[Glen]

Hi all,

I have looked over some posts and you are clever people, so I am confident we can solve this conundrum.

1. UK is a full member until Article 50 is enacted. The EU has never made an issue of the UK also being a union of countries.

2. England voted out, Scotland voted in. Not a problem because the UK has long-been committed to devolving power to Scotland. So the UK relocates all of the UK's EU decision making from London to Edinburgh, and by extension all responsibilities from England to Scotland (for the benefit of the EU, this means from UK to UK).

3. English Law and Scottish Law are already two completely different systems, so the UK agrees that EU laws enter Scottish system only. The UK also agrees absolute free trade between all its member countries.

4. England has free trade with Scotland. Scotland has free trade with EU. London can trade freely without permission from Brussels. Edinburgh hosts the EU tricky business. Several UK banks largely operate from Scotland, and RBS is domicile in Scotland, so the Financial Services can find a way with their existing infrastructure.

5. The UK continues to exist and nothing there is significantly changed, and the UK did not enact Article 50. Scottish citizens retain EU freedom of movement and access EC job prospects. (Wales receives same as England. Northern Ireland receives the same as Scotland). The Scotland-England border is an internal issue only, but I'm sure the EU can pay for any border controls if its concerned about keeping English football hooligans locked in.

I hope we can focus on brainstorming creative solutions rather than bash ideas.

[Potemkin]

England voted out, Scotland voted in.

Legally and constitutionally speaking, this is irrelevant. The UK as a whole voted in the referendum, and the outcome of the referendum applies to the UK as a whole. End of.

[peter767i]

The economic impact of the Brexit is already showing that people are worried about jobs, prices, etc and not spending. London will survive as ever, but the rest of the UK will suffer a lot.

[layman]

I don't know about that. Not if the financial sector and banks are hit especially hard. Not to mention property and immigration which London feeds off.

Obviously it was always going to be bad in the short term so not much point crowing about told you so yet. Save that for at least a few years.

[peter767i]

The banks won't suffer, Mark Carney, governor of Bank of England, has said they will pump the banks with £250 billion this summer. This is because the banks will earn nothing from lending when the interest rate hits zero or even negative. Same old rhetoric, save big business (banks), screw over the average paid worker or unemployed/poor. This vote out is a victory for the rich and racist and elderly who don't care about our economy because their incomes are always protected by the ruling government because they all vote. The young, poor, disabled can all go to hell. These are worrying times, the politics of evil.

[layman]

The financial service industry hit and reduced foreign investment could impact the city more, in a relative way. They could of course lobby to offset this with increased liberalism and other measures. They will of course have a massive say in negotiations.

I don't disagree with much else you said though. Many of the outvoters lack a real stake in society which is the nature of a protest vote.

The financial elite certainly voted remain though. Do you doubt this?

[Glen]

Legally and constitutionally speaking, this is irrelevant. The UK as a whole voted in the referendum, and the outcome of the referendum applies to the UK as a whole. End of.

Legally speaking, the referendum is irrelevant because it is a recommendation only. Where is this constitution you speak of, and where does it say in that constitution that vote distributions cannot be considered when writing policy?

Mark Carney, governor of Bank of England, has said they will pump the banks with £250 billion this summer.

That is not how Carney put it. British banks are among the best capitalised in the world, and Carney's message was that the banks are expected to use their own funds before drawing on the Bank of England. The £250bn is from a war chest. What does this amount correspond to in terms of threat levels?

The financial elite certainly voted remain though. Do you doubt this?

What is the definition of financial elite? The people allowed to vote were UK residents from the Commonwealth of Nations. Many immigrants from the Commonwealth voted Leave. The UK points-based system that applies to immigrants from the Commonwealth requires them to have above-average education and above-average pay, certainly more than blue collar workers. Commonwealth vs. Europe presents interesting recurring social and economic challenges in the UK.

While the replies are relevant, none seem to be proposing solutions?

[peter767i]

That is not how Carney put it.

It doesn't matter how he put it, that's what he meant. You clearly don't know much about politics.

[peter767i]

"While the replies are relevant, none seem to be proposing solutions?"

It's not our job to propose solutions, that's what politicians are paid to do.

[Glen]

You clearly don't know much about politics ... It's not our job to propose solutions, that's what politicians are paid to do.

Actually, its what some civil servants and lobbyists are paid to do. Politicians follow their own ideology when they pick and choose from submitted proposals. Good politicians listen and act in the public interest.

Each body of civil servants operates differently, but here is the outline of a typical policy-making process: HM Treasury.

[Albert]

Boris Johnson says he will not run to replace British Prime Minister Cameron
Is this true? Then Johnson is a bigger pansie then I though he was. What a waste, what was all this campaigning for? Just a show? Britain has good opportunity to lead Europe in a new direction, do not tell me all that is going to waste.


Also
Express UK
PUBLISHED: 03:09, Thu, Jun 30, 2016

MERKEL'S WORST NIGHTMARE: Germany calls for Referendum as 'people want to be free of EU'

BELEAGUERED Angela Merkel is facing calls for a referendum to free German people of "EU slavery" in the wake of Britain's sensational decision to cut ties with Brussels.

Far right figures in Alternative for Germany have promised to call their own vote if they clutch power in country's general election in autumn next year.

A party spokesman branded Brussels a "bureaucracy monster", before adding: "Next year the AfD will enter the German parliament and Dexit will be top on our agenda".

They called the vote a Dexit as it stands for a Deutschland exit from the EU.

Eurosceptism has swept across the continent after the people of Britain backed Brexit in the historic EU referendum on June 23.

AfD chairman Bjorn Hocke said: "I know the German people want to be free of EU slavery."

George Pazderski of Berlin AfD Berlin AfD added: "Germans must decided on staying in the EU.

"The AfD is the only part which speaks out clearly in favour of them deciding."

Party leader Frauke Petry, who caused controversy earlier this year when she called on German police to open fire on illegal immigrations, reacted with delight at Britain's decision to sever ties with Brussels.

She said: "This is the chance for a new Europe, one which maintains partnerships and respected national sovereignties.

"The Great Britain decision to leave the EU is a signal to the Brussels Politburo and its bureaucratic attachments. If the EU does not finally leave its wrong path, and the quasi-socialist experiment of deeper political integration, more European Nations will reclaim their sovereignty the way British are.

"The result would be more exits. At the very least the Brussels bureaucracy must be radically reduced and the centralist regulation craze ended.

"The time is ripe for a new Europe, a Europe of fatherlands, where we peacefully trade with each other, maintain partnerships and respect the will of the national sovereignties.

"One can only warn the German government not to fill the missing British net contribution with German tax money and thus continue the political fallacy."

However a chance of a German EU referendum may not be that simple.

The experience of Nazi manipulation of plebiscites has left a dent in the trust of polls on a national scale.

The country's post-war constitution currently only allows for referendums if the constitution itself or the territories of the states making ip the republic are to be reformed.

Ralph Kampwirth of the Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe said: "Germany is one of the few EU countries with no experience of national referendums.

"In the Weimar Republic there were two national referendums; during the Nazi reign, three plebiscites were held, with biased questions and blatant manipulation of results.

"A referendum does not mandate an organised political opposition - it simply requires a yes or no answer - one reason why both Napoleon and Hitler were enamoured of them."

Mrs Merkel and French president FrancoisHollande are said to be concerned that Brexit will lead to contagion and populist far-right parties would win support for their planes for the disintegration of the EU off the back of it.

So far far-right National Front party leader Marine Le Pen has called for France to host an EU referendum as she declared her support for Brexit.

The leader of far-right Danish People's Party says Denmark should now follow Britain's lead and hold a referendum on its membership.

Eurosceptic feeling is also surging in the Netherlands, with two-thirds of voters rejecting a Ukraine-EU treaty on closer political and economic ties.

Anti-EU politician Geert Wilders declared the result the “beginning of the end” for the Dutch government and the EU.

It seems, so far I can tell, there is two outcomes that can come out of this whole Brexit affair.

1) The establishment challenges the people and outcome of the referendum. They will either never evoke article 50 and just negotiate some sort return to status quo with EU or perhaps will call a new referendum to get the outcome "right". Basically practicing 'guided democracy' to steer from not leaving EU. This in the end will disfranchise a lot of people end erode trust in democratic institutions. Also this will not stop growing decent, but increase it only, to not just against EU but the whole liberal system, that we are witnessing in today's time. As in the end it will not go away unless addressed, and I really have little hope the current liberal establishment are capable enough to produce proper reform to address issues that many people have who voted to leave in this plebiscite.

1.1) They rejoin the EU, EU falls apart anyways as the 'populist' forces will tear it apart sooner or later. So they will be back to this scenario again, but now with more severe consequences.

2) Out of this politics chaos leadership arise who can take the 'leave' cause and bring UK out of EU. Also resolve secessionist issues with Celts to preserve the Union of Kingdoms. This will put Britain in very interesting position on world stage, really after this their destiny is in their hands; I can not foresee what they will do then. Hopefully colonize South Africa and India again? That would be nice.

In all these scenarios they will be punished by EU technocrats, because that is how they are in EU, whole bunch of arrogant bastards.

[Glen]

The Dutch rejected the adoption of an EU Constitution by referendum in 2005. History may remember that as being the beginning of the end of the EU, not because of their vote, but because the EU reacted by maintaining course. Brexit may just be one step on a continuing trend.

In the words of the unelected President Juncker, “We all know what to do, we just don't know how to get re-elected after we've done it,” “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’", “I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious", "When it becomes serious, you have to lie" , [and the European Union needs] “secret, dark debates”.

President Juncker faces criticism in Luxembourg for overseeing spying and corporate tax scandals.

[N^G]

Hi all,

I have looked over some posts and you are clever people, so I am confident we can solve this conundrum.

1. UK is a full member until Article 50 is enacted. The EU has never made an issue of the UK also being a union of countries.

2. England voted out, Scotland voted in. Not a problem because the UK has long-been committed to devolving power to Scotland. So the UK relocates all of the UK's EU decision making from London to Edinburgh, and by extension all responsibilities from England to Scotland (for the benefit of the EU, this means from UK to UK).

3. English Law and Scottish Law are already two completely different systems, so the UK agrees that EU laws enter Scottish system only. The UK also agrees absolute free trade between all its member countries.

4. England has free trade with Scotland. Scotland has free trade with EU. London can trade freely without permission from Brussels. Edinburgh hosts the EU tricky business. Several UK banks largely operate from Scotland, and RBS is domicile in Scotland, so the Financial Services can find a way with their existing infrastructure.

5. The UK continues to exist and nothing there is significantly changed, and the UK did not enact Article 50. Scottish citizens retain EU freedom of movement and access EC job prospects. (Wales receives same as England. Northern Ireland receives the same as Scotland). The Scotland-England border is an internal issue only, but I'm sure the EU can pay for any border controls if its concerned about keeping English football hooligans locked in.

I hope we can focus on brainstorming creative solutions rather than bash ideas.

Spain says no, because they are dicks

[Glen]

Spain says no

Spain doesn't have a voice in that scenario, so do they throw a spanner in the works by invading Gibraltar?

One possible reaction might be an EU delegate calling for "UK expulsion" on the basis that the UK had materially changed, but there is no legal precedent.

[N^G]

:lol: Spain doesn't have a voice in that scenario, so do they throw a spanner in the works by invading Gibraltar?

One possible reaction might be an EU delegate calling for "UK expulsion" on the basis that the UK had materially changed, but there is no legal precedent.

So, article 49 of the Lisbon Treaty:

Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to
promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union. The European Parliament and
national Parliaments shall be notified of this application. The applicant State shall address its application
to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after
receiving the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component
members. The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken
into account.
The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded,
which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and
the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in
accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

Effectively, all EU countries must approve an application before a country can join, ergo Spain, being a bunch of bawbags, can and will block Scotland's entry to the EU in a circumstance where it also remains part of the UK over their own government's pathetic fears regarding Catalonia region.

[Glen]

I know the treaties but in the scenario posted, Scotland does not join because the UK does not leave. It is simply UK devolving power, which has nothing to do with the EU.

So what is there for anyone in the EU to approve?

[N^G]

I know the treaties but in the scenario posted, Scotland does not join because the UK does not leave. It is simply UK devolving power, which has nothing to do with the EU.

So what is there for anyone in the EU to approve?

I see where you are going with it, but I don't think the reality of the situation gels with your hypothetical: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... -by-spani/

[Glen]

I see where you are going with it, but I don't think the reality of the situation gels with your hypothetical: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... -by-spani/

The problem with Article 50 is that it is a one-way trip. The objective of the hypothetical is delivering on the vote without invoking Article 50, so nobody is joining or leaving. This is not the Conservative approach, but there is something important to note about the EU that many people seem to forget, which is that the EU is weak and unable to enforce rules.

The EU position is that Holyrood does not have a mandate to represent the UK at the EU. The hypothetical is one in which the UK side-steps that problem by giving Holyrood the responsibility of representing the UK at the EU. The EU has no say in this because there is no material change in membership. That is the easy part.

The difficult part is restructuring the UK to deliver on the vote, but it happens orderly with public consultations. In a nutshell, some regions of the UK will completely ignore EU regulations, and Sweden shows that this is very acceptable. Sweden is officially part of Eurozone, but Sweden has continued to use the Krona and completely ignore the Euro. The truth about the EU is that its rules are beyond flexible, they are floppy, and the EU will not care if an annoying region of England blatantly ignores freedom of movement.

British approach the EU with honour and integrity, while other EU members are treating it like a silly game and winning. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.