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

molerat

beecher2 wrote: »

Complains about the delay, the uncertainty and the fact it wasn't what was promised. The two union guys said much the same. Nicola Sturgeon says she welcomes the work, but she's well within her rights to point out that there are 8 ships being built and not 13, and that there's been a delay.

So the MOD have to build another 5 that they no longer require just to please her ? Anyone knows that defence contracts are massively delayed and change all the time, it is just another of her anti Westminster whinges. Not so many years ago the SNP wanted all the "English" military out of Scotland, funny how things changed when it came to balance the books.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I do. About the SNP possibly holding the balance of power, Theresa May did a fair bit of stoking the flames herself actually.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3055575/Theresa-SNP-Labour-pact-spark-biggest-constitutional-crisis-abdication-Edward-VIII.html

If there's another GE then May has to go to the country with either a hard or soft Brexit in her manifesto. Polling has been good so far because she's been trying to be all things to all people, a GE will force her hand. Hard or Soft Brexit will lose the Tories votes either way. Which brings a Labour/Lib Dem/SNP balance of power scenario to the fore again.

Either that or the SNP could just put independence in their manifesto. :cool:

I don't think there will be a GE personally. Too many variables.

I'm sure May will be as clear about hard/soft/medium brexit as Nicola is about what currency an Iscotland will use. Theresa will be able to claim she hasn't had 40 years to plan.

.string.

I agree that there is not likely to be a GE any time soon, but were there one I don't see a need for May to state either hard or soft Brexit. The current aim of what is best is good enough and the sensible approach.

This business of the court judgement of Parliament having its say is interesting. To avoid disrupting to the timetable and protect the confidentiality of the approach, it will need to be done carefully and will come down to the motion proposed by the government. That's not easy to double-guess but I would expect it to be very carefully worded indeed. Maybe it won't be an Act; we had an Act already; it could maybe be just a "Motion" to allow Parliament sanction an A50 action.

Perhaps a phrasing like this, which is meant to spark a discussion on what the Motion could be:

This House acknowledges the decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the EU and pursuant to that agrees that the Government confirm that decision to the European Union. It further agrees that Parliament shall be given the opportunity to scrutinise and approve agreements reached with the European Union consistent with the protection of the UK negotiation position and the schedule of the Negotiations.

Moto2

.string. wrote: »

I agree that there is not likely to be a GE any time soon,

I wouldn't bank on that

If I were a betting man, I would chance a punt on May dropping the appeal and hoping to get a bill through to cover the basics.

If she loses the appeal, the Tories will be even more damaged and could look to a GE to increase their majority.
Further dangers exist for her if he commons get all uppity (how dare they?) during the bill's passage.

There's more than a decent chance of a GE before next Easter IMO

Shakethedisease

Moto2 wrote: »

I wouldn't bank on that

If I were a betting man, I would chance a punt on May dropping the appeal and hoping to get a bill through to cover the basics.

If she loses the appeal, the Tories will be even more damaged and could look to a GE to increase their majority.
Further dangers exist for her if he commons get all uppity (how dare they?) during the bill's passage.

There's more than a decent chance of a GE before next Easter IMO

She'd lose either moderate Brexiteer voters to the Lib Dems or Hard liners to UKIP in a GE depending on what she puts in the manifesto. If I were a betting woman I wouldn't bet on the Tories increasing their majority.

But at the end of the day she's probably going to have to lay it on the line before parliament what she's proposing to negotiate for in terms of Brexit. Otherwise many MP's won't vote it through until they do.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I agree that there is not likely to be a GE any time soon, but were there one I don't see a need for May to state either hard or soft Brexit. The current aim of what is best is good enough and the sensible approach.

This business of the court judgement of Parliament having its say is interesting. To avoid disrupting to the timetable and protect the confidentiality of the approach, it will need to be done carefully and will come down to the motion proposed by the government. That's not easy to double-guess but I would expect it to be very carefully worded indeed. Maybe it won't be an Act; we had an Act already; it could maybe be just a "Motion" to allow Parliament sanction an A50 action.

Perhaps a phrasing like this, which is meant to spark a discussion on what the Motion could be:

The BBC are saying a motion isn't enough.

What is the legal situation on whether Parliament needs to pass a legislative act in order to trigger Article 50 as distinct from just taking a vote?

Paragraph 13 of the ruling essentially states that a parliamentary motion is not enough to satisfy the terms of Brexit.
UK membership is bound not in prerogative power, but in the 1972 EU Communities Act, and therefore needs primary legislation to be taken away.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37864983

What are the implications of this ruling for the devolved administrations?

Ever since devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland began in 1999, Westminster normally seeks the agreement of the devolved parliaments and assemblies if it is legislating on devolved matters. While Westminster debates a bill, legislative consent motions are passed in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Political difficulties could arise should they choose to vote on legislative consent motions relating to any bill to enact Article 50.

On Friday the Welsh Assembly's senior legal adviser, Mick Antoniw, said he would seek to make representations to the Supreme Court during the government's appeal about the potential impact on Wales. SNP MPs may decide to vote against triggering Article 50 at Westminster - Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said they would "vote in line with the wishes and the interests of the Scottish people", potentially delaying the process.

Holyrood won't vote this through in a million years. I expect it will be imposed anyway, but it will go down like the proverbial bucket of cold sick with all parties except the Tories. And a good 60% of Scottish voters who voted in June.

Messy, chaotic stuff.

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Messy, chaotic stuff.

It would put most people off referenda for at least a generation.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The BBC are saying a motion isn't enough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37864983

Holyrood won't vote this through in a million years. I expect it will be imposed anyway, but it will go down like the proverbial bucket of cold sick with all parties except the Tories. And a good 60% of Scottish voters who voted in June.

Messy, chaotic stuff.

it must now be likely that any future referendum, states clearly that the result is subject to a vote in the UK parliament

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The BBC are saying a motion isn't enough.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37864983

Holyrood won't vote this through in a million years. I expect it will be imposed anyway, but it will go down like the proverbial bucket of cold sick with all parties except the Tories. And a good 60% of Scottish voters who voted in June.

Messy, chaotic stuff.

Yes Shakey, I would agree there are, let us say, complications and that the process is messy. In fact if I take the worse case scenario, even just a possible scenario, it's likely that all these parliamentary discussions etc cannot be completed before the 2 year timetable is up and it would be possible that the UK Parliament may happily vote that it didn't want to leave only when it was already out by default!

But I wonder, as we all do, what May has in mind to make such definitive statements she will certainly loose some face if she is forced to back down on the April timetable. There is some aspect to this we are missing; I wonder what it is.

I'm sure she is putting some faith in the outcome of the appeal, either on a complete exoneration of her stance or or maybe a different phrasing of the judgement; for example although it's implicit, we don't know which laws are going to be changed or dropped, so maybe this is not the time that the Rubicon is crossed and the niceties can be settled later. Also it's worth noting that there's nothing more to legislate at the moment apart from preparation work on the laws themselves which is already on the road.

But all this has to do with the beginning of the process. The approval of the deal, if there is one will be lengthy and I don't see at all how that is feasible in the time allotted without incredible discipline on the negotiation schedule, a discipline which I doubt is feasible, especially for the EU who tend to be incredibly slow and will no doubt have other ideas and priorities.

So the real bottom line obstacle is the 2 year timescale and that can't be changed without EU consent (majority if I remember correctly).

I don't see a way out of that. I noted the opinion on the retraction of A50 which maybe needs more exploration.

Much depends on our negotiation strengths.I would like to think Davis's confidence on that is justified but at the moment I just think of his remarks as chest beating.The Government is never going to tell us what negotiation tools it has so again for that it's wait and see.

If no such magic wand is available and no toys to throw out of the pram, then maybe the arguments need to get more Machiavellian for example May can say that, in order for the UK to meet its constitutional requirements, which A50 explicitly concedes it may, the EU will have to wait for a couple of years before A50 is invoked. The EU would not want a spiky UK hanging around for another year vetoing things, so some flexibility might be forthcoming.

Whatever, it's clear that not invoking A50 straight away was the right decision.

beecher2

.string. wrote: »

So the real bottom line obstacle is the 2 year timescale and that can't be changed without EU consent (majority if I remember correctly).

Agree with much of what you say, but just wanted to add that it has to be a unanimous agreement by the European Council