I fail to see where this discussion is going. The UK is not the sum of 4 countries but is an entity in itself. The UK joined the EU and it is the UK that will leave. England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland did not get to vote on whether or not there would be a referendum- the UK did. Nobody in Scotland voiced opposition to the referendum bill - it does smack of sour grapes to me. London has to put up with the result - so does everybody else. Much as I wish otherwise I would not bet a penny on Scottish or Irish arguments affecting the judges decision. That will be binary. They will rule that the UK Parliament has to trigger Article 50 or that it can be done by Royal Prerogative. The rest is just vague hopes that the referendum result can be thwarted.
Sweden is not yet in the euro but is required to join the euro once it fulfils the necessary conditions. Scotland has already been warned it would not be allowed to use the British Pound. Due to Scotland's likely financial frailties I'm not sure anybody would be keen to lend much to them, especially after Salmond's loose comments about defaulting on Scotland' s share of the national debt. Ireland's border poses many problems, none of which will prevent Brexit.
Nobody has to trigger Article 50 Leo, it will be done voluntarily, if at all. You are forgetting that it was not a legally binding referendum - it had actually no more legal standing than an opinion poll. Why is this ? Why did the government leave this loophole ? Where they so ignorant ? Would anyone have believed the possibility that Britain would vote for Brexit, and then that nothing would happen for a full 9 months afterwards ? I can remember Cameron saying that if he lost then he would trigger Article 50 the next day - was he genuinely ignorant of all the legal procedures involved or was he just lying ? When it is triggered it will be done by politicians who know that it could herald the end of the UK, and it will be done knowing that it is not legally binding. Just wait for Scotland to start turning up the heat and we will see what happens. Is it worth ending a 300 year old successfull union for a narrow referendum result which was not binding (and which they knew all along was not binding).
That is another red herring I am afraid. Yes it was technically advisory but we all knew it was really binding - very few MPs who want to keep their jobs will not honour the result. I am as much against brexit as anybody but even I would honour it if I were an MP. Only a General Election - and almost certainly not even that - could stop it. There are times Cologne when you just have to accept it - we lost.
As far as the UK government is concerned it is arguing that the referendum was legally binding. Brexit is a completely different subject to Scotland wanting Independence. I do not believe there would be the required conditions for the majority of Scots wanting to leave. As you do not accept the theory of a simple majority in referendums then the referendum would have to be challenged by the remoaners!!! Anybody have Gina Miller's number?
Put it this way Leo. If I were an MP. from a constituency which voted against Brexit then I would consider it my responsibility to represent them and also vote against it. I don't have to accept it Leo, because I wasn't asked for my opinion.....like several million others who live overseas but who are very much affected by the result. If it really comes to a head ie. that the condition of Brexit is the breakup of the UK. then are you trying to tell me that the British people should not have the right to vote again under these new circumstances ? Do you think for one minute that the Brexiters, if they had lost by 48-52%, would have said - 'We lost', and 'Well played sir' - I can remember Farage saying exactly the opposite before the referendum - his words ' A defeat of, say, 48-52% would not be the end of the story'.
The UK government is not arguing that the referendum was legally binding, the Attorny General said so to the Supreme Court. An amendment to the Referendum Bill stated that it should be binding, but the amendment was lost as the government opposed it. What we have is a Tory party that was elected to maintain our role in the EU. For forty years the party was made toxic by the loony right wingers constantly complaining. The Prime Minister stood for election on an anti Heathrow, Pro EU ticket. Her electorate have every reason to vote her out at the next election, or better still deselect her.
The problem you have with Brexit and a potential Scottish referendum is the timescale. The whole of the UK, including Scotland will be out of the EU well before Scotland would vote on independence. The SNP have promised a referendum only if a clear majority polled a preference to leave over quite a long period. They will not vote to give up the benefits of the Barnett formula and the backing of the Bank of England.
In strict legal terms it was not legally binding but the government has chosen to accept the decision of the UK electorate as if it was morally binding, same eventual result.
The problem was the sequence ie. Scottish referendum - General election - EU. Referendum. Why that order ? I will never understand why the Scots agreed to hold their referendum only 6 months before a General election - why didn't they wait ?
The clear majority rejection of Scottish independence has not changed since the referendum so the result would have been the same. I think some polls have indicated even more support for keeping the union intact.
If you wish to use polls as a guide to how people think, there have been 13 polls since the referendum and 11 show that people do not wish to leave the EU. The arguments that have taken place since that day should have happened beforehand. People are saying that they were misled or badly informed from both sides, but now they see where it is leading they wish it to stop.
The only poll that mattered was the long promised referendum. The previous EU referendum results were honoured so will June's result be. I do not believe there is any mechanism that will stop Brexit. The UK will be outside of the single market. The UK will be outside of the customs union. The UK will demand the freedom to do bi-lateral deals with other countries such as USA and Australia. It is up to the EU negotiators how much damage they wish to inflict on the UK and themselves.
It was you who quoted polls. The first question that will be asked at a negotiation is how quickly will the UK pay the outstanding sums thought to be somewhere between £40-60 billion. A bit like telling your bank that you wish to take your business elsewhere and being told that you will not be able to until you have paid back all that you owe.
I think, or at least hope that he doesn't. Try getting people to lend you money when you are known as a defaulter. The only ones who might consider it would be Wonga.
The UK's credit rating will not be affected by disagreeing with an organisation that is so crooked the accounts have never been signed off. They make Wonga look respectable. The EU are bound to request daft amounts as a bribe. Reasonable actual sums will be probably be paid over a number of years. The UK will soon be saving the vast sums currently sent to these clowns to squander.
Another untruth. The accounts have been signed off for the past five years. So you think that we might owe them some money?
So they only fiddled for the previous 13 odd years, so that's ok then!! They still misuse 4% or above each year. I'm sure the UK will reasonably be responsible for the pensions of UK citizens that have worked in Brussels. We have to make sure Nigel Farage has a massive pension as normal in Brussels.
