU is only to keen to show the world Scotland receiving the red carpet for remaining.

Meanwhile England's baffling obsession with pandering to right wing pensioners will be punished with the isolation it deserves.

This is a fantastic time to be Scottish, soon to become the anglophone and banking gateway to the EU, and an awful time to be English, a nation doomed to slowly disappear up its own 1950s timewarped derriere.

and of course scotland has the one important ingredient that toxic toastie finds so essential : they are white christian and european so doesn't have his bigotry confronted and can maintain that all important isolation from the rest of the multiracial and multicultural world.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

So Toastie & others think this is a fantastic time for Scotland (and indeed anyone) to be in the EU, eh?
Poor souls.
There are many, many areas with the potential to derail the EU and soon, too - but these have been discussed (yes, even recently) and this is perhaps not the thread for that debate.

Well even Donald Tusk is at last accepting that the EU needs substantial change, saying:

Today many people, not only in the UK, think that being part of the European Union stands in the way of stability and security.

It would be a fatal error to assume that the negative result in the UK referendum represents a specifically British issue

But it is also true that the Brexit vote is a desperate attempt to answer the questions that millions of Europeans ask themselves daily, questions about the very essence of politics. Questions about the guarantees of security of the citizens and their territory, questions about the protection of their interests, cultural heritage and way of life. These are questions we would have to face even if the UK had voted to remain.

We do not have too much time to spare. Bratislava will have to be a turning point.....

There is more.
Here is the full statement:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/09/13-tusk-invitation-letter-bratislava/

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No rules, no former precedents on a Brexit String. Don't get too hung up on legalities and rules that aren't there.

It'll be up to the EU as a whole how they interpret a Brexit and what it means for a possible independent Scotland. Easiest way all round is just to let England and Wales leave as they wish. And interpret Article 50 in order to let Scotland remain as they wish. There are no precedents here and is therefore completely useless quoting previous 'understandings' of Article 50.

Rubbish, pure unadulterated BS, not even worth debating.

So the SNP intends to foist that silliness on the Scots. It is is so patently nonsense that it insults the common sense of anyone it is intended to convince.

It seems that the idea is out there in the spin factories of the SNP that there should be an SNP Referendum based on contrived grievances and a campaign based on yet another gaggle of untruths.

I call it an SNP Referendum deliberately because it's all about the SNP obsession with separation, not about what is good for Scotland and certainly not about informing Scots on the true facts of the choices before them, a d what is possible and not possible. It would be a Referendum based on SNP dogma and nowt else.

.string.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

So Toastie & others think this is a fantastic time for Scotland (and indeed anyone) to be in the EU, eh?
Poor souls.
There are many, many areas with the potential to derail the EU and soon, too - but these have been discussed (yes, even recently) and this is perhaps not the thread for that debate.

Well even Donald Tusk is at last accepting that the EU needs substantial change, saying:

There is more.
Here is the full statement:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/09/13-tusk-invitation-letter-bratislava/

I agree the EU is fragile, methinks more than Tusk realises, or rather states.

Tusk's opening remarks are interesting and, to some extent an acknowledgement that the nature of the EU was a contributing factor to Brexit.

Had the UK voted to remain I am positive that we would have been a powerful catalyst for reform, but we didn't and we'll have to live with that.

But the EU will also have to live with it. They should have an aim in their Brexit negotiations of ensuring that it is in the UK's interest that the EU does well. In the hardline attitude that the UK should suffer from leaving they are in danger of the UK eventually percieving that the EU has an anti-UK stance and is economically hostile and that it is therefore in the UK's best interest that the EU splits, disaffected Member States leaving to join forces with the UK in an alternative Trading Block. An invitation to do do would wreak havoc in European politics.

Verhofstadt's ill-advised remarks meddling in the UK's internal affairs regarding Scotland don't help either.

If the UK's interests in trade with the EU diminish, so will it's investment in its well being.

I might add that my own interest in the Single Market is diminishing as I come to realise it could be a bit of a straight-jacket even outside the EU.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Rubbish, pure unadulterated BS, not even worth debating.

So the SNP intends to foist that silliness on the Scots. It is is so patently nonsense that it insults the common sense of anyone it is intended to convince.

It seems that the idea is out there in the spin factories of the SNP that there should be an SNP Referendum based on contrived grievances and a campaign based on yet another gaggle of untruths.

I call it an SNP Referendum deliberately because it's all about the SNP obsession with separation, not about what is good for Scotland and certainly not about informing Scots on the true facts of the choices before them, a d what is possible and not possible. It would be a Referendum based on SNP dogma and nowt else.

It'll be up to the EU string, not the SNP or Westminster. Using Article 50 is a potential way forward. Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean it's not possible.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It'll be up to the EU string, not the SNP or Westminster. Using Article 50 is a potential way forward. Just because you don't like the idea doesn't mean it's not possible.

What drivel!
It is up to both the EU AND the UK - though not perhaps quite as much the EU as you seem to imagine.

Just imagine:
The UK could - and I do stress "COULD" - say to the EU:
"We invoke Article 50. We will continue with the minimum required of us under current agreements until our two years hence - unless unreasonable demands are placed upon us, in which case take note that we will consider this a breach of existing EU Treaties and terminate our membership immediately."

What - reasonably (if you can manage that) could the EU do?
Legally, breaking a treaty signed with the UK would make it extremely difficult to seek any redress.
Also it could not force the UK into retaining membership.
And Scotland (like it or not) are STILL part of the UK.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

I draw your attention in particular to:

In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State

The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.

So potentially (to simplify) :
1* Article 50 presented to EU.
2* Loads of waffle, infighting & disagreement - but neither side agrees on future EU "wants".
3* Two years on, "goodbye".
The Lisbon Treaty itself clearly makes that scenario an option.