Your list wasn't complete Leo - London is against Brexit, the City is against Brexit, all the biggest cities in the north are against Brexit, the next generation of voters are against Brexit, and several million Britons overseas (who were denied a vote) were against Brexit.
'We have lost' ? I don't know what the word 'lost' means Leo - we will fight them on the beaches (and all that). We 'lost' on a dismal day in June, but history moves on and circumstances change (also electorates change) - the result was valid for then, it may not be valid for now, or for some point in a years time. The only thing which is certain is that we are moving into uncharted waters, which have no precedent to them, and so, predicting outcomes is not possible.
As with everything that is debateable. Scotland have not passed any laws on the EU. EU law is not covered by Scottish law but by UK law so I suspect they would lose that argument and it will fall more under constitution. Scotland did not ever vote to join the EU so it cannot vote to leave. Frankly I no longer care. As I said in my other post we lost - if you do not know what that means now my bet is you will come 31st March 2017. We should never have trusted our future to a referendum - a political device this country has no expertise at. But we did and generations will live to regret it I suspect. You are fortunate - stay in Germany and get German citizenship and you won't have to put up with what we suffer.
Even if this list was accurate it is irrelevant on the decision to leave the EU. This was taken democratically in June. It is now obvious that the only thing on offer from the EU is a very hard Brexit. The UK's negotiators fully accept that. The EU will try to damage the UK's economy as much as possible and to use Brexit as a reminder of how much grief can be inflicted upon nation states if they dare to consider any opposition to the eurocrats. I am confident we will call their bluff and will eventually prosper more outside of this restrictive market. I would imagine, in time, mutual financial arrangements will restore much of the goodwill and trade the UK presently enjoys within the EU.
Do you think that it is in the interests of the EU. to damage the British economy as much as possible ? You have a very low, and shortsighted view of peoples motives if you think that. It is neither in their interests, nor in the British interest to wish harm on the other. Whatever happens with Brexit, geography doesn't change and Britain is still going to be an hours journey from Belgium or France, and whatever affects them affects us. They will always be our closest neighbours, and unfriendly relationships with neighbours is not good for anyone. Getting away from economics, or from the legal aspects of the case, many Germans feel sad and disappointed about what has happened. Many young students now feel unwanted on the island - they know that the British voted mainly on the theme of immigration, and this does not send out a good message to the World. Whether you believe it or not the Germans actually like the British.
We have very good friends that happen to be German and my niece is married to a German and currently lives in Hamburg. We had the daughter of good French friends stay in our house for a month in the summer. I think she was horrified that good Europhiles like us could actually vote for Brexit. Despite my repeated reassurances I'm not sure she will see us in the same way. I believe it will take some time to convince many Europeans that our desire for sovereignty and control of our borders need not affect the present harmonious existence between nations. There is concern in the EU, national leaders and eurocrats, that the UK will benefit by leaving, they are desperate to avoid encouraging other nations to follow the UK out of the EU. It is logical if the UK is seen to harmed by Brexit it will discourage others, I'm confident they will be disappointed. Despite Brexit, there will be huge upheaval in Europe in the next few years. I cannot see the present number of countries staying within the Euro.
Last Sunday I had a lovely dinner here with a friend and his wife, who happens to be a researcher for a UK MEP. To hear first hand about opinions from the MEPs of the 27 was quite eye opening, something you do not read in any of the press. What worries them is that some politician for his or her own gain can convince people with untrue slogans about what does and doesn't happen in the EU, and that will create division in individual countries on the scale of that seen in the UK. Just about every country across the EU has seen that some believe that breaking away would be good, yet they are a shrinking proportion of the populations, and where greater coverage of Brexit has been seen, the movement away from leaving has grown in quite a dramatic way. The EU is based on cooperation between sovereign nations, so not all of them will get everything they want all the time. Any deal that the UK manages to get will be worse than what already exists, not because of spite or any such thing, but because the UK is already in a unique situation with it's rebates, outside the Eurozone, yet allowed to do all the trading in the City of London in the currency. Just about every MEP is there seeking reform of the way that it works, but the same can be said about institutions in the UK. How the CEO of a District Council can reduce working from five days to four, and still be paid the same is something that has happened where my friends live in England, yet little seems to be done about it. It seems strange that people think that they will regain a greater say than at present, and the stance of the Government trying to prevent even the elected MPs having a proper say shows up that very point. Most politicians are there in Westminster or Brussels to do good for the people they serve, yet when you see them saying one thing one day and the opposite the next, it drives a wedge between them and the population, so that what they think will happen doesn't, and they trust them even less. MEPs regard what is happening with sadness as the UK brought a great deal to the EU, and there is little understanding about just what the UK thinks it can better with the relationship.
A great deal has been said about Scotland, but the real problem to solve is that of Northern Ireland where a great deal of EU law has been woven into the Good Friday agreement.
I think a large number of people in the UK were perfectly satisfied with the UK government's version of democracy. It would be foolish for the government to supply too much information, the EU side have certainly made sure no information has been forthcoming from their side, apart from promising a hard Brexit. Italy has a chance of a controlling party that wants to call for a referendum on membership of the Euro. Leaving the Euro is the only hope Italy has if it is to compete with other countries, it would then be able to devalue its own currency. France has become one of the most eurosceptic countries in Europe, in the unlikely event of Le Pen winning the presidential election next year she has called for a referendum on EU membership. Fillon, the other main candidate is another well known eurosceptic. Geert Wilders' Freedom Party is leading the polls in Holland. He has also called for a referendum on the EU membership. There is certainly a rising dissatisfaction in the way Brussels operates.
David Davis has been providing even more information regarding the UK's strategy on leaving the EU. He said he thought it was unlikely Britain would stay in the single market after Brexit, as the EU would be 'inflexible' about the need to retain freedom of movement. He also floated the idea that the UK will switch to an alternative negotiating strategy if the EU chooses to 'punish' the UK. This would mean lower taxes, cut red tape and introduce other strong business incentives. He indicated he is not really interested in a 'transitional deal'. I'm not sure it would be sensible to provide much more information than this.
Leo, the Scottish Parliament was created within the framework of EU. membership. When the EU. legislates on devolved issues such as agriculture and legal affairs it is the Scottish government which overseas those changes - or, any amendments to them. In the UK. it was part of the devolution deal that Westminster wouldn't legislate on devolved matters, a Brexit deal will mean intervention into some of these, including agriculture. The story is far from over - there are very troubled waters ahead. Bearing in mind that the same powers also exist in the Northern Ireland assembly then Brexit, if it happens, may well be chosen with the full knowledge that it will break up the UK. The Tories may well be able to ride roughshod over their opponents in England, but they will find it more difficult being opposed by 2 nationally elected Parliaments.
I do not follow that argument. Any legislation created by the EU that involves Scottish devolution matters is identical to UK matters - they can be incorporated unchanged into our ( or Scotland's law) unchanged. If Scotland subsequently wants to abandon or change them they can. The UK will not need to be involved in Scottish matters any more than it currently is.
It doesn't really matter whether you or I actually understand the full legal ramifications of this Leo, there are enough lawyers north of the border (also south of it) who do believe that Scotland (and Ulster) can take this right down to the wire. So you can be sure that troubled waters are ahead, the results of which we cannot guess. If Scotland and N. Ireland do not have a case in law, if they are forced out of Europe against their will, then it will create a rift within Britain which, even if it doesn't lead to separation, will take decades to heal.
The break up of the union can only happen if Scotland votes to leave the rest of the UK. After Brexit Scotland will be outside of the EU. It would be a brave move for them to leave the UK as their choice of currency is unknown, the finances don't stack up and countries like Spain would object to any application to join the EU, on considerably worse terms than at present. Nobody in their right minds would agree to join the Euro group. All in all very doubtful the Scottish would dare to vote for this.
I agree - we are not lawyers. But what is done is done - the referendum took place and England voted differently to Scotland - but it was a UK referendum. The result holds for all of us - it is not only Scottish remainers who feel annoyed. It is no excuse though to break up the UK - and I don't think it will
It's not a question of whether Scotland will or will not split off, at least not initially, but whether they have the legal powers to either stop Brexit entirely, or to force through a 'soft' Brexit. The same goes for Northern Ireland. An independent Scotland could not go into the EU. immediately - but it could get similar conditions to Norway, Iceland or Switzerland for the interim period (this step could not be blocked by eg. Spain).
Due to the UK's necessity to satisfy the electorate's demands for sovereignty and border control it has been made clear by the EU that a 'soft' Brexit is out of the question. I think you should brace yourself for more disappointment when the Scotland and NI objections to Brexit are dismissed. On application to join the EU there would be financial convergence criteria which Scotland is unlikely to satisfy.
I always knew this was going to happen... Senior Tory MPs have begun pushing for a list of regulations affecting companies to tear up after Brexit, even though Theresa May has promised to carry over all EU law into British law. Two former cabinet ministers, John Whittingdale and Michael Gove, suggested to the CBI business group on Wednesday that companies should start drawing up a list of regulations they want to see abolished or reformed. The two leave campaigners raised the prospect of EU laws being scrapped after the passage of May’s great repeal bill carrying over existing legislation, as they cross-examined witnesses at a session of the Commons committee on exiting the EU. Gove highlighted a government-commissioned report by Marc Bolland, the former chief executive of Marks & Spencer, which ran through a list of EU employment protections it would like to see withdrawn or changed including pregnant worker proposals, the agency workers directive, the acquired rights directive and the working time directive. Questioning Carolyn Fairbairn, the director general of the CBI, he asked her: “Would you be able to write back to the committee with a view that your members have on those directives and the current assessment for the applicability or scope for reform of those directives?” John Whittingdale, the former culture secretary, also asked Fairburn: “To what extent has the CBI examined the opportunities which may exist to reduce the burden on business and are you working on an analysis to present to government for potential repeal or reduction?” He said he understood the concerns of the Trade Unions Congress (TUC) that it will want to preserve protections for workers deriving from the EU but many pieces of red tape were burdensome that had nothing to do with employment. John Longworth, the former chair of the British Chamber of Commerce, who campaigned to leave, told the committee that he thought the “opportunities for deregulation are legion”. “Some of it will be to do with employment rights. Some of it will be to do with the fact that people might not be allowed to do overtime that they wish to do,” he said, citing lorry drivers as an example. “But the fact of the matter is also that there is a lot of regulation that is nothing to do with employment rights that causes cost to business.” One example he mentioned was the EU ergonomics directive, which he said made small businesses keep a ledger of checks of the positioning of computer screens and chairs. He said the UK could “easily” remove 10% of EU regulations without harming workers’ rights, citing examples such as labelling rules requiring smoked salmon packets to be marked “may contain fish” and protections for newts, which are rare on the continent but common in Britain. However, Fairbairn cautioned MPs against focusing on “silly” anecdotal stories about overregulation, which she said were of less concern to her members than the threat of losing access to European markets. Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, warned the committee that a bonfire of regulations would expose British workers to a “race to the bottom” on employment conditions and health and safety protections, making the UK the “bargain basement capital of Europe”.
The financial convergence criteria would certainly be a problem if they wanted to use the Euro - but if not ? The EU. is not likely to make joining the Euro a future condition of EU. membership. There is another question.....I set it because I don't know the answer. But did the Scottish Parliament agree to hold a referendum ? Or was it forced on them ? If they weren't asked I fail to see how Scotland should accept the legal validity of it. Even if Scotland were not admitted to the EU. their future relations to it are likely to be more friendly than ours. You have also spoken a lot about border control, as if you mean only across the channel - but what about Ireland ?
