The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[FiF]

turbobloke said:

Sway said:

One thing I've noticed about the last few pages is certain posters acting like the EU has supremacy of international law.

They don't. Quite simply, they can fk right off and have a chat with the UN if they think their rules can even begin to overrule self determination or oversight of applications of international treaties...

The EU can barely afford a pot to psss in, they could use the can they keep kicking up-hill but that could be awkward for the next kicker. If they had such a pot, they'd mismanage it and it would need bailing out on a regular basis. They could ask Juncker or Tusk, has-beens well practised at taking the psss.

It's hilarious, not to mention the posts that are just dripping with triumphalism when someone declares something or other.

BTW, page or two ago TB, seems the class clown threw the empty goto Kipper moniker out in our direction. Pretty sure I'm not one, and guess that probably goes for you too. Then the usual culprits wonder why folks often find them ridiculous.

[Sway]

FiF said:

turbobloke said:

Sway said:

One thing I've noticed about the last few pages is certain posters acting like the EU has supremacy of international law.

They don't. Quite simply, they can fk right off and have a chat with the UN if they think their rules can even begin to overrule self determination or oversight of applications of international treaties...

The EU can barely afford a pot to psss in, they could use the can they keep kicking up-hill but that could be awkward for the next kicker. If they had such a pot, they'd mismanage it and it would need bailing out on a regular basis. They could ask Juncker or Tusk, has-beens well practised at taking the psss.

It's hilarious, not to mention the posts that are just dripping with triumphalism when someone declares something or other.

BTW, page or two ago TB, seems the class clown threw the empty goto Kipper moniker out in our direction. Pretty sure I'm not one, and guess that probably goes for you too. Then the usual culprits wonder why folks often find them ridiculous.

Would this be the same intellectual giant who's been lecturing us on international trade for over a year, then displayed his ignorance by stating that if we signed a FTA with the US the EU wouldn't want to have one with us as it would mean the US could avoid the protectionist tariffs the EU set?

Or the ones that keep ignoring the strong Leave preference from farmers, ignore the real world experience of a few posters on here, and maintain their cognitive dissonance that the sector is doomed? Oh, along with 400,000 FS Sector jobs?

[turbobloke]

FiF said:

turbobloke said:

Sway said:

One thing I've noticed about the last few pages is certain posters acting like the EU has supremacy of international law.

They don't. Quite simply, they can fk right off and have a chat with the UN if they think their rules can even begin to overrule self determination or oversight of applications of international treaties...

The EU can barely afford a pot to psss in, they could use the can they keep kicking up-hill but that could be awkward for the next kicker. If they had such a pot, they'd mismanage it and it would need bailing out on a regular basis. They could ask Juncker or Tusk, has-beens well practised at taking the psss.

It's hilarious, not to mention the posts that are just dripping with triumphalism when someone declares something or other.

BTW, page or two ago TB, seems the class clown threw the empty goto Kipper moniker out in our direction. Pretty sure I'm not one, and guess that probably goes for you too.

In which case you're correct on both counts!

[fluffnik]

Sway said:

One thing I've noticed about the last few pages is certain posters acting like the EU has supremacy of international law.

They don't. Quite simply, they can fk right off and have a chat with the UN if they think their rules can even begin to overrule self determination or oversight of applications of international treaties...

Indeed.

Which is why Scotland WILL be having a pre-Brexit referendum.

[B'stard Child]

fluffnik said:

Sway said:

One thing I've noticed about the last few pages is certain posters acting like the EU has supremacy of international law.

They don't. Quite simply, they can fk right off and have a chat with the UN if they think their rules can even begin to overrule self determination or oversight of applications of international treaties...

Indeed.

Which is why Scotland WILL be having a pre-Brexit referendum.

Quoted so that I can quote it back again sometime in the future

[Jockman]

fluffnik said:

Sway said:

One thing I've noticed about the last few pages is certain posters acting like the EU has supremacy of international law.

They don't. Quite simply, they can fk right off and have a chat with the UN if they think their rules can even begin to overrule self determination or oversight of applications of international treaties...

Indeed.

Which is why Scotland WILL be having a pre-Brexit referendum.

Even if the deal is an excellent one??

Does it hurt sitting on the fence?

[sidicks]

fluffnik said:

Indeed.

Which is why Scotland WILL be having a pre-Brexit referendum.

Who has to approve that?

[Cobnapint]

fluffnik said:

Indeed.

Which is why Scotland WILL be having a pre-Brexit referendum.

You've already had one.

[sidicks]

Cobnapint said:

fluffnik said:

Indeed.

Which is why Scotland WILL be having a pre-Brexit referendum.

You've already had one.

He seems unfamiliar with who calls the shots as far as another referendum is concerned!

[fluffnik]

Jockman said:

fluffnik said:

Which is why Scotland WILL be having a pre-Brexit referendum.

Even if the deal is an excellent one??

Since the UK has already surrendered freedom of movement and the single market, none is possible.

Jockman said:

Does it hurt sitting on the fence?

Nope.

I value the EU, I do not value the UK.

[fluffnik]

Cobnapint said:

fluffnik said:

Which is why Scotland WILL be having a pre-Brexit referendum.

You've already had one.

Circumstances have changed such that the Scottish Government has an absolute mandate to hold another.

[fluffnik]

sidicks said:

He seems unfamiliar with who calls the shots as far as another referendum is concerned!

The same UN-mandated right to self-determination that is good for Gibraltar is good for Scotland.

...and why would the EU do a deal with an entity that might, or might not, include Scotland?

[sidicks]

fluffnik said:

The same UN-mandated right to self-determination that is good for Gibraltar is good for Scotland.

...and why would the EU do a deal with an entity that might, or might not, include Scotland?

So you think that UN-mandated right allows you to have a referendum whenever you like?


You had one 3 years ago - you lost. May has accepted that another referendum might be appropriate in due course - post Brexit.

You're deluded if you think that you have greater 'rights' than that!

[fluffnik]

paulrockliffe said:

fluffnik said:

The EU does not rule its members, therefore it cannot "put Spain back in their box", nor should it act for a(n about to be) non-member against a member.

So the Government of any member state was free to put whatever they wanted into that document, there was no negotiation, acceptance or rejection along the way? Do you not think it likely that the rest of the EU had their input, or was it just Spain doing what Spain wants?

Any member can veto any deal for any reason.

All Spain has done is flag-up in advance a circumstance where they would exercise their veto, any other member could have done similar.

Other circumstances which might provoke a veto may become apparent during negotiations, or the provisional deal might just get vetoed.

Hey-ho, what fun!

[turbobloke]

fluffnik said:

Cobnapint said:

fluffnik said:

Which is why Scotland WILL be having a pre-Brexit referendum.

You've already had one.

Circumstances have changed such that the Scottish Government has an absolute mandate to hold another.

There's no doubt that Sturgeon wants one, but what type of mandate is it and what outcome other than losing a second vote is likely?

A minority of Scots want another vote this year and the likely outcome at any time is to reject independence (again).

Nearly two-thirds of Scots don't want independence referendum in 2017

A Herald poll after the Brexit vote found the numbers hadn't shifted with 45.5% of voters favouring independence, and 54.5% against,

http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/nea...

[Einion Yrth]

Extension of the 2 year negotiation period requires unanimity, giving each individual nation a veto, if you will. Assent to any negotiated agreement is by QMV, thus no vetos. I'm sure that you knew that though fluff, just stirring, as usual, eh?


Spanner.

[turbobloke]

fluffnik said:

At some time in the autumn of 2018 a provisional deal will be subject to 27 separate ratification processes, should one or more of those processes result in something other than ratification the provisional deal will be vetoed.

Einion Yrth said:

Assent to any negotiated agreement is by QMV, thus no vetos..

Hmmm. When is a deal a deal.

[fluffnik]

Einion Yrth said:

Extension of the 2 year negotiation period requires unanimity, giving each individual nation a veto, if you will. Assent to any negotiated agreement is by QMV, thus no vetos. I'm sure that you knew that though fluff, just stirring, as usual, eh?

My error.

[Einion Yrth]

fluffnik said:

Sway said:

Please explain why you think Spain, or any nation within the EU, has any form of veto over the terms of our leaving?

At some time in the autumn of 2018 a provisional deal will be subject to 27 separate ratification processes, should one or more of those processes result in something other than ratification the provisional deal will be vetoed.

Nope:

Article 50 said:

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.

QMV with a final sign-off from Europarl.. No vetoes anywhere in sight.

[fluffnik]

turbobloke said:

Nearly two-thirds of Scots don't want independence referendum in 2017

No-one is suggesting a referendum in 2017, autumn 2018 is the preferred time...

Survation said:

Who do you think should have the right to decide if there should be a referendum in Scotland that would allow the people of Scotland to choose between Brexit and independence? Should it be...

The Scottish Parliament : 61%
The Westminster Parliament : 39%

...and a majority would be upset if Westminster tried to block it.

Survation said:

Do you think the Westminster Parliament should have the right to block a plan for a referendum in Scotland, even if it is agreed on and voted for by the Scottish Parliament?

Yes 42%
No 58%

A lot of us in Scotland care more for being in the EU than the UK, and will not sit quietly in our box whilst a government with less than 15% popular support sells us down the river.

A lot of us will be taking the EU side, loudly...