That would be heaven.
Not likely. Idi Amin is long dead.
Many people in England would agree with you.
Personally I have been a staunch supporter of the E.U. from the start but even I think that a go it alone England, and yes I did say England, would be immensly better off now without having to endure the millions of recent immigrants, the bizarre Human Rights Act, and subsidising the basket case economies of some other E.C. members.
Not only would Scotland not being our concern any more, be in many peoples eyes a good thing, but it would give us an out from the E.C. that wouldn’t incur any penalties on us if we didn’t bother to reapply .
Which we wouldn’t, as there is no way we’d adopt the Euro.
The E.C. unfortunately needs us, but we don’t need them.
If you’re referring to this,
it has nothing to do with the EU. It gives effect in UK law to the European Convention on Human Rights, the principal instrument of the Council of Europe, an entirely seperate body from the EU. The Council existed before the EU and has a significantly larger membership.
England doesn’t have a navy.
You’re completely right, but the pressure brought to bear on the U.K. to sign it was from E.U. politicians.
And an independant England, or even rump of the U.K., would not be a signatory, so would have to sign up again to be subject to its dictates.
Which of course I’m sure we would.
The EU pressured the UK to sign the ECHR? Did they have a time machine?
The scenario raised by BunnyTVS was could “the rest of Britain…get the demarcations altered.” I was purely pointing out that a post separation England* would have the military power to conceivably force such a change, but as I also said “changing the demarcation is physically possible, but seems diplomatically extremely unlikely (and hell, they’d be as well just invading Scotland and getting the land and water too)”
- should really be “England, Wales, Northern Ireland” but I was lazy
"Over the next three decades, a number of leading judicial and political figures such as Lord Scarman, Lord Hailsham, and former home secretary Lord (Roy) Jenkins, as well as bodies like Liberty and Charter 88, led successively stronger calls for incorporation of the convention into British law.
But the process was a slow one in the face of continued opposition from the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher and then John Major, which remained distinctly unenthusiastic about anything linked to Europe, even though the convention and the court have nothing to do with the European Commission.
However, times were changing and in 1993, John Smith, the then Labour Party leader, committed the next Labour government to “new constitutional settlement, a new deal between the people and the state that puts the citizen centre stage”.
It was that commitment that was honoured by the new prime minister, Tony Blair, when the Labour party took office in 1997, with the Human Rights Act becoming one of its most important pieces of legislation. In 1998, when it completed its passage through the Houses of Parliament, it was, according to then home secretary, Jack Straw: “a historic day” for rights in Britain."
<scoffs> Well, Labor! They’re all Eurohuggers anyway, aren’t they? No True Englishmen, they. (And Labor is controlled by the Caledonian Mafia, right? So, yeah, Scots and Euros! They’re the only ones that wanted human rights!)
Sounds like Artur Mas, maybe we could trade.
Labour. Tsk.
I reject your correction. Both spellings are valid. The Labor party is simply a organizational entity named after the common word “labor.” It’s not a human being. There’s no reason I should have to change to a British spelling just for that one word in a segment in which I’m otherwise not using British spellings. When we write of a ruling by a British court, we don’t feel obligated to use the spelling “judgement.” We are free to refer to Hammond’s department as the “Ministry of Defense,” instead of “Defence.”
Thus, I shall continue to use either “Labor party” or “Labour party” as the mood suits me.
Sorry me old mucker, trying to muddy the waters are we ?
The U.K. was one of the founder members of ECHR after I believe ww2, but, the bizarre Human Rights Act (or whatever) was signed by the U.K. only a few years ago.
I’m afraid that you’ve got it wrong , yet again.
Sorry but I’m not interested in party politics, or politicians wheeling and dealing.
Signing this act was not in any political partys election manifesto, nor was it presented to the electorate in a referendum.
Incredible pressure was brought on the P.M. to sign it.
I have yet to meet a voter of any political persuasion who wanted it before the event, or is glad of it after the event.
Can you cite any sources that indicate direct pressure by the EU for the UK to pass the Human Rights Act? Far as I can tell it’s neither here nor there to them.
The Act was brought in as a cost-saving measure, actually; rather than having appeals go up to the European Court, they were meant to stop at the House of Lords/Supreme Court, or at least to reduce the regularity of such appeals. I don’t see the EU caring much either way, do you?
Incorrect. Labour mentioned it quite clearly in their 1997 manifesto:
Looks like you got it wrong. Yet again.
Elected officials rarely respond to any kind of pressure that is likely to lose them votes or fail to win them votes.
Your claims would be a lot more persuasive if you could find some supporting cites for them.
The problem with most of the independence debate is that it is dominated by people who are passionate about it and they raise the argument to an emotional level which in reality it can’t sustain (at least elsewhere, the debate here has been relatively sensible). In reality, if we voted for independence (which we won’t), the disengagement from the UK and re-engagement with the EU would be amiable, dull, difficult and eye-wateringly expensive. Not exciting, emotive, simple and somehow miraculously cheap.
For the time being, the Nats are still able to spout the breathless Braveheart platitudes. Over the next six to twelve months they will have to start talking about the dull practicalities. How much will we pay the Welsh to manage our driver and vehicle licensing, and for how long? Will we remain tightly tied into the existing UK immigration structures, and if not what will the border controls look like? How will university fees be restructured? How will British consular assistance overseas be reorganised and funded? And a hundred other things.
But the biggest will be tax. Politicians love to talk about spending. But tax, not so much. Will there still be a British tax system? Presumably not. So, who, what, how will taxes be raised, and who, what and how will be paying them? Mind numbingly painful to think about, and critically important.
The EU negotiations will be even more tedious. No the Spaniards won’t veto us. Yes, we will have to follow all the rules for a new entrant and won’t get any favours no matter how special we claim to be.
Will we adopt metric measures, or stick with English ones? Will we adopt any European habits, or stick doggedly to our our comfortable English ways? 
Most of all, yes, it will cost a shedload of money to implement new government structures, so we will be poorer for a generation, and no, after that we won’t be any richer than currently, since we are already about as well governed as we are willing to be.