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

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

If you're referring to a Scottish one, then that's fine, and expected. I fail to see how any hypothetical Yes vote by a majority of Scottish voters in a Scottish based referendum would be refused. By that point in reality Westminster would have already lost any real future political authority in Scotland, and most of it's Westminster MP's heading home. ie the game would be up.

Stopping any referendum from happening seems to be the current priority. Likely because - see above.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

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.

Once Article 50 is invoked then deal or no deal the UK is out in two years as you say, unless there is a unanimous vote for an extension.

This court ruling won't stop Article 50 being invoked at all, it just outlines proper due process. From everything I've read it seems the judgement is pretty sound and there are lots of even the most convinced Brexiteers on Twitter and elsewhere saying an appeal is a waste of time and to go to parliament asap with a vote on invoking Article 50.

The problem for May was her secrecy and lack of transparency so far. It's allowed others to make the running and newspapers/media to build up expectation. A bill in front of parliament for an opening negotiation stance is now inevitable in some form. This isn't a poker game, and everyone knows what the current UK Govt is looking for ( fullest single market access possible, control of immigration, out of the ECJ, no hard border for NI etc etc ).

If I was in her shoes I'd simply lay this out. Some in Labour are already quite supportive of a clean break from the EU ( Keir Starmer today) and I doubt there will be much in the way of huge opposition from them given they've so many leave constituencies. The problem will lie in amendments from folks like Farron, Clegg and even Tory MP's bogging it down.

The SNP will vote against, taken as read by everyone I'd imagine and figured into the final numbers when it comes to it. But then it'll have to be imposed on devolved areas of the UK as well which is when Scotland and NI will wake up.

elantan

https://youtu.be/1ZJ31xkdOys


He he he he Bernard being Bernard again

.string.

beecher2 wrote: »

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

Yes that's right, my memory was recalling wrongly instead voting on the negotiation agreement itself (if EU Parliament agred first).

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Once Article 50 is invoked then deal or no deal the UK is out in two years as you say, unless there is a unanimous vote for an extension.

This court ruling won't stop Article 50 being invoked at all, it just outlines proper due process. From everything I've read it seems the judgement is pretty sound and there are lots of even the most convinced Brexiteers on Twitter and elsewhere saying an appeal is a waste of time and to go to parliament asap with a vote on invoking Article 50.

The problem for May was her secrecy and lack of transparency so far. It's allowed others to make the running and newspapers/media to build up expectation. A bill in front of parliament for an opening negotiation stance is now inevitable in some form. This isn't a poker game, and everyone knows what the current UK Govt is looking for ( fullest single market access possible, control of immigration, out of the ECJ, no hard border for NI etc etc ).

If I was in her shoes I'd simply lay this out. Some in Labour are already quite supportive of a clean break from the EU ( Keir Starmer today) and I doubt there will be much in the way of huge opposition from them given they've so many leave constituencies. The problem will lie in amendments from folks like Farron, Clegg and even Tory MP's bogging it down.

The SNP will vote against, taken as read by everyone I'd imagine and figured into the final numbers when it comes to it. But then it'll have to be imposed on devolved areas of the UK as well which is when Scotland and NI will wake up.

I agree with a lot of that.

Well we'll see how it plays out, I also think she could have played it differently, not by exposing the negotiation stance but by explaining things in a different (and better) less strident way. Personally I would have done more on a cross party basis at first or at least to garner opinions from parliament on what things were high or low priority and explain better what had to be done to secure a solid negotiation stance. Most of the blame on that would be on Cameron however for not getting the thing off to a good start. I don't have a problem on having a good preparation and it taking time; time taken now will save unproductive time later.

Some debate prior to A50 does seem inevitable but having a full detailed debate with voting on what the negotiating policy must be is a very bad idea for everyone except those who would wish to wreck the Brexit process. In negotiation one always wants to trade of concession against another and that's not possible if hands are tied.

Shakethedisease

elantan wrote: »

https://youtu.be/1ZJ31xkdOys


He he he he Bernard being Bernard again

He was fab. He's the best journo in Scotland by a mile in terms of asking tough questions to everyone.

Seems no contract has been signed and everything surrounding this announcement is very vague. Bernard was right to be asking in a roundabout way if this was just a way of setting ducks in a row for a possible Project Fear 2.

Or is it? There's quite a lot in this announcement that's not clear. Here are some of the things Mr Fallon is not saying...The contract between the Ministry of Defence and BAE Systems hasn't yet been signed. There are details to be finalised. The announcement has been about an "agreement in principle". The price tag is being left very vague.

We were led to believe such an announcement on cutting steel (the ceremonial around laying down the first part of a hull) would only follow conclusion of such a deal. In the media, we've been put on alert for such an announcement over recent months, only to be stood down.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37871888

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Some debate prior to A50 does seem inevitable but having a full detailed debate with voting on what the negotiating policy must be is a very bad idea for everyone except those who would wish to wreck the Brexit process. In negotiation one always wants to trade of concession against another and that's not possible if hands are tied.

Yes you're probably right on that. There will be MP's who won't vote for Article 50 on the basis of the UK being out of the Single Market, and others who won't if FOM is kept as is.

It's all pretty much pointless anyway once the negotiations get going. Because the EU could frustrate any previous red lines drawn, debated and scrutinised to infinity in parliament even if it takes years..and the UK would still be out of the EU after two years of Article 50 regardless. There will be no vote at the end of the process to accept terms, as it will happen anyway.

The Nissan deal also was a step too far I think for many in the way Theresa May does things behind closed doors without debate.

Moto2

I wonder how many SNP MSPs voted to leave?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/News/14843960.Alex_Neil__I_voted_for_Brexit_and_I_was_not_the_only_SNP_MSP_who_backed_leave/

elantan

Moto2 wrote: »

I wonder how many SNP MSPs voted to leave?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/News/14843960.Alex_Neil__I_voted_for_Brexit_and_I_was_not_the_only_SNP_MSP_who_backed_leave/

No one did cause they are all automatons that do exactly as queen Sturgeon tells them too ... allegedly ... or maybe like every other party some did some didn't ... it won't stop them fighting for Scotland though ... so I'm OK with that

wotsthat

Well he's first against the wall!