3 million face uncertainty and deportation from UK

[Psamathe]

...

A study of voting records in the EU Council, made up of Government ministers from each member state, since 2004 has revealed Britain is increasingly on the losing side when it comes to decision-making on EU legislation.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... study-MEPs

Reported during the referendum campaign in an interview with both Remain and Leave politicians was that the vote went the same way as the UK waned 87%. On Newsnight. (Actually an independent specialist initially said 85% but the interviewer said he thought it was actually 87% (neither figure disputed).

And even if they are voting contrary to UK government's wishes, is that a bad thing. It all depends on the details of each bit of legislation. So e.g. banning neonicotinoid was a very good move and the UK only objected because of NFU pressure and thei anti-environment leaning. Other EU farmers recognise the importance of protecting bee populations for long term prosperity; UK government after short term profits. A lot depends on what issues UK is being out-voted over - because most of the Westminster legislation passed I would be voting against (e.g. bedroom tax, welfare cuts, snoopers charter, etc., etc.).

Ian

[meic]

You do realise it isn't just UK MEPs voting I take it? We don't get to vote on all the rest.

That is how democracy works, only one vote per person!
I only got to vote for the one MEP in my region (including top-up votes) none of the others in the rest of the UK or Europe.

[Psamathe]

You do realise it isn't just UK MEPs voting I take it? We don't get to vote on all the rest.

That is how democracy works, only one vote per person!
I only got to vote for the one MEP in my region (including top-up votes) none of the others in the rest of the UK or Europe.

It is ironic how a major reason the UK voted to leave the EU was all these non-UK elected leaders getting to vote on issues that affect the UK (as well as the rest of the EU). If that is a good enough reason to leave the EU, then an identical argument applies to Scotland leaving the UK (whee non-Scottish elected leaders are getting to vote on issues that affect Scotland (as well as the rest of the UK).

So for the UK to leave the EU and then deny Scotland the same opportunity to leave the UK for the same reasons would be rather hypocritical.

Ian

[pwa]

You do realise it isn't just UK MEPs voting I take it? We don't get to vote on all the rest.

That is how democracy works, only one vote per person!
I only got to vote for the one MEP in my region (including top-up votes) none of the others in the rest of the UK or Europe.

It is ironic how a major reason the UK voted to leave the EU was all these non-UK elected leaders getting to vote on issues that affect the UK (as well as the rest of the EU). If that is a good enough reason to leave the EU, then an identical argument applies to Scotland leaving the UK (whee non-Scottish elected leaders are getting to vote on issues that affect Scotland (as well as the rest of the UK).

So for the UK to leave the EU and then deny Scotland the same opportunity to leave the UK for the same reasons would be rather hypocritical.

Ian

Scotland denied Scotland the opportunity to leave the UK. Remember? Nobody is keeping them prisoner. If they show a strong and consistent desire to leave in the future they can still do that.

[reohn2]

Scotland denied Scotland the opportunity to leave the UK. Remember? Nobody is keeping them prisoner. If they show a strong and consistent desire to leave in the future they can still do that.

My understanding is that the Scottish parliament has to seek approval of Westminster to hold a further referendum.

[pwa]

Scotland denied Scotland the opportunity to leave the UK. Remember? Nobody is keeping them prisoner. If they show a strong and consistent desire to leave in the future they can still do that.

My understanding is that the Scottish parliament has to seek approval of Westminster to hold a further referendum.

Which they are unlikely to get in the short term because of several factors. Firstly, it is only five minutes since the last "Once In A Generation" vote on the same question. Secondly, the UK has too much stuff to deal with already, without piling that on top. And thirdly, that sort of constitutional referendum is resorted to after a sustained period of public sentiment pushing for it. Add to that the fact that the SNP are not going to push strongly for another referendum unless they are fairly confident they will win, and that is not where we are at the moment. If there is to be another vote on this it will be years away.

[reohn2]

Scotland denied Scotland the opportunity to leave the UK. Remember? Nobody is keeping them prisoner. If they show a strong and consistent desire to leave in the future they can still do that.

My understanding is that the Scottish parliament has to seek approval of Westminster to hold a further referendum.

Which they are unlikely to get in the short term because of several factors. Firstly, it is only five minutes since the last "Once In A Generation" vote on the same question. Secondly, the UK has too much stuff to deal with already, without piling that on top. And thirdly, that sort of constitutional referendum is resorted to after a sustained period of public sentiment pushing for it. Add to that the fact that the SNP are not going to push strongly for another referendum unless they are fairly confident they will win, and that is not where we are at the moment. If there is to be another vote on this it will be years away.

Whatever the reasons put forward for not 'giving' the Scots 'permission',it's not democratic that the Scots has to actual seek permission,that's the point being made.
Whilst I agree a certain time should allowed between Scottish independence referendums,there has been huge political change since the last one.
EDIT,the point I'm making is who decides democracy?

[Psamathe]

Scotland denied Scotland the opportunity to leave the UK. Remember? Nobody is keeping them prisoner. If they show a strong and consistent desire to leave in the future they can still do that.

My understanding is that the Scottish parliament has to seek approval of Westminster to hold a further referendum.

I'd guess (my opinion) is that they could hold a referendum on anything they liked e.g. "do you want sugar in your tea". I'd have expected it is the status of the result that would depend on e.g. Westminster approval. So if they held a referendum without Westminster approval then Westminster would not be legally obliged to honour the result. If they held a referendum with Westminster approval then Westminster would be obliged to honour the result.

Strikes me that a non-legally binding referendum is nothing more than an opinion poll of the electorate. Maybe a bit "self-selecting" in that not everybody choses to express their opinion so your outcome is only from those who have chosen to express their opinion.

But given that the EU referendum was not legally binding on Westminster yet, despite the clear damage to the UK economy, Westminster is saying it feels obliged to honour the voice of the people, then were Scotland to express the "voice of the people" even in a non-legally binding manner, then Westminster must also be morally obliged to honour the outcome. Only difference might be Conservative backbenchers are always causing the party leader sleepless nights whereas the SNP are just another opposition party who can't challenge the Conservative leader (no SNP MPs on the 1922 Committee).

Ian

[mercalia]

Scotland denied Scotland the opportunity to leave the UK. Remember? Nobody is keeping them prisoner. If they show a strong and consistent desire to leave in the future they can still do that.

My understanding is that the Scottish parliament has to seek approval of Westminster to hold a further referendum.

I'd guess (my opinion) is that they could hold a referendum on anything they liked e.g. "do you want sugar in your tea". I'd have expected it is the status of the result that would depend on e.g. Westminster approval. So if they held a referendum without Westminster approval then Westminster would not be legally obliged to honour the result. If they held a referendum with Westminster approval then Westminster would be obliged to honour the result.

Strikes me that a non-legally binding referendum is nothing more than an opinion poll of the electorate. Maybe a bit "self-selecting" in that not everybody choses to express their opinion so your outcome is only from those who have chosen to express their opinion.

But given that the EU referendum was not legally binding on Westminster yet, despite the clear damage to the UK economy, Westminster is saying it feels obliged to honour the voice of the people, then were Scotland to express the "voice of the people" even in a non-legally binding manner, then Westminster must also be morally obliged to honour the outcome. Only difference might be Conservative backbenchers are always causing the party leader sleepless nights whereas the SNP are just another opposition party who can't challenge the Conservative leader (no SNP MPs on the 1922 Committee).

Ian

they wouldnt be able to use any of the organs of state - the civil service, the buildings, state finance to fund /organise such a ref.? Could the SNP party afford to fund such a ref and would it be convincing? there would always be a suspicion that it was rigged in their favour? so would have no weight down south?

[53x13]

Scotland denied Scotland the opportunity to leave the UK. Remember? Nobody is keeping them prisoner. If they show a strong and consistent desire to leave in the future they can still do that.

My understanding is that the Scottish parliament has to seek approval of Westminster to hold a further referendum.

Incorrect. Sturgeon can call another Scottish referendum any time she chooses. Like the recent EU referendum it'll be an 'advisory poll' which, like the EU referendum the UK government will be obliged to accept, unless they want a relationship based on hate and distrust. Which I doubt.

Sturgeon has been handed the magic bullet in the form of Brexit. It's just a matter if timing and knowing when to pull the trigger. Most politicical pundits agree that a second referendum would be a landslide OUT vote, and remain in Europe.

[reohn2]

Incorrect.

Thanks for that I didn't know

Sturgeon can call another Scottish referendum any time she chooses. Like the recent EU referendum it'll be an 'advisory poll' which, like the EU referendum the UK government will be obliged to accept, unless they want a relationship based on hate and distrust. Which I doubt.

Sturgeon has been handed the magic bullet in the form of Brexit. It's just a matter if timing and knowing when to pull the trigger. Most politicical pundits agree that a second referendum would be a landslide OUT vote, and remain in Europe.

I agree,timing is crucial to get a true result,not the one the SNP necessarily want,but a stable and considered one in the light of recent events,and which is best implemented after the UK officially leaves the EU.

[Psamathe]

We've sort of moved this thread to the subject of another thread (probably my fault as I raised the Scottish Independence Referendum in this thread).

I suspect UK is going to help Sturgeon even more soon as Westminster will undoubtedly vote in favour of renewing Trident - persuading/encouraging more Scots to want to leave the UK.

Ian

[al_yrpal]

https://youtu.be/0frHw-7J4Mk

Al

[mjr]

You do realise it isn't just UK MEPs voting I take it? We don't get to vote on all the rest. Swapping our MEPs wouldn't make any difference the other 20 something countries would still outvote us.

Except that the MEPs from those other 20-odd countries are split between different parties, just like ours, so they're unlikely to all agree and vote the same way anyway.

The EU is nowhere near as bad as the current Westminster situation, where English matters can be voted on by MPs from other countries whose constituencies are nearly unaffected by them.

A study of voting records in the EU Council, made up of Government ministers from each member state, since 2004 has revealed Britain is increasingly on the losing side when it comes to decision-making on EU legislation.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... study-MEPs

The graphs make it look like things have suddenly gotten worse since 2009... but in 2010, we switched from a government led by Labour, part of the second-biggest European party (PES), to one led by the Conservatives, who are both fundamentally split on Europe (and the study somewhat oddly regards abstention as opposition) and part of a much smaller European party, the ECR, since Cameron flounced out of the main conservative European party, the EPP.

The appearance of "losing" more is probably more to do with Conservative behaviour in the EU compared to Labour, rather than actually losing more.

[Psamathe]

Davis came relatively late to civil liberties. Near me is a plaque commemorating his unveiling (in the early 2000s) of a DPPO dispersal zone - from which street drinkers and unruly youths, and anyone, could be ejected without due process, or even reason. At that time he was Shadow Home Secretary, and obviously not troubled by a scheme that was likely to affect the poor, untidy and powerless.

It was Blunkett's ID card and database scheme that got Davis interested. He was a speaker at an early meeting of No2ID, that I attended. He was sharing a platform, and in complete agreement, with Shami Chakrabarti. Since then he has had common cause with Liberty, Big Brother Watch, No2ID, opponents of the Snoopers Charter, and opponents of detention of terrorist suspects without charge.

He must have made hundreds of friends and acquaintances during those campaigns. Is he really going to throw all that away for a ministerial job that, even if it goes well, he'll be out of by the next election? We'll see.

It seems he has. His court case against the Snoopers Charter (jointly with Tom Watson) has been in the European Court of Justice who have just passed their ruling and it seems the ruling only mentions TomWatson, Davies having removed his name from the case. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-most-public-opponent-of-theresa-may-s-snooping-laws-stops-opposing-them-as-soon-as-he-a7144296.html.

Ian