Brexit Penny Dropping?

[ManxTaxPayer]

Remember this? 

Michael Gove vows to uphold UK food standards after Brexit

How's that going?

 

 

[The Voice of Reason]

11 hours ago, Lost Login said:

11 hours ago, Lost Login said:

I think Scotland have much stronger case for a second independence referendum first as the facts have considerably changed since the 2014 referendum. Would the fact the Scotland have to cease to be part of the single market despite voting 62% voting in favour of remain change the equation? 

 

 

How so?

Scotland voted to remain in the UK

The UK voted to leave the EU

It can’t be much clearer.

62% of residents of Acacia Avenue, Tunbridge Wells may have voted to stay in the EU. Does that mean Acacia Avenue stays in the EU?

 

[Lost Login]

19 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

How so?

Scotland voted to remain in the UK

The UK voted to leave the EU

It can’t be much clearer.

62% of residents of Acacia Avenue, Tunbridge Wells may have voted to stay in the EU. Does that mean Acacia Avenue stays in the EU?

 

I am not sure if you are trolling or being deliberately obtuse but when Scotland voted to remain as part of the UK there was little expectation that the UK would vote to leave the EU which a substantial majority of Scotland voted against.

I have no idea if Scotland would prefer to leave the UK and be in the EU or be in the UK and outside the EU. That has never been put to the test. It seems reasonable to me that it should be if Scotland request it as there has been a substantial change in the facts since the 2014 referendum

With regard to the Acacia Avenue, point me in the direction of the referendum they held about leaving the UK and when they became a country?

I see you ignored my point that you appear to be believe that referendum's should not be revisited but appear not to have a problem with the 2016 referendum when one had already been held in 1972. Why should the 2016 and 2014 referendums be inviolate but not the 1972 except for you prefer the results of the later ones?  

[The Voice of Reason]

3 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

I am not sure if you are trolling or being deliberately obtuse but when Scotland voted to remain as part of the UK there was little expectation that the UK would vote to leave the EU which a substantial majority of Scotland voted against.

I have no idea if Scotland would prefer to leave the UK and be in the EU or be in the UK and outside the EU. That has never been put to the test. It seems reasonable to me that it should be if Scotland request it as there has been a substantial change in the facts since the 2014 referendum

With regard to the Acacia Avenue, point me in the direction of the referendum they held about leaving the UK and when they became a country?

I see you ignored my point that you appear to be believe that referendum's should not be revisited but appear not to have a problem with the 2016 referendum when one had already been held in 1972. Why should the 2016 and 2014 referendums be inviolate but not the 1972 except for you prefer the results of the later ones?  

If you are going to be rude I won’t be engaging with you further.

However to answer your point. There were 44 years between the two EU referendums so I think it is a matter of degree. This is far longer a period than the “once in a generation “ referendum for the Sots some of whom are now demanding another one after just seven years. 
 

Re Acacia Avenue in Tunbridge Wells and say, Tartan Shortbread Close in Dundee.

You are quite right Acacia Ave did not hold a referendum about leaving the UK. However Scotland did and they voted to stay.

So following the independence referendum residents of both addresses are of the same status. They are part of the UK.

A couple of years later the UK voted to leave the EU. You can break the vote down by country, county or street but the UK still voted to leave. It was a UK referendum and as such the result applied to the whole of the UK not just selected parts according to geographical voter preferences

With respect I’m finding it a bit bizarre you don’t understand this concept. But I would not still guest you are trolling or being deliberately obtuse.

[manxman1980]

6 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

This is far longer a period than the “once in a generation “ referendum for the Sots some of whom are now demanding another one after just seven .

A couple of years later the UK voted to leave the EU. 

The Scottish referendum did not just include UK Citizens.  EU nationals residing in Scotland at that time were also allowed to vote.

A big part of the campaign for remaining in the UK was that Scotland would be forced to leave the EU with little hope of rejoining (due to Spain).

A few years later and Scotland is removed from the EU because the English and Welsh wanted to leave.  The population of Scotland didn't. 

The EU referendum excluded EU nationals from voting.

Is it a big surprise that the SNP believe that enough has changed to revisit that independence referendum? 

[ManxTaxPayer]

 

[Lost Login]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

If you are going to be rude I won’t be engaging with you further.

However to answer your point. There were 44 years between the two EU referendums so I think it is a matter of degree. This is far longer a period than the “once in a generation “ referendum for the Sots some of whom are now demanding another one after just seven years. 

It is good to see that you have moved your positions and now accept that referendums can be revisited. As manxman1980 points out since the Scottish independence referendum was held there has been a huge change in the constitutional relation between the UK and EU which Scotland via a large majority voted against. I am not Scottish but that huge change would, from my perspective, make another Scottish independence not unreasonable as what Scotland voted for at the time, being part of the UK and the EU is no longer possible. I am not sure that saying cos you voted for X because X has gone we are treating your vote for X as a vote for Y as an alternative to X really has much validity. That though is effectively what you are arguing. 

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Re Acacia Avenue in Tunbridge Wells and say, Tartan Shortbread Close in Dundee.

You are quite right Acacia Ave did not hold a referendum about leaving the UK. However Scotland did and they voted to stay.

So following the independence referendum residents of both addresses are of the same status. They are part of the UK.

A couple of years later the UK voted to leave the EU. You can break the vote down by country, county or street but the UK still voted to leave. It was a UK referendum and as such the result applied to the whole of the UK not just selected parts according to geographical voter preferences

With respect I’m finding it a bit bizarre you don’t understand this concept. But I would not still guest you are trolling or being deliberately obtuse.

I do understand your concept but you are effectively trying to compare apples to oranges. The EU and Scottish independence referendums are completely different. In the EU case, if we ignore the fact that it is now becoming much clearer how much truth there was behind each sides claims, there has been no substantial change in the facts and what people voted on essentially remains the position. The NI border issue may change that. In the case of Scottish Independence they voted in favour of remaining part of the UK which was part of the single market. What they voted in favour of no longer exists. You are effectively saying as you voted for X as that no longer exists we will treat that as being in favour of Y.

Using a simple analogy if Scotland had voted to pay a £1 a day for an apple everyday and now only oranges can be provided you are going to treat the vote in favour of paying £1 a day for an apple as being in favour of paying the same amount for an orange. It is irrelevant that many may complain that this is not what you voted on as could have voted no to receiving an apple and that would have then also applied to oranges. That is plainly bonkers but it is effectively the current position.

I am also staggered that as Brexit was for a large number of leavers apparently about sovereignty that they are so anti the Scottish Government having their own sovereignty and acting accordingly. To me there is a huge hypocrisy in the UK Govt saying we do not like being part of the EU and want to leave whilst at the same time saying to Scotland you may not like being part of the UK but have to stay.    

Edited December 29, 2021 by Lost Login

[The Voice of Reason]

5 hours ago, Lost Login said:

It is good to see that you have moved your positions and now accept that referendums can be revisited. As manxman1980 points out since the Scottish independence referendum was held there has been a huge change in the constitutional relation between the UK and EU which Scotland via a large majority voted against. I am not Scottish but that huge change would, from my perspective, make another Scottish independence not unreasonable as what Scotland voted for at the time, being part of the UK and the EU is no longer possible. I am not sure that saying cos you voted for X because X has gone we are treating your vote for X as a vote for Y as an alternative to X really has much validity. That though is effectively what you are arguing. 

I do understand your concept but you are effectively trying to compare apples to oranges. The EU and Scottish independence referendums are completely different. In the EU case, if we ignore the fact that it is now becoming much clearer how much truth there was behind each sides claims, there has been no substantial change in the facts and what people voted on essentially remains the position. The NI border issue may change that. In the case of Scottish Independence they voted in favour of remaining part of the UK which was part of the single market. What they voted in favour of no longer exists. You are effectively saying as you voted for X as that no longer exists we will treat that as being in favour of Y.

Using a simple analogy if Scotland had voted to pay a £1 a day for an apple everyday and now only oranges can be provided you are going to treat the vote in favour of paying £1 a day for an apple as being in favour of paying the same amount for an orange. It is irrelevant that many may complain that this is not what you voted on as could have voted no to receiving an apple and that would have then also applied to oranges. That is plainly bonkers but it is effectively the current position.

I am also staggered that as Brexit was for a large number of leavers apparently about sovereignty that they are so anti the Scottish Government having their own sovereignty and acting accordingly. To me there is a huge hypocrisy in the UK Govt saying we do not like being part of the EU and want to leave whilst at the same time saying to Scotland you may not like being part of the UK but have to stay.    

Obiter dicta I don’t think too many tears would be shed by the rest of the Union should Scotland leave the UK.They have been propped up financially for too long by the Barnett formula and other subsidies.

That apart I have been trying to explain to you why Scotland is, and should be,subject to the referendum result as the rest of the UK. Any future independence referendum would be after the fact and should the EU wish to welcome Ecosse back into the fold I doubt they could afford it.

it’s been like banging my head against a brick wall and if I continued for a year I doubt you would still get it.

Lost login? Lost logic more like 😀

[code99]

The so-called ‘sovereignty’ argument was another serving of tripe which was sold to ill-informed parochial British public by (politically and financially motivated) odious con artists who, figuratively speaking, wrapped themselves in the Union Jack and kissed pics of the Queen, while treating Northern Ireland with contemptuous indifference. There was never any substance behind their fictitious claims that Brussels was ‘stifling’ London’s ability to make independent decisions which would be in the UK’s interests. I am not suggesting for a moment that the EU is an embodiment of perfection, but the driving force behind Brexit was xenophobia wrapped up as British Nationalism – a common trait that unites rich Tory party donors from the shires with the members of the EDL and semi-literate football thugs who are only too happy to dish out racism at every opportunity.

The dreaded ‘red tape’ that Brexiteers love to hate is here to stay unless of course British public wants things like salmonella and other ‘delights’ in local food chain, or to ‘enjoy’ excrement freely floating in local rivers, or to put the profits over the people. The Grenfell Tower tragedy is an appalling indictment to some of the ‘locally designed’ independent UK rules and 'health and safety' regulations.

The war drums on emigration which are still being beaten by the likes of Priti Patel (a daughter of ‘refugees’ from Uganda) are deceitful distractions from reality. Although European employees have the same ‘benefits’ as British-born workers, it has always been the UK’s prerogative to deny residency to those who were unable to secure jobs – that is what they do in other EU countries, but the UK chose to not exercise that right.

The hypocrisy of the current emigration policy is now on full display in the latest free trade agreement with Australia, the magnitude of which UK farmers who voted for Brexit en masse are beginning to wake up to. That agreement will potentially permit just about any Aussie up to a certain age, and not only their fast bowlers with a decent track record of good innings, to turn up in the UK and take up employment. Whether they will come is a big question. I rather suspect that it is more likely that there will be a greater exodus of skilled workers from the UK to Australia at a time when there are wide-spread labour shortages in the UK.

Happy New Year. 

[The Voice of Reason]

17 minutes ago, code99 said:

I am not suggesting for a moment that the EU is an embodiment of perfection, but the driving force behind Brexit was xenophobia wrapped up as British Nationalism – a common trait that unites rich Tory party donors from the shires with the members of the EDL and semi-literate football thugs who are only too happy to dish out racism at every opportunity.. 

As a literate left leaning person who would have voted leave given the vote,and one who has never indulged on any kind of football thuggery or been a member of the EDL I find your comments  more than offensive. Particularly the one about dishing out racism.

You should be very ashamed of yourself. 

Your comments are disgusting. Particularly trying to make political capital out of the Grenfell tragedy.

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by The Voice of Reason
Reference to Grenfell added

[Lost Login]

41 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Obiter dicta I don’t think too many tears would be shed by the rest of the Union should Scotland leave the UK.They have been propped up financially for too long by the Barnett formula and other subsidies.

That apart I have been trying to explain to you why Scotland is, and should be,subject to the referendum result as the rest of the UK. Any future independence referendum would be after the fact and should the EU wish to welcome Ecosse back into the fold I doubt they could afford it.

it’s been like banging my head against a brick wall and if I continued for a year I doubt you would still get it.

Lost login? Lost logic more like 😀

But I have not argued that Scotland should not be subject to the result of the EU referendum so why you think you need to explain that it should be  I have no idea. Maybe you are simply are trying to shift the goal posts. Any and all parts of the UK should be subject to the EU referendum whilst part of the UK.

My point was that it is reasonable that the results of referendum should be revisited if it appears that the original result may no longer be supported or valid. You were adamant that the results should be set in stone forever although you appear to have changed your tune when I pointed out that effectively meant that there should have been no referendum in 2016 as the matter had been voted on in 1972.

I referenced the Scottish Independence referendum as a fairly recent referendum which I thought was reasonable to revisit and should not be set in stone as the facts have  changed since that referendum took place. What they voted on, Scotland remaining part of the UK that was within the EU has ceased to be possible. As Scotland voted by a large percentage for remain it is entirely possible that the result of an independence referendum may now be difference as some voters may think Scotland being part of the EU trading block is more important than remaining part of the UK. You were adamant that as Scotland had already had a vote that should not be revisited despite there being no way to provide what Scotland had effectively voted for in the Independence vote. 

Why you are confusing or interpreting my suggestion that it would be reasonable to revisit the Independence referendum as being as being a call for Scotland to be able to act separately in respect of the EU referendum I have no idea. Maybe pointlessly banging your head against a brick wall has damaged too many of your brain cells.

I will therefore try and make it easy for you.

All parts of the UK should accept the result of a referendum if all parts of the UK had an equal vote in the election

It is reasonable to revisit the result of referendum if facts have change or public opinion has changed.

Presently the facts in respect of the Scottish Independence Referendum have changed as the UK can not provide what was in place when Scotland voted to remain in the UK so it is reasonable to consider holding another.

Nothing has substantially changed re the EU referendum so I don't think at present it is reasonable to have another vote.

It is amazing how people are all in favour of democracy and referendum up to the point they are happy with the result at which they seem dead against the idea in the future. 

If any parts of the UK are not happy with the EU referendum result tough unless you wish to leave the UK and take your chances as to whether you can survive as a separate country and the EI will let you join the single market.

 

 

[The Voice of Reason]

7 hours ago, ManxTaxPayer said:

 

I think there is some sort of denial going on here. The UK has left a the EU and the relationship has changed. That is a fact

The United States , as a different country does not recognise the UK disabled blue badge 

The UK should negotiate reciprocate arrangements with the EU ( and further afield). As with cross border policing

But people have to recognise that the UK has left the EU and things will change

[The Voice of Reason]

5 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

 

If any parts of the UK are not happy with the EU referendum result tough unless you wish to leave the UK and take your chances as to whether you can survive as a separate country and the EI will let you join the single market.

 

 

Jeez, how many more times ?

The referendum was a UK referendum and as such there were no “parts”

[Lost Login]

5 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I think there is some sort of denial going on here. The UK has left a the EU and the relationship has changed. That is a fact

The UK should negotiate reciprocate arrangements with the EU ( and further afield). As with cross border policing

But people have to recognise that the UK has left the EU and things will change

But in part Brexit was sold on the basis that the UK held all the cards so the only things that would change would be things that the UK wanted to change and that would be in the UK's favour. In simple terms Project Fantasy beat Project Fear.

[The Voice of Reason]

1 minute ago, Lost Login said:

But in part Brexit was sold on the basis that the UK held all the cards .

Nope. Everyone knew there would be some downsides ( freedom of movement etc). It wasn’t a secret 

They voted as to whether the upsides outweighed then