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

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

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."

Well let's all bow to your superior knowledge of EU law shall we and discount any constitutional lawyers from knowing what they're talking about. They say it's possible. So, it's possible, and I'd say extremely likely going forward.

Terminating EU treaties immediately might pose a little bit of a problem for devolved parliaments.

The convention was formalised in the Scotland Act 2016 which provides that “it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.” A second part of the convention (despite not appearing in the 2016 Act) is that the same consent will be sought for Westminster legislation to alter the Scottish Parliament’s powers.

This convention is potentially relevant to Brexit on the basis that, as matters currently stand, the Scottish Parliament and Government are forbidden from breaching EU law. Some constitutional lawyers therefore argue that any legislation by Westminster to give effect to Brexit would require amendments to the Scottish Parliament’s powers to remove that prohibition on breaching EU law, and so engage the convention that Westminster should seek Holyrood’s consent before amending the scope of its powers.

Whether or not this conclusion is correct, the key point from a legal perspective is that the convention is just that: it is not binding in law. A failure by the UK Parliament to seek consent would have purely political ramifications: as would a refusal by the Scottish Parliament to give that consent. That the ramifications would be political rather than legal does not of course diminish their potential importance.

http://www.brodies.com/blog/scottish-parliament-veto-brexit/

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:

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.

So potentially, to simplify Northern Ireland is already taking Westminster to court in October with reference to legislative consent. There are a lot of grey areas which could potentially mean both Northern Ireland, and Scotland miring any Brexit withdrawal in the courts for quite some time. Sturgeon said today she'll be watching the NI case closely.

It may well be two years 'goodbye' for England and Wales. NI and Scotland.. While even if the legalities were to be over ruled, would cause a political s***storm because English and Welsh MP's will have to do the voting to do so. That'll go down well.

Teresa Villiers, the Northern Ireland Secretary, has said Westminster can over-ride this, and it certainly can. The constitution is reserved. Westminster retains overall sovereignty. But MPs would have would have to vote to overturn Holyrood’s LCM motion and that isn’t just a formality.

The above was only one of loads of links I found discussing this all with differing opinions. England and Wales might leave via Article 50, but you can bet your bottom dollar the Scottish Govt and probably NI too will do anything it takes not to be included. NI has already made moves.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well let's all bow to your superior knowledge of EU law shall we and discount any constitutional lawyers from knowing what they're talking about. They say it's possible. So, it's possible, and I'd say extremely likely going forward.

Terminating EU treaties immediately might pose a little bit of a problem for devolved parliaments.

http://www.brodies.com/blog/scottish-parliament-veto-brexit/
So potentially, to simplify Northern Ireland is already taking Westminster to court in October with reference to legislative consent. There are a lot of grey areas which could potentially mean both Northern Ireland, and Scotland miring any Brexit withdrawal in the courts for quite some time. Sturgeon said today she'll be watching the NI case closely.

It may well be two years 'goodbye' for England and Wales. NI and Scotland.. While even if the legalities were to be over ruled, would cause a political s***storm because English and Welsh MP's will have to do the voting to do so. That'll go down well. The above was only one of loads of links I found discussing this all with differing opinions. England and Wales might leave via Article 50, but you can bet your bottom dollar the Scottish Govt and probably NI too will do anything it takes not to be included. NI has already made moves.

Firstly, you are aware that spreading increasing amounts of manure does not necessarily mean an increase in the quality of said manure?
What it does mean is an increase in the smell.


EU law is quoted letter and verse in my post.
YOU are the one arguing with that.
Now do you really believe that lawyers say the things you suggest purely from the goodness of their hearts?
Seriously?
NO - lawyers will tell you what you want to hear - IF they think that they can make bucketloads of money out of it.
And using a legal blog to support your mischief - well, note this from your link:

Some constitutional lawyers therefore argue

As for NI taking Westminster to court for the reasons you suggest - let's have some evidence of what you suggest?

I have to say though, your sheer determination to provide ANYTHING which supports your stance in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary puts a huge smile in my face.

.string.

[url=
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/06/26/brexit-can-scotland-block-brexit/]
Can Scotland block Brexit?[/url]

Devolution notwithstanding, the UK Parliament — i.e. the Westminister Parliament — is sovereign. Among other things, that means that Westminster has not given away any of its powers to devolved legislatures like the Scottish Parliament. As a matter of strict law, the UK Parliament has merely authorised the devolved legislatures to make laws on certain matters, without relinquishing its own authority to make law on any matter it chooses — including devolved matters.

Bottom line:

The devolved politics of Brexit are immensely complex and may turn out to be crucially important to what actually happens. And nothing in this post is intended to deny that. But as a matter of law, neither Scotland nor any of the UK’s other constituent nations can stop Brexit from happening.

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Firstly, you are aware that spreading increasing amounts of manure does not necessarily mean an increase in the quality of said manure?
What it does mean is an increase in the smell.

Well firstly simply answering every single post with the words manure or bs isn't any sort of debate. You're beginning to bore a little. Either state why you feel the people interpreting Article 50 possibilities regarding Scotland are wrong, or don't.

EU law is quoted letter and verse in my post.
YOU are the one arguing with that.
Now do you really believe that lawyers say the things you suggest purely from the goodness of their hearts?
Seriously?
NO - lawyers will tell you what you want to hear - IF they think that they can make bucketloads of money out of it.
And using a legal blog to support your mischief - well, note this from your link:
As for NI taking Westminster to court for the reasons you suggest - let's have some evidence of what you suggest?

I have to say though, your sheer determination to provide ANYTHING which supports your stance in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary puts a huge smile in my face.

Secondly, Sturgeon was on this subject today as I indicated. Legislative consent motions are very real regarding devolved parliaments.

From STV today and elsewhere.

Campaigners in Northern Ireland are going ahead with a legal bid and a separate case in England will be heard at the High Court in London in October.At an appearance before Holyrood's Europe and external affairs committee, Sturgeon raised the prospect of the Scottish Parliament being empowered with a legislative consent motion (LCM).


"I have to say the Scottish Government is keeping a very close eye on these court actions and will assess as they proceed at all stages whether there is an argument for us to become directly involved to make sure that the interests of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament are protected.
"If that was to be the case that there was a decision - and I'm speculating now - that Parliament had to pass legislation, that brings the issue of an LCM into sharp focus."

Just because you think it's manure, doesn't mean it isn't happening. You should keep yourself informed of these things, as missing out key elements from your 'goodbye in two years' posts might not be telling the full story.

There are no rules nor precedents regarding Brexit. You have no overwhelming evidence. Or at least, haven't bothered provided anything much here to counter what any constitutional EU experts have put forward.

I suggest that England and Wales will leave. Scotland and possibly NI won't via Article 50. Scotland will have to have voted for independence first of course, but crucially won't be included further in any UK wide legislation regarding Article 50. Why would it, since it would no longer be part of the UK ? How could Westminster possibly in any way legislate for a country to leave the EU, when that country is no longer under it's control ? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Surely that isn't what you're trying to put forward ? That an independent Scotland would still be taken out of the EU by... Westminster ? Complete manure.:)

Although Article 50 TEU only prescribes the procedure for a Member State (e.g. the UK) to leave the EU, this provision can also serve to govern the withdrawal of only a part of a state

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Can Scotland block Brexit?

Bottom line:

Bottom line

Teresa Villiers, the Northern Ireland Secretary, has said Westminster can over-ride this, and it certainly can. The constitution is reserved. Westminster retains overall sovereignty. But MPs would have would have to vote to overturn Holyrood’s LCM motion and that isn’t just a formality.

A political s***storm.

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

Claptrap, old chap.

How many ethnic minorities do you ever actually meet in Chiddingwolforford on Lyme, where you live?

Do the WI bus some in occasionally when they're preparing an audience for the Great British Bakeoff?

Or, like most of your "sort" is in fact your great experiment with multiculturalism confined to ordering extra poppadums on the way back from your UKIP constituency meeting?

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well firstly simply answering every single post with the words manure or bs isn't any sort of debate. You're beginning to bore a little. Either state why you feel the people interpreting Article 50 possibilities regarding Scotland are wrong, or don't.



Secondly, Sturgeon was on this subject today as I indicated. Legislative consent motions are very real regarding devolved parliaments.

From STV today and elsewhere.Just because you think it's manure, doesn't mean it isn't happening. You should keep yourself informed of these things, as missing out key elements from your 'goodbye in two years' posts might not be telling the full story.

There are no rules nor precedents regarding Brexit. You have no overwhelming evidence. Or at least, haven't bothered provided anything much here to counter what any constitutional EU experts have put forward.

I suggest that England and Wales will leave. Scotland and possibly NI won't via Article 50. Scotland will have to have voted for independence first of course, but crucially won't be included further in any UK wide legislation regarding Article 50. Why would it, since it would no longer be part of the UK ? How could Westminster possibly in any way legislate for a country to leave the EU, when that country is no longer under it's control ? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Surely that isn't what you're trying to put forward ? That an independent Scotland would still be taken out of the EU by... Westminster ? Complete manure.:)

I am beginning to bore YOU?
Debate?
That is not what continually spouting the same thing repeatedly is called, you know.
And at least I am forthright, not simply condescending.
Neither do I continually distract and continually deflect from the issue at hand.

I have clearly stated WHAT article 50 CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATES.
You can try to put whatever "spin" on that you want BUT the wording is there for everyone to read.

So instead of complaining, whingeing and otherwise trying everything you can to persuade others of your misguided opinions, read again what is very clearly written:

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

Also you have (yet again) ignored - from your own link, no less -

But as a matter of law, neither Scotland nor any of the UK’s other constituent nations can stop Brexit from happening.

So cease the facile condescension and provide decent debate.
NOT further distraction, deflection and irrelevance which TBH is unworthy of the time I have spent in response.

islandannie

The dichotomy of SNP nonsense.

We would prosper as a small Nation.
We can survive and prosper without the help of other nations,in fact we would be better off on our own.

Westminster holds us back and steals our wealth.

On the other hand.

The SNP beg for the expansion of London airports to be approved because the delay is hurting the Scottish economy.
Strange to say we would be better on our own,then demand London gets on with it for Scottish interests.
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/holyrood/1026080/highlands-msps-and-mps-demand-action-on-airports-from-uk-government/

Shakethedisease

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

I am beginning to bore YOU?
Debate?
That is not what continually spouting the same thing repeatedly is called, you know.
And at least I am forthright, not simply condescending.
Neither do I continually distract and continually deflect from the issue at hand.

No not you, your posts. They always begin with some sort of nonsense like 'drivel' or 'manure' without offering any evidence as to why.

I have clearly stated WHAT article 50 CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATES.
You can try to put whatever "spin" on that you want BUT the wording is there for everyone to read.

The wording is simply your own interpretation and you're entitled to it. But only your own opinion it certainly is.

So instead of complaining, whingeing and otherwise trying everything you can to persuade others of your misguided opinions, read again what is very clearly written:

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


Also you have (yet again) ignored - from your own link, no less -

So cease the facile condescension and provide decent debate.
NOT further distraction, deflection and irrelevance which TBH is unworthy of the time I have spent in response.

You keep missing out the possible independence referendum in between I'm afraid. Labouring under the assumption that Scotland will leave the EU and that's that. Well put it down to spin or deflection or whatever you like. But that's the thing you keep discounting and for most of us following Scottish politics, we do know it's a very real prospect. Well past time you started factoring it in to your scenarios.

Article 50 and then an extremely likely Scottish referendum.. If there's a Yes vote then no, Scotland won't be leaving the EU under the same circumstances as England and Wales are. Scotland will be removed from Article 50 negotiations and will have to negotiate from there on in as an independent entity. For the very obvious reason that Scotland won't be party to Westminster politics anymore. Certainly they won't under any circumstances be signing up to leaving the EU since Scotland didn't vote for it.

While it may have been a UK wide referendum, if Scotland votes to leave the UK then the results Scotland wide would again, very obviously, take precedence. Article 50 would no longer be applicable since Scotland would've left the UK before negotiations end with the EU and an end date in sight.

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

<

---

Scotland won't be in that State anymore by the end of the two years should she vote to leave the UK. This is where your argument falls down entirely. Scotland won't be party to Article 50. If the EU is to say Scotland can't be a member then it will be via other means after an independence vote.

Also the legislative competence legalese is also likely to cause massive problems. Because Holyrood will never consent to Brexit being written into devolved legislation. Westminster MP's will therefore have to vote for it to apply. Most Labour and Lib Dem MP's probably won't, but the Tories might. You must know how that will play with the Scottish public. You can't surely be that blinkered ?

ps In my own opinion Sturgeon will call a referendum no matter what the polling. Timing is everything though, and just after Westminster MP's have voted to overrule Holyrood to take Scotland out of the EU barely 2 years after that 'Vow' would be good.

pps I used the bold because you seem to like it.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

No not you, your posts. They always begin with some sort of nonsense like 'drivel' or 'manure' without offering any evidence as to why.

The wording is simply your own interpretation and you're entitled to it. But only your own opinion it certainly is.

You keep missing out the possible independence referendum in between I'm afraid. Labouring under the assumption that Scotland will leave the EU and that's that. Well put it down to spin or deflection or whatever you like. But that's the thing you keep discounting and for most of us following Scottish politics, we do know it's a very real prospect. Well past time you started factoring it in to your scenarios.

Article 50 and then an extremely likely Scottish referendum.. If there's a Yes vote then no, Scotland won't be leaving the EU under the same circumstances as England and Wales are. Scotland will be removed from Article 50 negotiations and will have to negotiate from there on in as an independent entity. For the very obvious reason that Scotland won't be party to Westminster politics anymore. Certainly they won't under any circumstances be signing up to leaving the EU since Scotland didn't vote for it.

While it may have been a UK wide referendum, if Scotland votes to leave the UK then the results Scotland wide would again, very obviously, take precedence. Article 50 would no longer be applicable since Scotland would've left the UK before negotiations end with the EU and an end date in sight.

<

---

Scotland won't be in that State anymore by the end of the two years should she vote to leave the UK. This is where your argument falls down entirely. Scotland won't be party to Article 50. If the EU is to say Scotland can't be a member then it will be via other means after an independence vote.

Also the legislative competence legalese is also likely to cause massive problems. Because Holyrood will never consent to Brexit being written into devolved legislation. Westminster MP's will therefore have to vote for it to apply. Most Labour and Lib Dem MP's probably won't, but the Tories might. You must know how that will play with the Scottish public. You can't surely be that blinkered ?

ps In my own opinion Sturgeon will call a referendum no matter what the polling. Timing is everything though, and just after Westminster MP's have voted to overrule Holyrood to take Scotland out of the EU barely 2 years after that 'Vow' would be good.

pps I used the bold because you seem to like it.

Whatever happens, you'll still be sat there asking yourself "do I really want to risk 64% of our trade and associated jobs and tax, for independence and 11% of the same with the EU"?