Spain won’t veto Scotland being admitted into the EU.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/uk-regions/scotland/news/84768/spain-rules-out-veto-scotland-re-joining-eu-major-boost
I don’t remember Spain ever threatening a veto for Scottish membership. It was always that Spain wouldn’t be automatically kept in the EU after separation and that Scotland couldn’t negotiate independently staying in while part of the U.K. Indeed, your link actually just reiterates that. It contains the conflicting points:
No, the comments do not leave her open to that argument. Membership would not be retained though it could be regained.
Oops, obviously I meant “Scotland wouldn’t be automatically kept in the EU after separation”.
For me, what angers me about Brexit is that Brexiters have undermined the very basis of good-faith, reasoned debate.
Even if the UK comes out of Brexit intact and healthy, it won’t be because Brexiters had any kind of clear plan of what they wanted or made any attempt to elaborate on what their vision for the UK is.
Brexitism is profoundly negative - it’s ‘I don’t like the EU, so we should go’ - there was very little attempt to demonstrate how outside the EU is better, and what the UK needs to do to make it better.
It was taken for granted that out = good, inherently and automatically. What evidence did they have for this? Oh, er, look over there!
Whenever Remainers tried to warn of the huge potential dangers of leaving the EU, Brexiters knee-jerked scaremongering. Was there any attempt by Brexiters to dissect these warnings and say why they were alarmist? Was there fuck - it was an empty slogan to dismiss inconvenient claims.
Even if Brexit succeeds, it’s a fact-less, slogan-filled emptiness.
And it damages every future major issue before this country.
For example, Scotland. There are many Brexiters who scoff at Scottish independence because it would be massively harmful to Scotland. The irony here is lost on them, of course.
But the point is, even if they are absolutely right in it being worse for Scotland than remaining in the UK, Brexitism has shown that facts are irrelevant. What you feel matters.
It can be used for anything else. Politics is badly broken. It was already, in many ways, but Brexitism has shown that facts will never matter ever again. Slogans matter.
Brexiters can never take credit for the UK outside of the EU being a success, because they’ve never offered any positive vision for what they want or any plan of how to get there. It will be Remainers, who care about evidence, who plug the leaky boat, to save the country from itself.
Spain now says they would not block Scotland from joining the EU:
Spain drops plan to impose veto if Scotland tries to join EU
Spain is most likely grandstanding for Brexit negotiating purposes only. Spain has fought Catalan independence for a long, long time now. It would be poor show for anyone to believe this fly by night Spanish Foreign Minister would undermine Spain’s own borders like this. It’s impossible to prove but I seriously doubt Spain would allow Scotland to join, but we shall only know for sure if or when Spain has to make it’s decision.
Everything would be so much easier if England would just do the honorable thing and leave the UK. Things just fall into place then. Except Wales, but so what else is new.
My (not very expert) read on it is that they figured that making all their own decisions was better than letting the EU’s central authority make some for them. It’s a common failing of nearly every revolution; all the rebels think it’ll be better but don’t bother to put in the time to prepare for it.
As for the OP, that’s like saying, “Well, it’s been five minutes and the ice cream hasn’t melted. Clearly science is wrong.”
I heard a very interesting argument earlier today from my sister-in-law. I forget from where she got it. Perhaps The Times? The essence of the argument was that most countries joined the EU not for trade but to ensure the primacy of the rule of law and as such have benefited considerably. But the UK has had the rule of law for centuries and the laws emanating from the EU have been seen as undue impositions on an already law-abiding populace. And that is why Brexit won.
Now, that’s not something I have previously considered, and even if true, I doubt it is the whole story.
“We’ve agreed that we will take the ice cream out of the freezer tomorrow and it hasn’t melted yet. Clearly science is wrong.”
And the other other big lesson it teaches:
[QUOTE=Deep Space Nine, “Improbable Cause”]
Bashir: But the point is, if you lie all the time, nobody’s going to believe you, even when you’re telling the truth.
Garak: Are you sure that’s the point, doctor?
Bashir: Of course, what else could it be?
Garak: That you should never tell the same lie twice.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve rarely read anything so blinkered and negative.
Ftr, 187 countries are not in the EU.
The future is bright, and the future will not be determined in Berlin.
Not to mention the inquest in the case.
You’ve just proved my point.
During the campaign, there were some highly dramatic predictions made in a naked attempt to scare people out of voting. Osborne’s emergency budget, which never happened, being exhibit number one. This has the effect of setting the bar for Brexit’s success at the vanishingly low “Not a total apocalyptic catastrophe”. No doubt we will get by without having to compete with rats for the chance to eat cockroaches. But it’s probably fair to set the bar a little higher than that.
We don’t know exactly what form Brexit will take yet. Depending on how negotations work out, Britain could accept a high level of EU immigration in return for less restricted access to the single market. Or Britain could insist on stringent controls on EU immigration and accept higher levels of tariffs in return. Similarly, Britain could accept an ongoing role for the ECJ in setting regulations for trade into the EU, or reject such a role. Again, this will affect the ease and thus the volume of trade between the two markets. The government currently appears to be aiming for a deal that falls further towards the lower immigration/greater trade barriers end of the spectrum. Taking them at their word, it is hardly panic-mongering to suggest that tariffs and regulations will negatively affect trade with Britain’s largest trading partner, nor is it crazy to suggest that this will have a net negative effect on wages, employment, business viability, investment, and GDP. It is of course possible - and desirable! - to negotiate trade deals with countries outside the EU, but this will take time both to hammer out the deals and for trade to ramp up to levels that will cancel out any losses from EU trade.
To take one practical example, it seems quite likely that leaving the EU customs union - should we choose to do so - will cause some immediate problems. EU goods are basically waved through customs without checks, currently. Should we leave the customs union, we will need the systems and staff to oversee and enforce the new regime. This is going to be difficult, because our current customs system was declared in need of replacement in 2010 as it was unlikely to be able to cope with the c. 100 million declarations that were predicted we would need by now. That prediction was made on the expectation we’d be in the EU. From outside the customs union, we will need to be able to cope with 350 million declarations annually.
You can go hereto read a long and sad tale of the UK government mismanaging a major IT procurement operation. (Predicting that the UK government will fuck up expensive IT procurement to the tune of billions of pounds and years of overrun is like predicting Marvel will make another superhero movie. It’s what they do.) Essentially, as things stand there is no new system in place 7 years after the decision to replace was first made and 5 years after the original deadline, we do not know what the requirements for this system will be so we can’t build it, the project has been flagged as “amber” meaning that there’s a reasonable risk it ain’t gonna happen, and the UK’s trade body is publicly raising the alarm over HMRC’s ability to produce both the new system and the staff to run it.
Now no doubt, many years from now, these problems will have been ironed out. But in the long run, like the man said, we are all dead. The short to medium term impact of the disruption to trade will have its own long-run effect. Investments not made, contracts lost, jobs not created, all because we’ve decided to increase the cost and difficulty of buying from us or selling to us. A few businesses will close, and we’ll notice those. What we won’t notice, over the years, is the businesses that don’t open in the UK because it’s just not quite worth the investment. But they’re the ones that count, because they’re what widen the gap between where we find ourselves, and where we would have been.
If only I were a fraction as smart as Remainers.
Project Fear followed by project patronise.
See, this is your problem, junction. You think you’re (Leavers, that is) derided because you’re Brexiters. No. You’re derided because you’re incapable of defending your viewpoint without resorting to, a range of ad hominems about what Remainers think of you, then saying we’re a bunch of defeatist pessimists, spouting blatant lies about how the EU works, and making no effort to defend your claims that leaving the EU is automatically superior.
It’s not Brexitism that makes us deride you. It’s your inability to defend it. You’ve been trounced in other threads whenever you make claims, and you drop subjects the moment the ice gets thin under you.
If I got a pound for every time a Brexiter’s first defence of their position was the incredibly patronising ‘Remainers are out of touch Londoners’, I’d be a very rich man.
As demonstrated in the other current thread it is the Remainers who are attacking people who report pro-Brexit views.
On the first page, I see up_the_junction swinging his class warfare hammer and you getting in a pissing match with k9bfreinder. How much further do I have to read?
Only five days after the filing and the uglyness is starting