In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
On June 24 2016 14:01 Fprime wrote: At this point, Cameron has to meet with EU leaders to try and negotiate special status concessions so he can declare victory and vote down the motion to leave the EU in Westminster. If he can do that, and if the pound continues its nosedive, then he may be able to sell his own MPs on the idea that they can survive the next general election after voting to remain in the EU, against the referendum outcome.
However, I think it would be in the EU's best interests to refuse any new concessions to the UK, and let them reap what they've sown. Scotland will demand a new referendum on leaving the UK, which has a greater chance of passing now that there's yet another policy split between England and Scotland. Ultimately, the UK will sink deeper into political and economic instability.
If the EU can delay these new demands for referendums from its own members for a couple of years, all they have to do is point to the UK as an example of how bad things will be if Country X votes to leave. The EU can, and will, survive this.
Scotland won't get another referendum. Westminster will block it under the Edinburgh agreement
I read it. It contains thirty point outlining the scope of the referendum, timing rules, and campaign financing rules. I didn't see anything in it which prevented a new referendum in the future.
Realistically, even if it happens, it will probably take a few years to get to that point. Now is not a good time to have yet another referendum.
Depends on the perspective. Certainly not for the UK. But for Scotland? Not too sure.
edit: J.K. Rowling already calling for scottish independence. Didn't take her long to try and get some likes.
On June 24 2016 14:12 Sent. wrote: I dont think a 52% or smaller victory is enough to justify such a drastic change. Wouldnt be surprised (or outraged) if Cameron decided to ignore the result.
Should have thought of that before the referendum. I.E. you need a 60% majority to let it pass like with constitutional changes where you often need 66% or even 75%. You cannot do that afterwards.
Was it really just a simple majority they were looking for? I guess if Cameron wanted to not immediately go with the Referendum and instead wanted to give Remain another go, he could call an election and make it THE election issue that he and his party was going to stand or die on.
That's not realistic. The Tories are divided on the issue so after losing the referendum Cameron will not even be able to get a majority from his party behind him if he wants to campaign to stay in the EU. Cameron is a dead duck now.
On June 24 2016 14:18 zeo wrote: Poor Norway and Switzerland, they can't trade with the EU. You have to hand over your sovereignty to be a successful country
They are subject to the regulations but not involved in the making of them. Not really what the leave voters had in mind when they voted to leave.
On June 24 2016 14:12 Sent. wrote: I dont think a 52% or smaller victory is enough to justify such a drastic change. Wouldnt be surprised (or outraged) if Cameron decided to ignore the result.
Should have thought of that before the referendum. I.E. you need a 60% majority to let it pass like with constitutional changes where you often need 66% or even 75%. You cannot do that afterwards.
Was it really just a simple majority they were looking for? I guess if Cameron wanted to not immediately go with the Referendum and instead wanted to give Remain another go, he could call an election and make it THE election issue that he and his party was going to stand or die on.
The government can't call elections anymore they changed it to fixed, five year terms so that the government couldn't set the election at the best time to get reelected. There isn't going to be a general election till 2020.
On June 24 2016 14:18 zeo wrote: Poor Norway and Switzerland, they can't trade with the EU. You have to hand over your sovereignty to be a successful country
They are subject to the regulations but not involved in the making of them. Not really what the leave voters had in mind when they voted to leave.
Iceland then.
You're getting desperate now.
Same thing for Iceland. Schengen and Dublin, freedom of movement.
On June 24 2016 14:01 Fprime wrote: At this point, Cameron has to meet with EU leaders to try and negotiate special status concessions so he can declare victory and vote down the motion to leave the EU in Westminster. If he can do that, and if the pound continues its nosedive, then he may be able to sell his own MPs on the idea that they can survive the next general election after voting to remain in the EU, against the referendum outcome.
However, I think it would be in the EU's best interests to refuse any new concessions to the UK, and let them reap what they've sown. Scotland will demand a new referendum on leaving the UK, which has a greater chance of passing now that there's yet another policy split between England and Scotland. Ultimately, the UK will sink deeper into political and economic instability.
If the EU can delay these new demands for referendums from its own members for a couple of years, all they have to do is point to the UK as an example of how bad things will be if Country X votes to leave. The EU can, and will, survive this.
Scotland won't get another referendum. Westminster will block it under the Edinburgh agreement
I read it. It contains thirty point outlining the scope of the referendum, timing rules, and campaign financing rules. I didn't see anything in it which prevented a new referendum in the future.
Realistically, even if it happens, it will probably take a few years to get to that point. Now is not a good time to have yet another referendum.
Depends on the perspective. Certainly not for the UK. But for Scotland? Not too sure.
edit: J.K. Rowling already calling for scottish independence. Didn't take her long to try and get some likes.
She is against independence I think she was saying this vote will cause it in Scotland. I don't think she is correct.
On June 24 2016 14:18 zeo wrote: Poor Norway and Switzerland, they can't trade with the EU. You have to hand over your sovereignty to be a successful country
Norway has to pay into the EU budget and has to abide by the rules. Switzerland only has access to parts of the single market and most importantly for the UK not to the services part.
Having control over your own country and government is more important than paying a tax to trade with the EU. The UK can now trade with the whole World. And more importantly its free.
Except it's not.
Yeah sure NATO is a problem but its not like NATO is writing laws in the UK (outside of the military)
On June 24 2016 14:01 Fprime wrote: At this point, Cameron has to meet with EU leaders to try and negotiate special status concessions so he can declare victory and vote down the motion to leave the EU in Westminster. If he can do that, and if the pound continues its nosedive, then he may be able to sell his own MPs on the idea that they can survive the next general election after voting to remain in the EU, against the referendum outcome.
However, I think it would be in the EU's best interests to refuse any new concessions to the UK, and let them reap what they've sown. Scotland will demand a new referendum on leaving the UK, which has a greater chance of passing now that there's yet another policy split between England and Scotland. Ultimately, the UK will sink deeper into political and economic instability.
If the EU can delay these new demands for referendums from its own members for a couple of years, all they have to do is point to the UK as an example of how bad things will be if Country X votes to leave. The EU can, and will, survive this.
Scotland won't get another referendum. Westminster will block it under the Edinburgh agreement
I read it. It contains thirty point outlining the scope of the referendum, timing rules, and campaign financing rules. I didn't see anything in it which prevented a new referendum in the future.
Realistically, even if it happens, it will probably take a few years to get to that point. Now is not a good time to have yet another referendum.
Depends on the perspective. Certainly not for the UK. But for Scotland? Not too sure.
edit: J.K. Rowling already calling for scottish independence. Didn't take her long to try and get some likes.
She is against independence I think she was saying this vote will cause it in Scotland. I don't think she is correct.
On June 24 2016 14:01 Fprime wrote: At this point, Cameron has to meet with EU leaders to try and negotiate special status concessions so he can declare victory and vote down the motion to leave the EU in Westminster. If he can do that, and if the pound continues its nosedive, then he may be able to sell his own MPs on the idea that they can survive the next general election after voting to remain in the EU, against the referendum outcome.
However, I think it would be in the EU's best interests to refuse any new concessions to the UK, and let them reap what they've sown. Scotland will demand a new referendum on leaving the UK, which has a greater chance of passing now that there's yet another policy split between England and Scotland. Ultimately, the UK will sink deeper into political and economic instability.
If the EU can delay these new demands for referendums from its own members for a couple of years, all they have to do is point to the UK as an example of how bad things will be if Country X votes to leave. The EU can, and will, survive this.
Scotland won't get another referendum. Westminster will block it under the Edinburgh agreement
I read it. It contains thirty point outlining the scope of the referendum, timing rules, and campaign financing rules. I didn't see anything in it which prevented a new referendum in the future.
Realistically, even if it happens, it will probably take a few years to get to that point. Now is not a good time to have yet another referendum.
Of course it will take a couple of years to set up (it did last time). That's perfectly fine.
Whether or not 2018ish is a good time for another referendum is subjective. 62% of Scots voted to remain in the EU. If they have a successful independence referendum, they have a mandate to begin discussions with the EU on Scotland remaining - even as the rest of the UK leaves. At this moment, the EU would greatly welcome Scotland declaring its intentions to stay which translates into leverage when negotiating the terms (this sort of thing is unprecedented).
On June 24 2016 14:18 zeo wrote: Poor Norway and Switzerland, they can't trade with the EU. You have to hand over your sovereignty to be a successful country
Norway has to pay into the EU budget and has to abide by the rules. Switzerland only has access to parts of the single market and most importantly for the UK not to the services part.
Having control over your own country and government is more important than paying a tax to trade with the EU. The UK can now trade with the whole World. And more importantly its free.
Except it's not.
Yeah sure NATO is a problem but its not like NATO is writing laws in the UK (outside of the military)
That wasn't actually my point. My point was that your whole posting was bullshit. You cited Norway and Switzerland, then Iceland. All of which have to abide to certain EU rules - and these rules are exactly the reason for the Brexit. And the UK could and did trade with the whole world before, so no idea where that even comes from.
And in regards to free: we'll see about that. I wouldn't call a country in a political deadlock with itself "free". In fact, i'd say they're less free than they were before - they're now actually visibly divided.
On June 24 2016 14:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So now Standard and Poor's have said the UK could see a credit downgrade.
Should have happened years ago, there is no way the UK is AAA.Totally bankrupt nation.Like i said before current account deficit was already 7% GDP! First shots fired by the establishment.
On June 24 2016 14:18 zeo wrote: Poor Norway and Switzerland, they can't trade with the EU. You have to hand over your sovereignty to be a successful country
They are subject to the regulations but not involved in the making of them. Not really what the leave voters had in mind when they voted to leave.
Iceland then.
You do not seem to understand that if you request access to something you do not get to do that on your own terms if you are in a position of weakness.
If you want access to the EU single market as a non-EU European country, you do it on the terms made by the EU, not on your own. You do not get to cherrypick. The UK will not be allowed to have its cake and eat it.
On June 24 2016 14:12 Sent. wrote: I dont think a 52% or smaller victory is enough to justify such a drastic change. Wouldnt be surprised (or outraged) if Cameron decided to ignore the result.
Should have thought of that before the referendum. I.E. you need a 60% majority to let it pass like with constitutional changes where you often need 66% or even 75%. You cannot do that afterwards.
Was it really just a simple majority they were looking for? I guess if Cameron wanted to not immediately go with the Referendum and instead wanted to give Remain another go, he could call an election and make it THE election issue that he and his party was going to stand or die on.
The Conservatives are the anti-European party (of the two Westminster English parties). They'd be campaigning on leave.
Hard to see how this will be beneficial to the UK in the short term, possibly in the medium term.
If the Euroskeptics are right, though, then they're leaving a sinking ship before it goes down. We'll see how the rest of Europe responds to all of this.
EPT
