Clarity Bloom Cbd Gummies (I've Tested)...
Food & Drink0 min ago
Nicola Not A Happy Bunny
It seems our beloved first minister did not put on her happy face when meeting Boris today in Scotland,Boris will not agree to a second referendum on independence for Scotland,he said the first result should stand and he is right,in my opinion.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Jordyboy9. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//NJ, does the EVEL (English Votes for English Laws)process in Parliament, not deal with the West Lothian Question?//
No, because it doesn't work.
//"Scotland would beforced to join the Euro"
Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden and the UK.
"sign up to Schengen"
Albania, Andora, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Ireland, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine and the UK.//
A correction to the above is that Monaco is part of the Schengen Area. All new member nations of the EU are obliged to commit to join both Schengen and the euro. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia and Romania are in that position as far as Schengen goes. Some existing members were given "opt outs" from those schemes when they were launched. They are said to be permanent opt-outs - as permanent as anything in the EU, that is (i.e permanent until the EU says otherwise). I'm not too sure what you mean by your list under Schengen as the majority of those countries are not EU members and so have nothing to do with your assertion.
an independent Scotland would have absolutely no chance of joining the EU any time soon. The five current official candidate nations have been negotiating entry for between ten and twenty years. These things take time.
No, because it doesn't work.
//"Scotland would beforced to join the Euro"
Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden and the UK.
"sign up to Schengen"
Albania, Andora, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Ireland, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine and the UK.//
A correction to the above is that Monaco is part of the Schengen Area. All new member nations of the EU are obliged to commit to join both Schengen and the euro. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia and Romania are in that position as far as Schengen goes. Some existing members were given "opt outs" from those schemes when they were launched. They are said to be permanent opt-outs - as permanent as anything in the EU, that is (i.e permanent until the EU says otherwise). I'm not too sure what you mean by your list under Schengen as the majority of those countries are not EU members and so have nothing to do with your assertion.
an independent Scotland would have absolutely no chance of joining the EU any time soon. The five current official candidate nations have been negotiating entry for between ten and twenty years. These things take time.
In another thread, presumably?
As long as the rules on referendums are agreed upon mutually, then fair enough. But I rather suspect that any attempt to impose a time gap between referendums on the same topic will go the same way as the idea of the Fixed-Term Parliament Act, undermined by the necessity to have at least a theoretical possibility of a shorter gap which then turns into more or less an absolute guarantee that the gap is only as long as (enough) people want it to be.
As long as the rules on referendums are agreed upon mutually, then fair enough. But I rather suspect that any attempt to impose a time gap between referendums on the same topic will go the same way as the idea of the Fixed-Term Parliament Act, undermined by the necessity to have at least a theoretical possibility of a shorter gap which then turns into more or less an absolute guarantee that the gap is only as long as (enough) people want it to be.
Quite a while ago, yes, Jim x but otherwise we have the possibility of MPs steamrollering people until they get what they personally want... as is happening with Brexit. It does need to be clear beforehand, so that everyone knows where they are, but continuing to harass people who have already made their choice, is also not acceptable.
//It does need to be clear beforehand, so that everyone knows where they are, but continuing to harass people who have already made their choice, is also not acceptable//
I respect every MP who voted against the original referendum because they believed that the UK's interests would be damaged by leaving, and those interests ought not be made hostages to fortune by letting "populists" like Farage loose.
I similarly respect every MP who voted against[i triggering Article 50. For the same reason.
I similarly respect every MP who voted [i]against[i] the withdrawal dates.
For the same reason.
These votes [i]against[i] allowing the possibility, or subsequent implemention of leaving the EU even if decided by plebiscite is a principled stance.
The majority of MPs who who voted [i]for] any of these things, but are now determined to thwart Brexit are not people of principle.
Are they?
I respect every MP who voted against the original referendum because they believed that the UK's interests would be damaged by leaving, and those interests ought not be made hostages to fortune by letting "populists" like Farage loose.
I similarly respect every MP who voted against[i triggering Article 50. For the same reason.
I similarly respect every MP who voted [i]against[i] the withdrawal dates.
For the same reason.
These votes [i]against[i] allowing the possibility, or subsequent implemention of leaving the EU even if decided by plebiscite is a principled stance.
The majority of MPs who who voted [i]for] any of these things, but are now determined to thwart Brexit are not people of principle.
Are they?
It's obviously hard not to have the Brexit referendum in mind, but presumably even if you cast that one aside it's not difficult to imagine holding a referendum on a question where the answer could even *need* to be changed quicker than a 15-year time gap. I agree that rules on referendums in this country should be made clearer, though.
I assume that also includes Boris "the Withdrawal Agreement is broken" Johnson, who voted for the deal he trashed before and has abandoned now? :P
I don't want to defend the general handling of Brexit. MPs I think were too frightened earlier on to stand up for what they actually thought, and perhaps there was a certain (naive?) hope that voting for Article 50 would lead to at least a reasonable-ish deal/soft Brexit that they could support later.
I don't want to defend the general handling of Brexit. MPs I think were too frightened earlier on to stand up for what they actually thought, and perhaps there was a certain (naive?) hope that voting for Article 50 would lead to at least a reasonable-ish deal/soft Brexit that they could support later.
//an independent Scotland would have absolutely no chance of joining the EU any time soon. The five current official candidate nations have been negotiating entry for between ten and twenty years. These things take time. //
allowing Scotland (as a newly independent former part of another nation) to join the EU would (in the eyes of Spain and France, who have their own prospective independent nations) set a precedent that Spain and France would not be prepared to support.
allowing Scotland (as a newly independent former part of another nation) to join the EU would (in the eyes of Spain and France, who have their own prospective independent nations) set a precedent that Spain and France would not be prepared to support.
I knew you'd say that, v-e, but there are a couple of points worth stressing:
1. I can only speak for myself, but the simple fact is that when I was supportive of a referendum I at least underestimated the possibility, if I admitted there was one at all, of the result going Leave's way. This was at the very least naive and perhaps even blatantly cynical. I'm not going to defend that position, it was a mistake. I would still support a referendum even now but in future I would only want to call for a referendum if I were personally sure that the nation were prepared for either outcome.
2: This leads to the second point, which is that it's a bit too generous to MPs to assume that they've ever been in control of anything Brexit-related. I was going to go over a history lesson at this point but the basic summary is that having made the error of judgement above I'd want to try and make amends in the aftermath. Immediately after the result came and shocked me I said that I hoped it would be honoured, or words to that effect. I meant that then and I don't regret saying it. But I would have tried to honour the result in a very different way from how Theresa May, in particular, did so. Maybe it wouldn't have met with popularity on here, and surely it would still inevitably have been shaped by the "make the best of a bad choice" mentality, rather than wholeheartedly embracing it. But I would have tried all the same to respect the result. This would have included, for example, trying to find a consensus in the UK for the best way to proceed before opening formal talks with the EU. It would have included *not* calling a cynical General Election, or trying to shut out Parliament even after I'd lost my majority. It would have included *not* presenting the same rejected deal three times over. It would have included talking about finding consensus and compromise before I'd signally failed to do either of these things continuously for three years, rather than afterwards. Etc etc.
I will never subscribe to the narrow interpretation of "honouring" the referendum being completely blind to the process of leaving. Accepting that we should leave doesn't mean that "how" should be irrelevant, should pay no heed to expert analysis of the likely consequences if mismanaged, or should be forced through without respecting our own legal processes and constitution. If care over detail is described as "not honouring" the outcome, then so be it. At least I can't be accused of dishonesty. I
1. I can only speak for myself, but the simple fact is that when I was supportive of a referendum I at least underestimated the possibility, if I admitted there was one at all, of the result going Leave's way. This was at the very least naive and perhaps even blatantly cynical. I'm not going to defend that position, it was a mistake. I would still support a referendum even now but in future I would only want to call for a referendum if I were personally sure that the nation were prepared for either outcome.
2: This leads to the second point, which is that it's a bit too generous to MPs to assume that they've ever been in control of anything Brexit-related. I was going to go over a history lesson at this point but the basic summary is that having made the error of judgement above I'd want to try and make amends in the aftermath. Immediately after the result came and shocked me I said that I hoped it would be honoured, or words to that effect. I meant that then and I don't regret saying it. But I would have tried to honour the result in a very different way from how Theresa May, in particular, did so. Maybe it wouldn't have met with popularity on here, and surely it would still inevitably have been shaped by the "make the best of a bad choice" mentality, rather than wholeheartedly embracing it. But I would have tried all the same to respect the result. This would have included, for example, trying to find a consensus in the UK for the best way to proceed before opening formal talks with the EU. It would have included *not* calling a cynical General Election, or trying to shut out Parliament even after I'd lost my majority. It would have included *not* presenting the same rejected deal three times over. It would have included talking about finding consensus and compromise before I'd signally failed to do either of these things continuously for three years, rather than afterwards. Etc etc.
I will never subscribe to the narrow interpretation of "honouring" the referendum being completely blind to the process of leaving. Accepting that we should leave doesn't mean that "how" should be irrelevant, should pay no heed to expert analysis of the likely consequences if mismanaged, or should be forced through without respecting our own legal processes and constitution. If care over detail is described as "not honouring" the outcome, then so be it. At least I can't be accused of dishonesty. I
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.