RugbyRebels

Len wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:Meanwhile, in Westminster, the UK Government continue to give lessons on what it means to be REALLY incompetent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 30626.html

Brexit Secretary David Davis has stunned MPs by admitting the Government has done no economic assessment of crashing out of the EU with ‘no deal’.

Giving evidence to MPs, Mr Davis insisted it was not possible to calculate the impact of the Brexit talks failing – adding: “I may be able to do so in about a year’s time.”
...
Mr Davis hinted no assessment of the Brexit options will be carried out, saying: “You don’t need a piece of paper with numbers on it to have an economic assessment.”

With idiots like this in charge, we're fucked.

Stunning.

Just moved my savings over to NZ. Good luck bois. The EU is going to chew you up and spit you out at the negotiating table.

I came here in 1997 and had to pay $3.30 for £1.00.

I can't afford to go back.

Stones of granite wrote:Meanwhile, in Westminster, the UK Government continue to give lessons on what it means to be REALLY incompetent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 30626.html

Brexit Secretary David Davis has stunned MPs by admitting the Government has done no economic assessment of crashing out of the EU with ‘no deal’.

Giving evidence to MPs, Mr Davis insisted it was not possible to calculate the impact of the Brexit talks failing – adding: “I may be able to do so in about a year’s time.”
...
Mr Davis hinted no assessment of the Brexit options will be carried out, saying: “You don’t need a piece of paper with numbers on it to have an economic assessment.”

With idiots like this in charge, we're fucked.

David Davis is a fucking idiot. The only reason he is there is so he can piss out of the tent.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:Meanwhile, in Westminster, the UK Government continue to give lessons on what it means to be REALLY incompetent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 30626.html

Brexit Secretary David Davis has stunned MPs by admitting the Government has done no economic assessment of crashing out of the EU with ‘no deal’.

Giving evidence to MPs, Mr Davis insisted it was not possible to calculate the impact of the Brexit talks failing – adding: “I may be able to do so in about a year’s time.”
...
Mr Davis hinted no assessment of the Brexit options will be carried out, saying: “You don’t need a piece of paper with numbers on it to have an economic assessment.”

With idiots like this in charge, we're fucked.

David Davis is a fucking idiot. The only reason he is there is so he can piss out of the tent.

It would seem he's having problems with his flaps

FREE SCOTLAND !!

rowan wrote:FREE SCOTLAND !!

Actually, they cost a fortune. Especially since the crash in oil prices.

It is an interesting debate seeing one side argue for independence in a different union while the other side argue for freedom from a foreign union while remaining in another one.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Adder wrote:It is be an interesting debate seeing one side argue for independence in a different union while the other side argue for freedom from a foreign union while remaining in another one.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Ha, yep. I've thought the same.

Adder wrote:It is an interesting debate seeing one side argue for independence in a different union while the other side argue for freedom from a foreign union while remaining in another one.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Apart from the word "Union", they are not remotely the same thing.

Stones of granite wrote:

Adder wrote:It is an interesting debate seeing one side argue for independence in a different union while the other side argue for freedom from a foreign union while remaining in another one.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Apart from the word "Union", they are not remotely the same thing.

I agree. But that is not how the debate is going to go.

To make my position clear, being part French-part Scottish living in Bulgaria I have a positive attitude towards the EU. I also support scottish independence. I will not pretend to be unbiased. I do appreciate that both choices come with different risks and challenges.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Adder wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Adder wrote:It is an interesting debate seeing one side argue for independence in a different union while the other side argue for freedom from a foreign union while remaining in another one.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Apart from the word "Union", they are not remotely the same thing.

I agree. But that is not how the debate is going to go.

To make my position clear, being part French-part Scottish living in Bulgaria I have a positive attitude towards the EU. I also support scottish independence. I will not pretend to be unbiased. I do appreciate that both choices come with different risks and challenges.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

We blew it in 2014. Any opportunity now for leaving the UK will not happen until after the UK has left the EU, leaving us in a perilous position. The best we could hope for is a Norway-style association agreement, which, combined with an oil price recovery, wouldn't be a bad outcome, but the risks are enormous.

We blew it.

Stones of granite wrote:

Adder wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
Apart from the word "Union", they are not remotely the same thing.

I agree. But that is not how the debate is going to go.

To make my position clear, being part French-part Scottish living in Bulgaria I have a positive attitude towards the EU. I also support scottish independence. I will not pretend to be unbiased. I do appreciate that both choices come with different risks and challenges.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

We blew it in 2014. Any opportunity now for leaving the UK will not happen until after the UK has left the EU, leaving us in a perilous position. The best we could hope for is a Norway-style association agreement, which, combined with an oil price recovery, wouldn't be a bad outcome, but the risks are enormous.

We blew it.

It sometimes feels like that.

Adder wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Adder wrote:It is an interesting debate seeing one side argue for independence in a different union while the other side argue for freedom from a foreign union while remaining in another one.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Apart from the word "Union", they are not remotely the same thing.

I agree. But that is not how the debate is going to go.


Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Agreed. Just as in the EU referendum, it'll come down to a couple of headlines (immigration v emergency Brexit budget) rather than a nuanced debate about the positives and negatives of each position.

Stones of granite wrote:

Adder wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
Apart from the word "Union", they are not remotely the same thing.

I agree. But that is not how the debate is going to go.

To make my position clear, being part French-part Scottish living in Bulgaria I have a positive attitude towards the EU. I also support scottish independence. I will not pretend to be unbiased. I do appreciate that both choices come with different risks and challenges.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

until after the UK has left the EU,

Do you think this actually makes any substantial difference? (Genuine question, not politics board passive aggression) An independent Scotland would've been out of the EU, anyway.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Adder wrote: I agree. But that is not how the debate is going to go.

To make my position clear, being part French-part Scottish living in Bulgaria I have a positive attitude towards the EU. I also support scottish independence. I will not pretend to be unbiased. I do appreciate that both choices come with different risks and challenges.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

until after the UK has left the EU,

Do you think this actually makes any substantial difference? (Genuine question, not politics board passive aggression) An independent Scotland would've been out of the EU, anyway.

I think it makes a huge difference to the starting point of the negotiations with the EU. Negotiating from the position of a member wishing to remain (the position in 2014) would be politically much different from negotiating from the position of a former member trying to get back in (potentially the position in 2019).

Do you think this actually makes any substantial difference? (Genuine question, not politics board passive aggression)

Well, being in the EU facilitates access to a strong market and makes Scotland more attractive to external investments so it would say yes.

An independent Scotland would've been out of the EU, anyway.

That was a big debate, as there were quite a lot of questions around it. The EU has never lost "citizens", could they remove existing EU citizens from the EU against their will?/ is the UK still the UK without Scotland? Both sides would have different answers and would find different EU Officials to back them up with their private interpretation.

Fair enough. The way I read it, leaving the UK meant leaving the EU, as the UK is/was the member state. Fairly certain even the likes of Junker were clear on this (not that I'm one to put too much store in what Juncker says), before you get to the states who have their own issues with separatists/independence and were therefore unequivocal about it.
Of course, you'd have been hearing different music north of the border than us south of the border and statements can be twisted or given disproportionate weighting to suit. It also depends on who is giving the legal advice, as we saw with the conflicting advice over the govt's right to invoke article 50.
As an example, the difference between opinion pieces on this and other things, such as economic forecasts, were clearly, if not hugely, different between those in the main body of The Times and it's Scotland section.

Mellsblue wrote:Fair enough. The way I read it, leaving the UK meant leaving the EU, as the UK is/was the member state. Fairly certain even the likes of Junker were clear on this (not that I'm one to put too much store in what Juncker says), before you get to the states who have their own issues with separatists/independence and were therefore unequivocal about it.
Of course, you'd have been hearing different music north of the border than us south of the border and statements can be twisted or given disproportionate weighting to suit. It also depends on who is giving the legal advice, as we saw with the conflicting advice over the govt's right to invoke article 50.
As an example, the difference between opinion pieces on this and other things, such as economic forecasts, were clearly, if not hugely, different between those in the main body of The Times and it's Scotland section.

The problem is that there is a gulf between the technical position and the political position. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the technical position, should Scotland have left the UK in 2016 (the date defined in the Edinburgh Agreement) may have been that Scotland would then as a consequence leave the EU by default, but I strongly believe that the EU could and would have found a way around this. I know that there was talk of the Spaniards putting a spanner in the works, but we have a strong card to play with them as well, namely fishing grounds access.

I believe that politically, as Adder says, the EU would have found it just too difficult to let us go and the technical position would have been fudged.

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Fair enough. The way I read it, leaving the UK meant leaving the EU, as the UK is/was the member state. Fairly certain even the likes of Junker were clear on this (not that I'm one to put too much store in what Juncker says), before you get to the states who have their own issues with separatists/independence and were therefore unequivocal about it.
Of course, you'd have been hearing different music north of the border than us south of the border and statements can be twisted or given disproportionate weighting to suit. It also depends on who is giving the legal advice, as we saw with the conflicting advice over the govt's right to invoke article 50.
As an example, the difference between opinion pieces on this and other things, such as economic forecasts, were clearly, if not hugely, different between those in the main body of The Times and it's Scotland section.

The problem is that there is a gulf between the technical position and the political position. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the technical position, should Scotland have left the UK in 2016 (the date defined in the Edinburgh Agreement) may have been that Scotland would then as a consequence leave the EU by default, but I strongly believe that the EU could and would have found a way around this. I know that there was talk of the Spaniards putting a spanner in the works, but we have a strong card to play with them as well, namely fishing grounds access.

I believe that politically, as Adder says, the EU would have found it just too difficult to let us go and the technical position would have been fudged.

I agree that the EU would've probably found a way round it* but it's a big leap of faith for the electorate. I'd imagine most people's default position when weighing it all up would be that the legal position would trump the hope that the EU would fudge it. At worst, you'd have unionists defaulting to the legal position and the separatists defaulting to the technical/the EU will fudge it position and it therefore becomes a none issue. If that were the case, I go back to my point that a vote from inside the EU or outside the EU wouldn't make that much difference. Of course, you are closer to the action up there but it is how I read it.

*off topic, I know. But one of my big bugbears with the EU is rigidity with which rules must be stuck to (and rightly so), unless bending the rules suits the grand project.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Fair enough. The way I read it, leaving the UK meant leaving the EU, as the UK is/was the member state. Fairly certain even the likes of Junker were clear on this (not that I'm one to put too much store in what Juncker says), before you get to the states who have their own issues with separatists/independence and were therefore unequivocal about it.
Of course, you'd have been hearing different music north of the border than us south of the border and statements can be twisted or given disproportionate weighting to suit. It also depends on who is giving the legal advice, as we saw with the conflicting advice over the govt's right to invoke article 50.
As an example, the difference between opinion pieces on this and other things, such as economic forecasts, were clearly, if not hugely, different between those in the main body of The Times and it's Scotland section.

The problem is that there is a gulf between the technical position and the political position. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the technical position, should Scotland have left the UK in 2016 (the date defined in the Edinburgh Agreement) may have been that Scotland would then as a consequence leave the EU by default, but I strongly believe that the EU could and would have found a way around this. I know that there was talk of the Spaniards putting a spanner in the works, but we have a strong card to play with them as well, namely fishing grounds access.

I believe that politically, as Adder says, the EU would have found it just too difficult to let us go and the technical position would have been fudged.

I agree that the EU would've probably found a way round it* but it's a big leap of faith for the electorate. I'd imagine most people's default position when weighing it all up would be that the legal position would trump the hope that the EU would fudge it. At worst, you'd have unionists defaulting to the legal position and the separatists defaulting to the technical/the EU will fudge it position and it therefore becomes a none issue. If that were the case, I go back to my point that a vote from inside the EU or outside the EU wouldn't make that much difference. Of course, you are closer to the action up there but it is how I read it.

*off topic, I know. But one of my big bugbears with the EU is rigidity with which rules must be stuck to (and rightly so), unless bending the rules suits the grand project.

Sure, we have a different perspective. The leap of faith that you describe is no different, though, to the leap of faith taken by the pro-Brexit voters, who have decided that the potential economic chaos (in the case of a hard Brexit, as yet unevaluated) of leaving the EU is outweighed by the benefit of not having Polish delis on the High Street.

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Fair enough. The way I read it, leaving the UK meant leaving the EU, as the UK is/was the member state. Fairly certain even the likes of Junker were clear on this (not that I'm one to put too much store in what Juncker says), before you get to the states who have their own issues with separatists/independence and were therefore unequivocal about it.
Of course, you'd have been hearing different music north of the border than us south of the border and statements can be twisted or given disproportionate weighting to suit. It also depends on who is giving the legal advice, as we saw with the conflicting advice over the govt's right to invoke article 50.
As an example, the difference between opinion pieces on this and other things, such as economic forecasts, were clearly, if not hugely, different between those in the main body of The Times and it's Scotland section.

The problem is that there is a gulf between the technical position and the political position. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the technical position, should Scotland have left the UK in 2016 (the date defined in the Edinburgh Agreement) may have been that Scotland would then as a consequence leave the EU by default, but I strongly believe that the EU could and would have found a way around this. I know that there was talk of the Spaniards putting a spanner in the works, but we have a strong card to play with them as well, namely fishing grounds access.

I believe that politically, as Adder says, the EU would have found it just too difficult to let us go and the technical position would have been fudged.

Although, politically that would have been balanced by the noise made by the Spanish who would not want to be seen to support the right of autonomous regions breaking away and becoming EU members that easily. In reality, I suspect it would have been a long and torturous case via the European Court.

canta_brian wrote:

Len wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:Meanwhile, in Westminster, the UK Government continue to give lessons on what it means to be REALLY incompetent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 30626.html

Brexit Secretary David Davis has stunned MPs by admitting the Government has done no economic assessment of crashing out of the EU with ‘no deal’.

Giving evidence to MPs, Mr Davis insisted it was not possible to calculate the impact of the Brexit talks failing – adding: “I may be able to do so in about a year’s time.”
...
Mr Davis hinted no assessment of the Brexit options will be carried out, saying: “You don’t need a piece of paper with numbers on it to have an economic assessment.”

With idiots like this in charge, we're fucked.

Stunning.

Just moved my savings over to NZ. Good luck bois. The EU is going to chew you up and spit you out at the negotiating table.

I came here in 1997 and had to pay $3.30 for £1.00.

I can't afford to go back.

Same here. When I arrived my salary was more than I could earn elsewhere and sending money home every month made me almost cream my pants. Now, there isn't a single country in the western world where I couldn't make more money than the laughable salaries here. The imminent move to the US gets more depressing by the day as they raise their interest rates, and therefore dollar.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Fair enough. The way I read it, leaving the UK meant leaving the EU, as the UK is/was the member state. Fairly certain even the likes of Junker were clear on this (not that I'm one to put too much store in what Juncker says), before you get to the states who have their own issues with separatists/independence and were therefore unequivocal about it.
Of course, you'd have been hearing different music north of the border than us south of the border and statements can be twisted or given disproportionate weighting to suit. It also depends on who is giving the legal advice, as we saw with the conflicting advice over the govt's right to invoke article 50.
As an example, the difference between opinion pieces on this and other things, such as economic forecasts, were clearly, if not hugely, different between those in the main body of The Times and it's Scotland section.

The problem is that there is a gulf between the technical position and the political position. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the technical position, should Scotland have left the UK in 2016 (the date defined in the Edinburgh Agreement) may have been that Scotland would then as a consequence leave the EU by default, but I strongly believe that the EU could and would have found a way around this. I know that there was talk of the Spaniards putting a spanner in the works, but we have a strong card to play with them as well, namely fishing grounds access.

I believe that politically, as Adder says, the EU would have found it just too difficult to let us go and the technical position would have been fudged.

Although, politically that would have been balanced by the noise made by the Spanish who would not want to be seen to support the right of autonomous regions breaking away and becoming EU members that easily. In reality, I suspect it would have been a long and torturous case via the European Court.

I don't know about "balanced", but I take your point about the Spanish wishing to throw a spanner in the works. In the end, I think that the Spanish would realise that losing access to North Sea and Eastern Atlantic fishing grounds would too high a price to pay for intransigence.

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
The problem is that there is a gulf between the technical position and the political position. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that the technical position, should Scotland have left the UK in 2016 (the date defined in the Edinburgh Agreement) may have been that Scotland would then as a consequence leave the EU by default, but I strongly believe that the EU could and would have found a way around this. I know that there was talk of the Spaniards putting a spanner in the works, but we have a strong card to play with them as well, namely fishing grounds access.

I believe that politically, as Adder says, the EU would have found it just too difficult to let us go and the technical position would have been fudged.

I agree that the EU would've probably found a way round it* but it's a big leap of faith for the electorate. I'd imagine most people's default position when weighing it all up would be that the legal position would trump the hope that the EU would fudge it. At worst, you'd have unionists defaulting to the legal position and the separatists defaulting to the technical/the EU will fudge it position and it therefore becomes a none issue. If that were the case, I go back to my point that a vote from inside the EU or outside the EU wouldn't make that much difference. Of course, you are closer to the action up there but it is how I read it.

*off topic, I know. But one of my big bugbears with the EU is rigidity with which rules must be stuck to (and rightly so), unless bending the rules suits the grand project.

Sure, we have a different perspective. The leap of faith that you describe is no different, though, to the leap of faith taken by the pro-Brexit voters, who have decided that the potential economic chaos (in the case of a hard Brexit, as yet unevaluated) of leaving the EU is outweighed by the benefit of not having Polish delis on the High Street.

True, I suppose the only difference is that those Scots are taking a leap of faith to not lose something rather than those Brexiteers who took the leap of faith wanted to gain (in their eyes) something. That's coming at the decision from two very different angles, psychologically speaking.

jared_7 wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Len wrote:
Stunning.

Just moved my savings over to NZ. Good luck bois. The EU is going to chew you up and spit you out at the negotiating table.

I came here in 1997 and had to pay $3.30 for £1.00.

I can't afford to go back.

Same here. When I arrived my salary was more than I could earn elsewhere and sending money home every month made me almost cream my pants. Now, there isn't a single country in the western world where I couldn't make more money than the laughable salaries here. The imminent move to the US gets more depressing by the day as they raise their interest rates, and therefore dollar.

Brexiters would be stoked you're leaving except you're one of the good ones. E.g white and a native English speaker. They really are cunts and I hope they get proper fucked.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I agree that the EU would've probably found a way round it* but it's a big leap of faith for the electorate. I'd imagine most people's default position when weighing it all up would be that the legal position would trump the hope that the EU would fudge it. At worst, you'd have unionists defaulting to the legal position and the separatists defaulting to the technical/the EU will fudge it position and it therefore becomes a none issue. If that were the case, I go back to my point that a vote from inside the EU or outside the EU wouldn't make that much difference. Of course, you are closer to the action up there but it is how I read it.

*off topic, I know. But one of my big bugbears with the EU is rigidity with which rules must be stuck to (and rightly so), unless bending the rules suits the grand project.

Sure, we have a different perspective. The leap of faith that you describe is no different, though, to the leap of faith taken by the pro-Brexit voters, who have decided that the potential economic chaos (in the case of a hard Brexit, as yet unevaluated) of leaving the EU is outweighed by the benefit of not having Polish delis on the High Street.

True, I suppose the only difference is that those Scots are taking a leap of faith to not lose something rather than those Brexiteers who took the leap of faith wanted to gain (in their eyes) something. That's coming at the decision from two very different angles, psychologically speaking.

I don't think there is much difference really. Scots in favour of independence also look at it from the perspective of gain - gaining independence. Both are happy to downplay the economic risk to achieve what they hope to gain.
Personally, in 2014 I believed the economic risk to Scotland was relatively low and massively overstated by the Remain camp. Now, I believe the economic risk of leaving the EU is relatively large for the UK, and as I said before, as a consequence, is also large for Scotland leaving the UK because of the sequence of events.