Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[SpeckledJim]

ElectricSoup said:

SpeckledJim said:

ElectricSoup said:

Scotland might once they're independent after Brexit though. Looks a much more attractive option now.

Crossing the threads now, but would (if Scotland were somehow to be independent after Brexit) Spain let them in?

Perhaps if by then the Catalan question has been solved by their secession, then perhaps Spain won't be obstructive. But if Catalan secession has prompted the Basques to rattle their sabres, then the Spanish might be desperate to keep the Scots out.

I'd have thought?

Lots of things need to happen between now and then for that to be important.

Non-issue.

https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-wont-block-s...

That's a year old. A lot's gone on since then. Both in the UK and in Spain.

Interesting though.

[ElectricSoup]

SpeckledJim said:

ElectricSoup said:

SpeckledJim said:

ElectricSoup said:

Scotland might once they're independent after Brexit though. Looks a much more attractive option now.

Crossing the threads now, but would (if Scotland were somehow to be independent after Brexit) Spain let them in?

Perhaps if by then the Catalan question has been solved by their secession, then perhaps Spain won't be obstructive. But if Catalan secession has prompted the Basques to rattle their sabres, then the Spanish might be desperate to keep the Scots out.

I'd have thought?

Lots of things need to happen between now and then for that to be important.

Non-issue.

https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-wont-block-s...

That's a year old. A lot's gone on since then. Both in the UK and in Spain.

Interesting though.

I don't expect the Spanish government has been asked to comment since then, so I presume it's their current position until told otherwise. I think their grip on Catalonia is quite strong now, I don't see it going independent. More chance of Scottish independence if brexit continues, I'd have thought. But I am a mere observer.

[Sway]

ElectricSoup said:

Sway said:

Is that a good enough assumption to base yet another disruptive referendum?

I don't know. But it's a good enough one for the purposes of this discussion, I'd have thought. Unless you have some indication or evidence that it's a poor assumption?

There are no legal provisions to base the assumption on.

If I were in the EU Council, having had all the arse ache, and grief of this scenario - if the UK came back with tail between legs to ask "how can we stay in?", personally I'd be using that as the vehicle to completely overturn all the little exemptions, special treatments, etc. that we currently enjoy...

If there's anything the electorate has perhaps learned from the last two years, it's that it's exceptionally foolish to promise the electorate the result of a bilateral agreement...

[confused_buyer]

ElectricSoup said:

I don't expect the Spanish government has been asked to comment since then, so I presume it's their current position until told otherwise. I think their grip on Catalonia is quite strong now, I don't see it going independent. More chance of Scottish independence if brexit continues, I'd have thought. But I am a mere observer.

Spain have said Scotland could join if they "meet all the criteria". There is a lot of criteria, particularly for a newly independent country, and most of it Scotland does not meet. Basically there are still about 100 ways Spain could block them without technically vetoing them for no good reason.

[ElectricSoup]

Sway said:

ElectricSoup said:

Sway said:

Is that a good enough assumption to base yet another disruptive referendum?

I don't know. But it's a good enough one for the purposes of this discussion, I'd have thought. Unless you have some indication or evidence that it's a poor assumption?

There are no legal provisions to base the assumption on.

If I were in the EU Council, having had all the arse ache, and grief of this scenario - if the UK came back with tail between legs to ask "how can we stay in?", personally I'd be using that as the vehicle to completely overturn all the little exemptions, special treatments, etc. that we currently enjoy...

If there's anything the electorate has perhaps learned from the last two years, it's that it's exceptionally foolish to promise the electorate the result of a bilateral agreement...

If you're fed up with the arse ache of something, it's probably not the most sensible thing to do to engage in another round of arse ache, which is what you seem to be suggesting they'd do. I'm convinced the EU would just be relieved to put it behind them and let us Remain as we are. They don't even seem to care if Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Croatia etc even apply to join the Euro any more.

[SpeckledJim]

ElectricSoup said:

If you're fed up with the arse ache of something, it's probably not the most sensible thing to do to engage in another round of arse ache, which is what you seem to be suggesting they'd do. I'm convinced the EU would just be relieved to put it behind them and let us Remain as we are. They don't even seem to care if Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Croatia etc even apply to join the Euro any more.

I'd agree with this. They'd let us revoke A50 with little-to-no quibble.

Most of the conversation is rightly about how the UK will cope post-Brexit but viewed from Brussels an AWFUL lot of reliable inflowing cash is shortly going awol, and a debatable but not insignificant amount of trade is potentially going with it.

The UK's potential upsides and downsides in this scenario are both greater than those of the EU, as I see it. The EU losing the UK is an almost unarguable negative for them, which they'd rather have not happen.

[SpeckledJim]

confused_buyer said:

ElectricSoup said:

I don't expect the Spanish government has been asked to comment since then, so I presume it's their current position until told otherwise. I think their grip on Catalonia is quite strong now, I don't see it going independent. More chance of Scottish independence if brexit continues, I'd have thought. But I am a mere observer.

Spain have said Scotland could join if they "meet all the criteria". There is a lot of criteria, particularly for a newly independent country, and most of it Scotland does not meet. Basically there are still about 100 ways Spain could block them without technically vetoing them for no good reason.

Is it clear which side of the 'money in' or 'money out' equation an independent Scotland would fall?

That simple detail might be instructive in the Scottish question. Especially in the context of losing UK contributions.

[ElectricSoup]

confused_buyer said:

ElectricSoup said:

I don't expect the Spanish government has been asked to comment since then, so I presume it's their current position until told otherwise. I think their grip on Catalonia is quite strong now, I don't see it going independent. More chance of Scottish independence if brexit continues, I'd have thought. But I am a mere observer.

Spain have said Scotland could join if they "meet all the criteria". There is a lot of criteria, particularly for a newly independent country, and most of it Scotland does not meet. Basically there are still about 100 ways Spain could block them without technically vetoing them for no good reason.

Any country can only join if the "meet all the criteria". So if they meet them, Spain would not block them, as with any other country. Doesn't sound like a problem to me. I think the big issue which may embugger Scotland is currency - an applicant country is supposed to have its own currency. If I were the leader of an independent Scotland, though, I'd be saying to the EU that we'd go straight in to the Euro, and they'd probably live with that. Of course, everything would only be accepted if voted on by the European Parliament and agreed by all 27 other individual governments, such is the level of democracy in the EU - a situation consistently ignored by brexiteers who simply want to whitewash it with lies about dictatorship and tales of EUSSR.

[Sway]

SpeckledJim said:

ElectricSoup said:

If you're fed up with the arse ache of something, it's probably not the most sensible thing to do to engage in another round of arse ache, which is what you seem to be suggesting they'd do. I'm convinced the EU would just be relieved to put it behind them and let us Remain as we are. They don't even seem to care if Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Croatia etc even apply to join the Euro any more.

I'd agree with this. They'd let us revoke A50 with little-to-no quibble.

Most of the conversation is rightly about how the UK will cope post-Brexit but viewed from Brussels an AWFUL lot of reliable inflowing cash is shortly going awol, and a debatable but not insignificant amount of trade is potentially going with it.

The UK's potential upsides and downsides in this scenario are both greater than those of the EU, as I see it. The EU losing the UK is an almost unarguable negative for them, which they'd rather have not happen.

I find it somewhat laughable that one of the biggest criticisms of the first ref, and a rationale for another, is that the campaign 'promised' things that couldn't be delivered - yet it now seems entirely appropriate to make such claims in the opposite direction and suggest another ref on that basis...

Indulge me a little - what if, we have a second referendum with broadly the same question as the last, the result is remain, and we go to Brussels to revoke Art. 50 - and Brussels says "fine, we could do with anothet strong economy within the Euro to help cover the structural issues it has. You can only revoke article 50 if you become a member of the Eurozone and Schenghen"?

They aren't fussed about the Eastern States joining the euro, because that will only exacerbate the existing issues with it. They'd fking leap at any chance to get another G8 economy to shoulder the burden of Club Med...

Pretty huge assumption - and seemingly the exact same principle as the reasons being given for another ref, which feels a tad hypocritical from my perspective.

[confused_buyer]

ElectricSoup said:

Any country can only join if the "meet all the criteria". So if they meet them, Spain would not block them, as with any other country. Doesn't sound like a problem to me. I think the big .

During the IndyRef Scotland's proposal was to join without meeting huge chunks of the criteria - the idea being they'd just waive loads of it. You're right - a Central Bank is one important thing to have but there are loads of others. Spain - and several others (France being one) - basically said yes, you can join, if you meet the criteria knowing that on a practical basis that could block them for 10+ years.

It is not in the interests of any EU country with separatists movements to see easy transition for a newly created country into the EU occur.

[SpeckledJim]

ElectricSoup said:

confused_buyer said:

ElectricSoup said:

I don't expect the Spanish government has been asked to comment since then, so I presume it's their current position until told otherwise. I think their grip on Catalonia is quite strong now, I don't see it going independent. More chance of Scottish independence if brexit continues, I'd have thought. But I am a mere observer.

Spain have said Scotland could join if they "meet all the criteria". There is a lot of criteria, particularly for a newly independent country, and most of it Scotland does not meet. Basically there are still about 100 ways Spain could block them without technically vetoing them for no good reason.

Any country can only join if the "meet all the criteria". So if they meet them, Spain would not block them, as with any other country. Doesn't sound like a problem to me. I think the big issue which may embugger Scotland is currency - an applicant country is supposed to have its own currency. If I were the leader of an independent Scotland, though, I'd be saying to the EU that we'd go straight in to the Euro, and they'd probably live with that. Of course, everything would only be accepted if voted on by the European Parliament and agreed by all 27 other individual governments, such is the level of democracy in the EU - a situation consistently ignored by brexiteers who simply want to whitewash it with lies about dictatorship and tales of EUSSR.

As noted though, they don't meet them. Not even nearly. So they'd be relying on favours, and Spain might understandably not want to grant any.

I've just read that applicant nations need to have a budget deficit of 3% or less. Apparently the Scottish budget deficit (currently under-written by England) is 8-10%.

Once they're on their own it's only going to get worse. Or they'll have to make cuts waaaaay in excess of those made by the Tories.

The SNP are not going to get anywhere near. I'd be surprised if they could even move it in the right direction.

So favours and blind-eyes are going to be required.

[ElectricSoup]

Sway said:

SpeckledJim said:

ElectricSoup said:

If you're fed up with the arse ache of something, it's probably not the most sensible thing to do to engage in another round of arse ache, which is what you seem to be suggesting they'd do. I'm convinced the EU would just be relieved to put it behind them and let us Remain as we are. They don't even seem to care if Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Croatia etc even apply to join the Euro any more.

I'd agree with this. They'd let us revoke A50 with little-to-no quibble.

Most of the conversation is rightly about how the UK will cope post-Brexit but viewed from Brussels an AWFUL lot of reliable inflowing cash is shortly going awol, and a debatable but not insignificant amount of trade is potentially going with it.

The UK's potential upsides and downsides in this scenario are both greater than those of the EU, as I see it. The EU losing the UK is an almost unarguable negative for them, which they'd rather have not happen.

I find it somewhat laughable that one of the biggest criticisms of the first ref, and a rationale for another, is that the campaign 'promised' things that couldn't be delivered - yet it now seems entirely appropriate to make such claims in the opposite direction and suggest another ref on that basis...

Indulge me a little - what if, we have a second referendum with broadly the same question as the last, the result is remain, and we go to Brussels to revoke Art. 50 - and Brussels says "fine, we could do with anothet strong economy within the Euro to help cover the structural issues it has. You can only revoke article 50 if you become a member of the Eurozone and Schenghen"?

They aren't fussed about the Eastern States joining the euro, because that will only exacerbate the existing issues with it. They'd fking leap at any chance to get another G8 economy to shoulder the burden of Club Med...

Pretty huge assumption - and seemingly the exact same principle as the reasons being given for another ref, which feels a tad hypocritical from my perspective.

I think the assumption is yours, Sway. All the noises coming out of the EU are that we're OK if we want to Remain on current terms. I don't see any evidence for holding your view, however. It would be a catastrophic own goal on the EU's part to get all the way to us remaining, only to pull the rug. I think this underlines the problem with Brexitism - it's mainly based on an assumption that the EU is some kind of enemy power wanting to pillage us. It isn't. I think it's safe to say that in your scenario we'd gracefully decline to such demands, and leave. Even I'd be inclined to be happier with that myself, and I'm an arch remainer. I'd finally have been proven wrong about the EU and I'd accept that. The EU has much to lose by being so cantankerous - it'd be hard for any third country to take them seriously in a negotiation again. Avoiding reputational damage is invaluable, as the UK is starting to learn.

[SpeckledJim]

Sway said:

SpeckledJim said:

ElectricSoup said:

If you're fed up with the arse ache of something, it's probably not the most sensible thing to do to engage in another round of arse ache, which is what you seem to be suggesting they'd do. I'm convinced the EU would just be relieved to put it behind them and let us Remain as we are. They don't even seem to care if Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Croatia etc even apply to join the Euro any more.

I'd agree with this. They'd let us revoke A50 with little-to-no quibble.

Most of the conversation is rightly about how the UK will cope post-Brexit but viewed from Brussels an AWFUL lot of reliable inflowing cash is shortly going awol, and a debatable but not insignificant amount of trade is potentially going with it.

The UK's potential upsides and downsides in this scenario are both greater than those of the EU, as I see it. The EU losing the UK is an almost unarguable negative for them, which they'd rather have not happen.

I find it somewhat laughable that one of the biggest criticisms of the first ref, and a rationale for another, is that the campaign 'promised' things that couldn't be delivered - yet it now seems entirely appropriate to make such claims in the opposite direction and suggest another ref on that basis...

Indulge me a little - what if, we have a second referendum with broadly the same question as the last, the result is remain, and we go to Brussels to revoke Art. 50 - and Brussels says "fine, we could do with anothet strong economy within the Euro to help cover the structural issues it has. You can only revoke article 50 if you become a member of the Eurozone and Schenghen"?

They aren't fussed about the Eastern States joining the euro, because that will only exacerbate the existing issues with it. They'd fking leap at any chance to get another G8 economy to shoulder the burden of Club Med...

Pretty huge assumption - and seemingly the exact same principle as the reasons being given for another ref, which feels a tad hypocritical from my perspective.

I think that's reasonable, but I think Brussels is pragmatic enough to take the view that simply undoing Brexit puts the EU into a much much better place than they were heading to.

They'll know that the Euro is a toxic issue in the UK, and would likely stymie any attempt to bounce UK public opinion back towards remaining.

[ElectricSoup]

SpeckledJim said:

ElectricSoup said:

confused_buyer said:

ElectricSoup said:

I don't expect the Spanish government has been asked to comment since then, so I presume it's their current position until told otherwise. I think their grip on Catalonia is quite strong now, I don't see it going independent. More chance of Scottish independence if brexit continues, I'd have thought. But I am a mere observer.

Spain have said Scotland could join if they "meet all the criteria". There is a lot of criteria, particularly for a newly independent country, and most of it Scotland does not meet. Basically there are still about 100 ways Spain could block them without technically vetoing them for no good reason.

Any country can only join if the "meet all the criteria". So if they meet them, Spain would not block them, as with any other country. Doesn't sound like a problem to me. I think the big issue which may embugger Scotland is currency - an applicant country is supposed to have its own currency. If I were the leader of an independent Scotland, though, I'd be saying to the EU that we'd go straight in to the Euro, and they'd probably live with that. Of course, everything would only be accepted if voted on by the European Parliament and agreed by all 27 other individual governments, such is the level of democracy in the EU - a situation consistently ignored by brexiteers who simply want to whitewash it with lies about dictatorship and tales of EUSSR.

As noted though, they don't meet them. Not even nearly. So they'd be relying on favours, and Spain might understandably not want to grant any.

I've just read that applicant nations need to have a budget deficit of 3% or less. Apparently the Scottish budget deficit (currently under-written by England) is 8-10%.

Once they're on their own it's only going to get worse. Or they'll have to make cuts waaaaay in excess of those made by the Tories.

The SNP are not going to get anywhere near. I'd be surprised if they could even move it in the right direction.

So favours and blind-eyes are going to be required.

If they don't meet all the criteria, they would not be allowed to join. Spain is neither here nor there. If they met all the criteria, and Spain exercised a veto, they would not be allowed to join. But Spain says they would not exercise that veto (you know, the same one we always had over Turkey's membership, despite Leave campaign assertions that "Turkey is joining").

So in the case of not meeting criteria, no, of course they're not joining, but that's got nothing to do with Spain.

[confused_buyer]

SpeckledJim said:

I think that's reasonable, but I think Brussels is pragmatic enough to take the view that simply undoing Brexit puts the EU into a much much better place than they were heading to.

They'll know that the Euro is a toxic issue in the UK, and would likely stymie any attempt to bounce UK public opinion back towards remaining.

That works both ways though. If they're fundamentally pragmatic then a sensible deal with them upon leaving should be a shoo in as well........

[Sway]

SpeckledJim said:

I think that's reasonable, but I think Brussels is pragmatic enough to take the view that simply undoing Brexit puts the EU into a much much better place than they were heading to.

They'll know that the Euro is a toxic issue in the UK, and would likely stymie any attempt to bounce UK public opinion back towards remaining.

That's a reasonable position - however I also feel it's a reasonable position that the best outcome of the current negotiations is a comprehensive FTA...

Just indulge me - do you really suggest another ref, with another couple of years of uncertainty, for which there's the possibility of a significant section of the electorate justifiably shouting "you can't deliver what was promised, I demand yet another referendum"?

Whether that possibility is large or small, as I keep saying - surely we've learnt it's utterly daft to promise outcomes of bilateral agreements?

[SpeckledJim]

Sway said:

SpeckledJim said:

I think that's reasonable, but I think Brussels is pragmatic enough to take the view that simply undoing Brexit puts the EU into a much much better place than they were heading to.

They'll know that the Euro is a toxic issue in the UK, and would likely stymie any attempt to bounce UK public opinion back towards remaining.

That's a reasonable position - however I also feel it's a reasonable position that the best outcome of the current negotiations is a comprehensive FTA...

Just indulge me - do you really suggest another ref, with another couple of years of uncertainty, for which there's the possibility of a significant section of the electorate justifiably shouting "you can't deliver what was promised, I demand yet another referendum"?

Whether that possibility is large or small, as I keep saying - surely we've learnt it's utterly daft to promise outcomes of bilateral agreements?

No, I'm not arguing that. I said above I believe a second ref is not going to happen. And additionally, I don't want one. I'm just debating the points around what might happen if it did.

My position is that I'd like us outside the EU, with the best TA we can mutually manage, and then we need to sally forth unto the great beyond and do what historically we did rather well - make stuff, sell stuff, buy stuff. Trade like mad.

Tax and employment legislation built on encouraging enterprise and jobs, and making us a more appealing place to do global business than our EU friends and competitors.

And, given the UK is a bloody good place to live and work, we can offer the best global talent a place here to help us do it. (we should be doing that already, but immigration has a bad name, due to some of the people who have taken advantage of it)

[Mrr T]

confused_buyer said:

SpeckledJim said:

I think that's reasonable, but I think Brussels is pragmatic enough to take the view that simply undoing Brexit puts the EU into a much much better place than they were heading to.

They'll know that the Euro is a toxic issue in the UK, and would likely stymie any attempt to bounce UK public opinion back towards remaining.

That works both ways though. If they're fundamentally pragmatic then a sensible deal with them upon leaving should be a shoo in as well........

If by a sensible deal you mean one that fits in with other agreements the EU has with 3rd countries and maintains the integrity of the SM and the CU I am sure the EU will agree to it. However, the UK wants a cake and eat it deal.

[Sway]

SpeckledJim said:

Sway said:

SpeckledJim said:

I think that's reasonable, but I think Brussels is pragmatic enough to take the view that simply undoing Brexit puts the EU into a much much better place than they were heading to.

They'll know that the Euro is a toxic issue in the UK, and would likely stymie any attempt to bounce UK public opinion back towards remaining.

That's a reasonable position - however I also feel it's a reasonable position that the best outcome of the current negotiations is a comprehensive FTA...

Just indulge me - do you really suggest another ref, with another couple of years of uncertainty, for which there's the possibility of a significant section of the electorate justifiably shouting "you can't deliver what was promised, I demand yet another referendum"?

Whether that possibility is large or small, as I keep saying - surely we've learnt it's utterly daft to promise outcomes of bilateral agreements?

No, I'm not arguing that. I said above I believe a second ref is not going to happen. And additionally, I don't want one. I'm just debating the points around what might happen if it did.

My position is that I'd like us outside the EU, with the best TA we can mutually manage, and then we need to sally forth unto the great beyond and do what historically we did rather well - make stuff, sell stuff, buy stuff. Trade like mad.

Tax and employment legislation built on encouraging enterprise and jobs, and making us a more appealing place to do global business than our EU friends and competitors.

And, given the UK is a bloody good place to live and work, we can offer the best global talent a place here to help us do it. (we should be doing that already, but immigration has a bad name, due to some of the people who have taken advantage of it)

Apologies, I thought you were advocating a second ref, not merely positing what one might look like.

On the rest of your post, I completely agree...

[ElectricSoup]

Sway said:

SpeckledJim said:

Sway said:

SpeckledJim said:

I think that's reasonable, but I think Brussels is pragmatic enough to take the view that simply undoing Brexit puts the EU into a much much better place than they were heading to.

They'll know that the Euro is a toxic issue in the UK, and would likely stymie any attempt to bounce UK public opinion back towards remaining.

That's a reasonable position - however I also feel it's a reasonable position that the best outcome of the current negotiations is a comprehensive FTA...

Just indulge me - do you really suggest another ref, with another couple of years of uncertainty, for which there's the possibility of a significant section of the electorate justifiably shouting "you can't deliver what was promised, I demand yet another referendum"?

Whether that possibility is large or small, as I keep saying - surely we've learnt it's utterly daft to promise outcomes of bilateral agreements?

No, I'm not arguing that. I said above I believe a second ref is not going to happen. And additionally, I don't want one. I'm just debating the points around what might happen if it did.

My position is that I'd like us outside the EU, with the best TA we can mutually manage, and then we need to sally forth unto the great beyond and do what historically we did rather well - make stuff, sell stuff, buy stuff. Trade like mad.

Tax and employment legislation built on encouraging enterprise and jobs, and making us a more appealing place to do global business than our EU friends and competitors.

And, given the UK is a bloody good place to live and work, we can offer the best global talent a place here to help us do it. (we should be doing that already, but immigration has a bad name, due to some of the people who have taken advantage of it)

Apologies, I thought you were advocating a second ref, not merely positing what one might look like.

On the rest of your post, I completely agree...

It's a compelling argument, lads, stirring stuff. But one can equally apply Sway's "What if it all goes wrong and the foreigners don't play nicely with us" test. Risk worth taking? Not for me. We're going to be viewed as difficult little pest of a country, without our current advantage of acting as a gateway to much of continental Europe. Have we got so much special stuff that it will compensate for our reduced influence? Again, don't want to try to find out.

Thanks for the rational and polite tone of debate today though. I'd been losing the will to look at brexit threads on here. We still disagree but it's been an interesting and polite discussion today.