Brexiters should be 'Ashamed of the harm to come"

Shakethedisease

gfplux wrote: »

I have heard from one unconfirmed sauce that after Brexit some of the better fishing grounds will revert to Scottish Government control. This is connected to the devolment of powers from Westminster.
Have any of the posters who have been discussing fishing issues have any knowledge of this?

Yes, both fishing and agriculture are nominally devolved to Scotland under successive Scotland Acts. However are in reality under EU control, they default back to Scotland/Holyrood in the event that the UK leaves the EU. Westminster would have to legislate in order to take control back which Sturgeon won't do. She mentioned it in her speech today.

The genuine revelations were to be found elsewhere in Sturgeon's speech. She's never before made it so explicitly clear that she expects EU powers over devolved matters, such as fisheries and agriculture, to be transferred to Holyrood rather than to Westminster in the event of Brexit.

Again, her hand is remarkably strong on that point, and she doesn't need to find anything to bargain with.The current devolution legislation states that anything that is not specifically reserved to Westminster is automatically devolved to Scotland, except where EU law supersedes national law. So the default position is that Sturgeon will get what she wants, and if the UK government want to change that, they'll have to rip up a key part of the Scotland Act.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/scottish-independence-back-table-brexit-means-nicola-sturgeon-can-have-her-cake-eat-it-1586246

Firstly, and very few people have realised this yet, it constitutes an powerful form of renewed devolution for Scotland and Wales. There are areas of devolved competence - agriculture for example - which are mostly governed by EU law. Sure, the devolved assemblies technically have power here, but in actual fact they, like Westminster, must do what Brussels tells them. Unless there is something in that repeal bill which says those powers are returning from the devolved assemblies to Westminster, it adds up to a very substantial act of renewed devolution. Watch Sturgeon in particular very carefully. Despite the Brexit bluster, she actually has a lot to gain out of what’s happening.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/10/02/don-t-be-fooled-may-s-big-eu-announcement-is-just-admin

Everyone seems to be well behind on this point re fishing grounds. Is pretty well known for those following Scottish politics in even vague detail, since Gove was up here campaigning to leave on the very basis that Holyrood would get these powers... but I suppose it will become an issue sooner rather than later.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes, both fishing and agriculture are nominally devolved to Scotland under successive Scotland Acts. However are in reality under EU control, they default back to Scotland/Holyrood in the event that the UK leaves the EU. Westminster would have to legislate in order to take control back which Sturgeon won't do. She mentioned it in her speech today.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/scottish-independence-back-table-brexit-means-nicola-sturgeon-can-have-her-cake-eat-it-1586246

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/10/02/don-t-be-fooled-may-s-big-eu-announcement-is-just-admin

Everyone seems to be well behind on this point re fishing grounds. Is pretty well known for those following Scottish politics in even vague detail, since Gove was up here campaigning to leave on the very basis that Holyrood would get these powers... but I suppose it will become an issue sooner rather than later.

it would certainly be amusing if Nicola fights tooth and nail for control over scottish fish only to meekly have to give it away to the EU a year later.
I wonder what argument she will use to justify both contradictory positions in an equally passionate way.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

it would certainly be amusing if Nicola fights tooth and nail for control over scottish fish only to meekly have to give it away to the EU a year later.
I wonder what argument she will use to justify both contradictory positions in an equally passionate way.

Not really, she wants things to continue as they are. Nevertheless though, these fishing grounds default to Holyrood unless Westminster can stop it happening. I'm not sure how they can though.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Not really, she wants things to continue as they are. Nevertheless though, these fishing grounds default to Holyrood unless Westminster can stop it happening. I'm not sure how they can though.

and there I was thinking she wanted independence

Kohoutek

Brexit wrote: »

Freedom has no price

Freedom to be ruled by incompetent Tory 'born to rule' types. Bliss.

Thrugelmir

Kohoutek wrote: »

Freedom to be ruled by incompetent Tory 'born to rule' types. Bliss.

Are there any alternatives currently? Don't see anyone in opposition with any vision at all.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Brexit wrote: »

Freedom has no price

Actually it does....

£66 BILLION per year according to the Treasury.

But I suppose if you deduct the net £8.5bn we pay for EU membership from that amount it's only a loss of £57.5 BILLION per year.

So that's OK then.:)

[Deleted User]

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Actually it does....

£66 BILLION per year according to the Treasury.

But I suppose if you deduct the net £8.5bn we pay for EU membership from that amount it's only a loss of £57.5 BILLION per year.

So that's OK then.:)

I note that the study was published by George Osborne during the 'Project Fear' build up to the referendum, so no doubt we can put trust in it.

prosaver

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Actually it does....

£66 BILLION per year according to the Treasury.

But I suppose if you deduct the net £8.5bn we pay for EU membership from that amount it's only a loss of £57.5 BILLION per year.

So that's OK then.:)

Found this ..hope it helps

They are assuming that if we leave the EU we would put up our import tariffs. Thus losing that benefit of competition and thus rising productivity. This is the entire single point driving their analysis. And that is the fix of course. The assumption that if we left the EU we would therefore follow a bad trade policy. Fortunately, the work was done a decade ago as to what would happen if we left the European Union and followed a sensible trade policy. Patrick Minford, Vidya Mahambare and Eric Nowell. Their entire book can be read here. The result of following a sensible trade policy after Brexit is then entirely contrary to the Treasury analysis. We get a 3% or so boost to GDP. Treasury says, mid-case, some 6% fall from where GDP would otherwise be. Minford et al say a 3% boost from where it would otherwise be.

The difference being that Treasury assumes that we would adopt damaging import tariffs ourselves. A very strange thing to assume given that it would be Treasury telling politicians not to do that. Still, that’s what they’ve done.

The fall in the size of the economy does not come from other people putting up tariffs against our exports. It comes from us putting up tariffs against our own desired imports. And since we’re not going to be sufficiently, and gargantuanly, stupid as to do that then it’s not going to happen, is it?

We’re just not going to have a £66 billion fall in tax revenues because we’re not going to do the entirely insane thing that will shrink the economy. And the assumption that we will–well, you might want to call it politics, or being economical with the truth, I’ll carry on calling it a lie.:)

Moby

Brexit wrote: »

Freedom has no price

Is this the freedom decided for us by the characters that own Mrs May:-

Brexit Cabinet

Keith Rupert Murdoch
Jonathan Harold Esmond Vere Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere
Richard Clive Desmond
Sir David Rowat Barclay
Sir Frederick Hugh Barclay

Your freedom is an illusion mate. You've just been told by an unelected PM that there will be no binding vote on the nature of the Brexit in our sovereign parliament. It'll all sink in soon enough. For some idiots we'll fighting each other in the streets for food before it does........thats the tragedy of it.