'Brexit' wins, UK to leave the EU?

[Niall]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

There's been an interesting shift under Theresa May. Her speech at the annual Tory conference was labelled 'populist' by the media. She did indeed sound very 'un-Tory' when she railed against 'the global elites', which sounded more like something that would be expected from Jeremy Corbyn. I suspect that there's some recognition in the British establishment that the only way they're going to prevent Labour from rolling over them in the next election is by stealing (at least some of) their thunder. That's also beginning to be reflected in some of the new policy moves under May.

Another development is that the British media has begun a phony 'soft Brexit vs hard Brexit' debate. Enormous pressure is being applied on May to not actually follow through on Brexit (or at least water it down to insignificance), but she seems determined to use the referendum result (the real result of which - a far larger vote to Leave the EU - I suspect she knows) to execute it. So we're (once again) hearing all about how 'the markets' will 'crush the pound and the British economy' if Britain leaves the EU! And the PTB desperately want Brexit 'debated in parliament' so that the oligarchy's lackeys can go over the heads of the public!

What a right royal mess they've got themselves into.

 

[Windmill knight]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

So the UK high court ruled that the government cannot trigger article 50 (to leave the EU) without a vote from Parliament. At the moment, my impression is that all this going back and forth is just for show, and after a few months of 'debate', they will either make a new referendum which will result in 'stay', or they will do a watered-down Brexit, that will essentially be the same deal they have with the EU at the moment, but with a different name. But we'll see.

_https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/ruling-on-brexit-opens-way-to-mps-revolt

Theresa May faces potential MP revolt following article 50 ruling

High court decision that MPs must have a vote on triggering Brexit ‘gives chance to scrutinise prime minister’s approach’

Theresa May is heading for a rebellion over her Brexit strategy after the high court ruled that the UK could not leave the European union without the permission of the British parliament.

Three senior judges ruled on Thursday that the government could not press ahead with triggering article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, the formal process for beginning Brexit, without first consulting MPs and peers in the Commons and Lords.

The decision, made after a legal challenge brought following the EU referendum result in June, is a dramatic setback for the prime minister, who had argued that she had the personal authority to begin the process without a parliamentary vote on the issue.

Downing Street has said they will challenge the judgment and an appeal with the supreme court is expected to be lodged. But David Davis, the Brexit secretary, acknowledged that the ruling as it stood meant the UK’s departure from the bloc would require the consent of both MPs and peers through an act of parliament. “The judges have laid out what we can’t do, and not exactly what we can do, but we’re presuming that it requires an act of parliament and therefore both Commons and Lords,” he said.

Parliamentarians are unlikely to block Brexit outright, given that 52% of voters among the public opted, on 23 June, to leave the EU, but the need for legislation gives MPs the opportunity to disrupt the process by demanding May reveals more details about her plan for negotiating the terms of departure.

The Guardian understands that a cross-party group of Tory and Labour MPs met this Thursday afternoon to discuss how the ruling could be used to force May to reveal more about her broad negotiating aims.

Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said he now believed it was “inevitable the prime minister will have to answer the big questions” on whether she wanted the UK to be in the single market or the customs union, as there appeared to be a majority of MPs demanding greater transparency.

“This is about accountability and scrutiny,” he said. “Very many MPs accept and respect the referendum of course, but the terms upon which we exit are vitally important. I think there is now consensus that the prime minister has got to disclose the overarching strategy. The idea that we are all to be kept in the dark until some time in 2019 only has to be said to be rejected.”

May has repeatedly insisted that she will deliver the “best possible deal for the country” but has so far refused to specify whether that deal would include access to the single market or enhanced immigration controls.

Within hours of the judgment senior Conservatives were openly calling for a change of approach. Andrew Tyrie, chair of the Treasury committee, said May’s government needed to be “much more transparent about its objectives in the negotiations, in some detail, and the sooner the better”.

He added: “It should also ensure that parliament can scrutinise the objectives and vote on them. The UK is leaving; a public debate is needed about where we want to arrive. Before taking off, it is always a good idea for the pilot to discuss with the passengers and crew where they might want to land.”

Nicky Morgan, the former education secretary, told BBC Two’s Victoria Derbyshire show: “It does need to be not just a vote, but a formal short bill about the triggering of article 50, and then the focus is on that. The other thing, of course, that parliament will want then is a clearer plan on the government’s Brexit plans and that will be, I think, important in helping the government to win that vote.”

On the other side of the debate the ruling infuriated many eurosceptics, with several Tory MPs suggesting May should call an early general election to get another mandate from voters.

Dominic Raab, the former minister and Tory MP, said any attempt to stall the triggering of Brexit could increase the chances of an early general election. “If we get to the stage where effectively [some MPs] are not willing to allow this negotiation to even begin, I think there must be an increased chance that we must go to the country again. I think that would be a mistake and I don’t think those trying to break the verdict of the referendum would be rewarded,” he said.

[...article continues on link]

 

[Niall]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

Meanwhile British troops continue pouring onto 'the continent'.

And you Europeans thought the British were leaving Europe!?

They will never leave EU alone! They will protect you from the evil Russkies until the end of time!

 

[Carl]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

Meanwhile British troops continue pouring onto 'the continent'.

And you Europeans thought the British were leaving Europe!?

They will never leave EU alone! They will protect you from the evil Russkies until the end of time!

Well, you called it! Even with the referendum result that we got, it's still never gonna happen.

With all the arguing about how good/bad it would be for the UK, the only topic nobody seems to touch is: would Europe be better off without us? I think the answer is a pretty resounding yes. However I still don't see what all the fuss is about. I'm sure the UK establishment would have no trouble continuing its military 'protection', along with the Gladio things etc., were we no longer officially part of the EU.

 

[Niall]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

With all the arguing about how good/bad it would be for the UK, the only topic nobody seems to touch is: would Europe be better off without us? I think the answer is a pretty resounding yes. However I still don't see what all the fuss is about. I'm sure the UK establishment would have no trouble continuing its military 'protection', along with the Gladio things etc., were we no longer officially part of the EU.

The sticking point seems to be that if they leave (for realz), they'll no longer be able to thwart political integration leading to the EU becoming an actual state a la USA. A likely development resulting from that would be the EU having its own military and thus independence from NATO.

In any event, I don't think British intransigence is solely at fault for European disunity. There's plenty of blame for that to go around in western Europe, where the elites are generally more than happy to go along with London and Washington because they like the same things they like: war, greed, and causing gargantuan quantities of suffering.

 

[Keit]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

And you Europeans thought the British were leaving Europe!?

They will never leave EU alone! They will protect you from the evil Russkies until the end of time!

Well, you called it! Even with the referendum result that we got, it's still never gonna happen.

Considering what was done to the Russian embassy in London, I'd say that UK is on its way to become its own punishment.

https://youtu.be/XdUvHuKL1O8

 

[Carl]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

The sticking point seems to be that if they leave (for realz), they'll no longer be able to thwart political integration leading to the EU becoming an actual state a la USA. A likely development resulting from that would be the EU having its own military and thus independence from NATO.

In any event, I don't think British intransigence is solely at fault for European disunity. There's plenty of blame for that to go around in western Europe, where the elites are generally more than happy to go along with London and Washington because they like the same things they like: war, greed, and causing gargantuan quantities of suffering.

I'd never considered that. But following the refugee crisis there is an awful lot of nationalistic sentiment growing, both from right-wingers and others who just want independence. Well, a USE doesn't seem plausible now but we know how quickly things change.

I'd like to think Europe generally has a slightly higher chance of seeing some 'normie' leaders emerge as the collapse of the US continues and if UK would leave, but yeah, the Deep State in Europe is probably just as evil and entrenched as in the US/UK.

Considering what was done to the Russian embassy in London, I'd say that UK is on its way to become its own punishment.

You have to laugh. Maybe they should do it for all of the atrocities that Britain unleashed on the world in the past few centuries up to today. They'd probably cover the whole of England though.

 

[Windmill knight]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

Theresa May just gave a speech outlining the UK government's position on Brexit. Here's a summary form the Guardian:

_https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jan/17/theresa-may-brexit-speech-pound-steadies-ahead-of-theresa-mays-brexit-speech-politics-live

Theresa May's Brexit speech - Summary and key extracts

Number 10 has just released the text of the speech. Here are the key points.

May said that EU leaders would be committing an act of “calamitous self-harm” if they tried to punish the UK for leaving.

I must be clear. Britain wants to remain a good friend and neighbour to Europe. Yet I know there are some voices calling for a punitive deal that punishes Britain and discourages other countries from taking the same path.

That would be an act of calamitous self-harm for the countries of Europe. And it would not be the act of a friend.

She said she would rather have no Brexit deal than accept a bad Brexit deal. She did not say so explicitly, but this means she would be willing to leave the EU after two years with no trade deal in place, and revert to trading with the EU on World Trade Organisation terms. She said:

Britain would not – indeed we could not – accept such an approach [EU leaders trying to punish the UK]. And while I am confident that this scenario need never arise – while I am sure a positive agreement can be reached – I am equally clear that no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.

She suggested the UK would slash taxes to poach investment if the EU failed to offer the UK a good trade deal.

Because we would still be able to trade with Europe. We would be free to strike trade deals across the world. And we would have the freedom to set the competitive tax rates and embrace the policies that would attract the world’s best companies and biggest investors to Britain. And – if we were excluded from accessing the single market – we would be free to change the basis of Britain’s economic model.

She ruled out Britain staying in the single market.

European leaders have said many times that membership means accepting the “four freedoms” of goods, capital, services and people. And being out of the EU but a member of the single market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement those freedoms, without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would mean accepting a role for the European court of justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country.

It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all.

And that is why both sides in the referendum campaign made it clear that a vote to leave the EU would be a vote to leave the single market.

So we do not seek membership of the single market. Instead we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement.

She said she wanted to retain the “greatest possible access to the single market”.

[The proposed free trade agreement] may take in elements of current single market arrangements in certain areas – on the export of cars and lorries for example, or the freedom to provide financial services across national borders – as it makes no sense to start again from scratch when Britain and the remaining member states have adhered to the same rules for so many years.

But I respect the position taken by European leaders who have been clear about their position, just as I am clear about mine. So an important part of the new strategic partnership we seek with the EU will be the pursuit of the greatest possible access to the single market, on a fully reciprocal basis, through a comprehensive free trade agreement.

She said she would like to retain elements of customs union membership.

I know my emphasis on striking trade agreements with countries outside Europe has led to questions about whether Britain seeks to remain a member of the EU’s customs union. And it is true that full customs union membership prevents us from negotiating our own comprehensive trade deals.

Now, I want Britain to be able to negotiate its own trade agreements. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible.

That means I do not want Britain to be part of the common commercial policy and I do not want us to be bound by the common external tariff. These are the elements of the customs union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU.

Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the customs union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it. It is not the means that matter, but the ends.

She said she wanted a transitional deal, with different aspects lasting different amounts of time, allowing for Brexit implementation.

But there is one further objective we are setting. For as I have said before – it is in no one’s interests for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability, as we change from our existing relationship to a new partnership with the EU.

By this, I do not mean that we will seek some form of unlimited transitional status, in which we find ourselves stuck forever in some kind of permanent political purgatory. That would not be good for Britain, but nor do I believe it would be good for the EU.

Instead, I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year article fifty process has concluded. From that point onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest. This will give businesses enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements.

This might be about our immigration controls, customs systems or the way in which we cooperate on criminal justice matters. Or it might be about the future legal and regulatory framework for financial services. For each issue, the time we need to phase-in the new arrangements may differ. Some might be introduced very quickly, some might take longer. And the interim arrangements we rely upon are likely to be a matter of negotiation.

But the purpose is clear: we will seek to avoid a disruptive cliff-edge, and we will do everything we can to phase in the new arrangements we require as Britain and the EU move towards our new partnership.

She said Britain may continue with modest payments to the EU after Brexit.

Because we will no longer be members of the Single Market, we will not be required to contribute huge sums to the EU budget. There may be some specific European programmes in which we might want to participate. If so, and this will be for us to decide, it is reasonable that we should make an appropriate contribution. But the principle is clear: the days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union every year will end.

She said MPs and peers would get a vote on leaving the EU.

And when it comes to parliament, there is one other way in which I would like to provide certainty. I can confirm today that the government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force.

But May has not explained what this vote would entail. During the Q&A (see 12.37pm) she implied that MPs would not get a chance to vote to stay in the EU, implying that the vote would just be a choice between Brexit on the government’s terms and Brexit with no deal at all, but this has not been clarified.

She said Britain did not want the EU to unravel. This passage seems to have been included to differentiate May from Donald Trump who is not committed to helping to ensure the survival of the EU. She said:

I know that this – and the other reasons Britain took such a decision – is not always well understood among our friends and allies in Europe. And I know many fear that this might herald the beginning of a greater unravelling of the EU.

But let me be clear: I do not want that to happen. It would not be in the best interests of Britain. It remains overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed. And that is why I hope in the months and years ahead we will all reflect on the lessons of Britain’s decision to leave.

She claimed that just one or two EU states were blocking an early deal on the rights of EU nationals living in the UK.

Fairness demands that we deal with another issue as soon as possible too. We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.

I have told other EU leaders that we could give people the certainty they want straight away, and reach such a deal now.

Many of them favour such an agreement - one or two others do not - but I want everyone to know that it remains an important priority for Britain – and for many other member states – to resolve this challenge as soon as possible. Because it is the right and fair thing to do.

 

[Voyageur]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

Was not sure where to put this, yet I see that the U.K. just appointed a new Terrorism watchdog - Max Hill http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/uk-terror-threat-high-max-hill-1.3999951

Britian's new terrorism watchdog says the U.K. is facing a level of terror threat not seen since the IRA bombings of the 1970s.

Max Hill made the comment in his first major interview since taking up the role last Monday.

Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, he warned ISIS was planning "indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians" and expressed "enormous concern" at the imminent return of hundreds of British jihadists who have been fighting in Iraq and Syria.
[...]
As Britain's new independent terrorism watchdog, Hill will report annually to parliament on the state of British terror legislation.

He'll also conduct his own reviews and has pledge to stand up to Prime Minister Theresa May if he believes her administration's policies infringe personal freedoms.

Well many know where the IRA bombings originated, from the British PtB themselves and all that has happened since. Probably someone to keep an eye on to see what he does. In an interview here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/25/interview-britains-new-terror-watchdog-max-hill-getting-justice/ Hill says;

Despite the threat Mr Hill – whose role is to scrutinise government legislation – opposes “draconian” measures that would imperil free speech online.

 

[Windmill knight]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

So the UK Parliament approved the Brexit bill, and without the amendment that would have protected the rights of EU citizens living there. Given the stance the UK government is taking towards those EU citizens (being used as "bargaining chips", the media says), it seems likely that the EU will take a similar hard position towards UK citizens in the continent. At this point it seems to me that the UK government is in vengenace mode, basically telling the public "oh you wanted Brexit, yeah? So you are going to have it in the hardest way possible". The thing is, a Brexit could have been done in many ways that could have made the transition much easier for everyone involved, starting with immigrants both in the UK and in the EU. Instead they just seem to be playing hard ball and upsetting all in the process.

_https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/13/brexit-vote-article-50-eu-citizens-rights-lords-mps

Parliament passes Brexit bill and opens way to triggering article 50

Peers accept MPs’ decision to reject amendments aimed at guaranteeing rights of EU citizens and vote on final Brexit bill

Anushka Asthana and Rowena Mason and Lisa O'Carroll

Monday 13 March 2017 22.12 GMT
First published on Monday 13 March 2017 18.56 GMT

Theresa May’s Brexit bill has cleared all its hurdles in the Houses of Parliament, opening the way for the prime minister to trigger article 50 by the end of March.

Peers accepted the supremacy of the House of Commons late on Monday night after MPs overturned amendments aimed at guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens in the UK and giving parliament a “meaningful vote” on the final Brexit deal.

The decision came after a short period of so-called “ping pong” when the legislation bounced between the two houses of parliament as a result of disagreement over the issues.

The outcome means the government has achieved its ambition of passing a “straightforward” two-line bill that is confined simply to the question of whether ministers can trigger article 50 and start the formal Brexit process.

It had been widely predicted in recent days that May would fire the starting gun on Tuesday, immediately after the vote, but sources quashed speculation of quick action and instead suggested she will wait until the final week of March.

MPs voted down the amendment on EU nationals’ rights by 335 to 287, a majority of 48, with peers later accepting the decision by 274 to 135.

The second amendment on whether to hold a meaningful final vote on any deal after the conclusion of Brexit talks was voted down by 331 to 286, a majority of 45, in the Commons.

The Lords then accepted that decision by 274 to 118, with Labour leader Lady Smith telling the Guardian that continuing to oppose the government would be playing politics because MPs would not be persuaded to change their minds.

“If I thought there was a foot in the door or a glimmer of hope that we could change this bill, I would fight it tooth and nail, but it doesn’t seem to be the case,” she said.

But the decision led to tensions between Labour and the Lib Dems, whose leader, Tim Farron, hit out at the main opposition.

“Labour had the chance to block Theresa May’s hard Brexit but chose to sit on their hands. Tonight there will be families fearful that they are going to be torn apart and feeling they are no longer welcome in Britain. Shame on the government for using people as chips in a casino, and shame on Labour for letting them,” he said.

The amendments had required the government to bring forward proposals about how they would protect EU citizens within three months of triggering article 50, and said that a parliamentary vote on the final Brexit deal should be on the face of the legislation.

The Brexit secretary, David Davis, told colleagues that MPs and peers had made their arguments with “passion, sincerity and conviction”.

But, using emollient language that served to persuade peers not to cause any more trouble for the government, he said he wanted this legislation to remain “straightforward”, simply allowing the government to embark on the formal Brexit process.

Davis said he would take personal “moral responsibility” for guaranteeing the future rights of EU citizens in the UK as well as Britons living on the continent.

On the second amendment, Davis said guaranteeing a meaningful vote could hamper the government during its negotiations. He questioned the motives of those arguing for it, claiming they wanted to reverse the referendum result.

A number of Tory MPs argued that the government was right to aim to guarantee reciprocity for British citizens abroad. However, Davis was opposed by Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP – with some passionate speeches from critics – and faced a small rebellion on his own backbenches over the meaningful vote on the eventual Brexit deal.

After peers voted to allow the passage of the bill unamended, Davis said the decision had placed Britain “on the threshold of the most important negotiation for our country in a generation”, saying that his government was ready to trigger article 50 and forge new trade links.

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, described the decision by MPs to overturn the votes as “deeply disappointing”. He said: “We will continue to demand that the stress they, and British citizens living in the EU, are being put under is ended, and they are given the right to remain.

“Article 50 is being triggered because of the result of the EU referendum. But it is only the start of the process. Labour, at every stage, will challenge the government’s plans for a bargain basement Brexit with Labour’s alternative of a Brexit that puts jobs, living standards and rights first.”

The founder of The3million, the grassroots organisation lobbying for the rights of EU citizens, said he felt “utter desperation” that they are now destined to become bargaining chips.

Nicolas Hatton said: “The hearts of 3 million EU citizens living in the UK will have sunken today when they heard that MPs had voted down the amendment to article 50 giving them guarantees. This was the last chance and I struggle to find words to express my utter desperation that EU citizens will now be used by the government as bargaining chips in the Brexit negotiation.”

There was also angry reaction from British people living on the continent. Dave Spokes for Expat Citizen Rights in EU, one of the biggest support groups with more than 7,600 members in 27 EU countries, said: “It is worrying that our government chooses to ignore the concerns of its own citizens and the evidence put to its select committees that citizens rights should be confirmed immediately.
“The government’s own white paper said it had engaged with citizens’ groups in Europe, but we have yet to find one group that has been approached by the Department for Exiting the EU. We do wonder what the outcome might have been had they actually done so.”

A coalition of 11 grassroots groups campaigning for British nationals in the EU said it also felt for the millions of Europeans in the UK. “We share their suffering, and know exactly how stressful and unpleasant it is to live with this degree of uncertainty for ourselves and our families,” said spokeswoman Jane Golding, who lives in Germany. “We do not believe people should be used as a bargaining chips.”

 

[Windmill knight]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

Then there's this:

_http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/second-scottish-independence-live-referendum-nicola-sturgeon-brexit-speech-second-indy-ref-2-uk-eu-a7626746.html

Nicola Sturgeon announces second Scottish referendum

The First Minister linked her decision to Brexit

The Scottish Government will move to hold a second referendum on independence from the United Kingdom, the country's First Minister has announced, blaming the UK Government's lack of compromise over Brexit.

Nicola Sturgeon made the announcement in a speech on Monday morning at Bute House, as MPs in Westminster prepared to give Theresa May the power to trigger Article 50 and begin Brexit negotiations.

She said the UK Government had "not moved even an inch in pursuit of compromise and agreement" with the Scottish Government over Brexit and that even a good deal would be "significantly inferior" to the status quo.

Ms May, however, accused Ms Sturgeon of playing "games" and the SNP of having "tunnel vision".

In her announcement at Bute House, Ms Sturgeon said: "If Scotland can be ignored on an issue as important as the EU and the single market then it is clear that our voice can be ignored at any time and on any issue."

The First Minister said the vote had to be held between Autumn 2018 and Spring 2019 – before it was "too late" but after "the terms of Brexit are known". The First Minister says she will apply to the UK Government to authorise the referendum but that it should respect the will of the Scottish Parliament.

Under the so-called "Section 30 order" used to a call a referendum the UK Parliament must authorise a poll – meaning Ms Sturgeon's call could be blocked by Theresa May.

She added: "The option of no change is no longer available. But we will give the Scottish people a choice about the kind of change we want."

“I believe that it would be wrong for Scotland to be taken down a path that it has no control over regardless of the consequences for our economy, for our society, for our place in the world, for our very sense of who we are as a country. That would be wrong, and therefore my judgement is that we should have that choice," she said.

"I believe that in a referendum the Scottish people will opt for independence, but that will be the choice of the Scottish people and I’ve been very clear that that will be an informed choice.”

The SNP won the Scottish Parliament elections last year on a manifesto that explicitly said another referendum was an option if Scotland was "taken out of the EU against our will".

Scotland voted by 62 per cent to stay in the the European Union while the UK as a whole voted out. Theresa May has also confirmed that she will take Britain out of the single market – one of the "red lines" previously set by Ms Sturgeon for another vote.

The SNP's 2016 manifesto said: "We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."

Reacting to Ms Sturgeon's announcement, the Prime Minister Theresa May said: “The tunnel vision that the SNP has shown today is deeply regrettable. It sets Scotland on a course for more uncertainty and division, creating huge uncertainty.

“This is at a time when the Scottish people, the majority of the Scottish people, do not want a second independence referendum.

“Instead of playing politics with the future of our country the Scottish government should focus on delivering good government and public services for the people of Scotland. Politics is not a game.”

The first referendum on independence was held in September 2014 and was won by the unionist side by 55 per cent to 45 per cent.

Labour's Jeremy Corbyn said this week that his party would not stand in the way of a second Scottish independence referendum if one was called.

A UK Government spokesperson said: “As the Prime Minister has set out, the UK Government seeks a future partnership with the EU that works for the whole of the United Kingdom. The UK Government will negotiate that agreement, but we will do so taking into account the interests of all of the nations of the UK.

"We have been working closely with all the devolved administrations - listening to their proposals, and recognising the many areas of common ground, including workers’ rights, the status of EU citizens living in the UK and our security from crime and terrorism.

“Only a little over two years ago people in Scotland voted decisively to remain part of our United Kingdom in a referendum which the Scottish Government defined as a ‘once in a generation’ vote. The evidence clearly shows that a majority of people in Scotland do not want a second independence referendum. Another referendum would be divisive and cause huge economic uncertainty at the worst possible time.

“The Scottish Government should focus on delivering good government and public services for the people in Scotland.”

 

[Windmill knight]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

So Theresa May triggered Article 50, which means the UK is officially giving notice to leave the EU. Negotiations are to last 2 years at the most.

I never quite understood what was the tory government's strategy here; they clearly didn't want the Brexit to begin with, and now are going at it as if they could get something out of Europe in return, which I very much doubt. Europeans feel offended and they will not negotiate nicely. Angela Merkel is making it difficult for May already, and I don't think there is anything the UK government can do now. They have lost their leverage. Before, Brexit was a threat over the EU; now that it has materialized and May cannot make a u-turn, the EU can play it as they wish cause they have nothing to lose! Furthermore, it is in the EU's best interest to give the UK a bad deal in order to set an example for other EU members.

_https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/angela-merkel-rejects-one-of-theresa-mays-key-brexit-demands

Angela Merkel rejects one of Theresa May's key Brexit demands

Divorce settlement must come before talks about future relationship, says chancellor, as EU leaders respond to article 50 letter

Daniel Boffey and Jon Henley

Wednesday 29 March 2017 19.46 BST
First published on Wednesday 29 March 2017 19.01 BST

Angela Merkel has rejected one of Theresa May’s key Brexit demands, insisting negotiations on Britain’s exit from the European Union cannot run in parallel with talks on the future UK-EU relationship.

“The negotiations must first clarify how we will disentangle our interlinked relationship,” the German chancellor said in Berlin. “Only when this question is dealt with can we – hopefully soon after – begin talking about our future relationship.”

In her six-page letter triggering article 50 and formally launching the process of leaving the EU, the prime minister said she believed it was “necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the European Union”.

The EU institutions and 27 remaining member states, however, have long said they were determined the divorce settlement, such as the rights of EU citizens in the UK and Britons on the continent and the size of Britain’s exit bill, must first be agreed before substantive talks on a future relationship could begin.

On a day of some drama in Brussels, Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, warned after receiving May’s letter that there would be “no winners” from Brexit, and the next two years would be a matter of “damage control”.

Wearing a black tie and appearing at times visibly moved, the former Polish prime minister spoke to reporters just half an hour after receiving the prime minister’s letter from the UK’s ambassador to the EU, Sir Tim Barrow.

Holding the letter up for the benefit of the cameras, Tusk said: “So here it is, six pages. The notification from prime minister Theresa May triggering article 50 and formally starting the negotiations of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.

“There is no need to pretend that this is a happy day, neither in Brussels nor in London. After all most Europeans, including almost half the British voters, wish that we would stay together, not drift apart.” (...)

And then there is the Scottish question. It would be hilarious if Scotland overwhelmingly voted for independence - which is quite possible - and then how would the UK government argue against it after Brexiting based on a referendum?

_https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/scottish-independence-sturgeon-to-press-on-with-referendum

Scottish independence: Sturgeon to press on with referendum

First minister condemns Theresa May’s decision to trigger article 50 and dismisses promise of new powers for Scotland

Severin Carrell Scotland editor

Wednesday 29 March 2017 19.49 BST

Nicola Sturgeon has pledged to press on with a fresh independence referendum after dismissing Theresa May’s promise of substantial new powers for Scotland after Brexit.

The first minister said May’s decision to trigger article 50 on Wednesday, beginning the UK’s divorce from the EU, was one of the most destructive acts by a British leader in modern history, threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs across the UK.

Writing for the Guardian, Sturgeon said the decision was dispiriting, economically foolhardy and constitutionally reckless, threatening stability in Northern Ireland. It also undermined European efforts to combat climate change and collective security, she said.

“Brexit – especially the hard Brexit shaped by May’s inability to shake off the agenda of the Ukip-tinged right wing of her own party – threatens to be an act of self-harm on a scale barely understood,” she said.

She accused May of paying only superficial attention to the Scottish government’s demands for a special deal on the single market, opening up further conflicts with the UK government over the benefits Scotland could gain from Brexit.

“The result is that we must now ensure that people in Scotland are given a choice between the hard Brexit deal now being negotiated, and independence,” she said.

 

[Ant22]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

It looks like Brexit might resemble a divorce after decades of marriage, with a house, a mortgage and a family business to share. I can't find any information confirming that the UK has to pay the EU for leaving. Just like the EU doesn't have to give the UK a good deal on their departure.

https://www.rt.com/business/384488-brexit-divorce-negative-impact-eu/

UK rejection of €60bn Brexit bill would hurt EU's credit rating - S&P

The European Union's credit rating could be downgraded if the UK refuses to pay the €60 billion obligation in the course of implementing the country's exit from the bloc, warns Standard & Poor's.

“The EU ratings could come under pressure in an adverse scenario. This is because our ratings on the EU are to a certain extent predicated on our expectation that the UK would honor its share of financial obligations to the EU,” S&P said in a report seen by the Telegraph.

EU officials are not only demanding Britain pay €60 billion as it quits the bloc but insist a settlement of the issue should be reached before any other stages of Brexit negotiations can start.

The so-called divorce bill is aimed at covering the costs of significant pension contributions and financial liabilities, according to Brussels.

The warning issued by the agency will reportedly make the EU even more steadfast when it comes to the matter, as it reveals the risks the bloc may face in case of a hard Brexit.

The EU has an AA credit rating, the second highest awarded by S&P. Previously the EU enjoyed the highest AAA rating but was downgraded shortly after the results of the UK referendum.

“After the decision by the UK electorate to leave the EU, we have reassessed our opinion of cohesion within the EU, which we now consider to be a neutral rather than positive rating factor,” S&P said at the time.

British officials said the UK was ready to pay a settlement to the EU but the demanded sum was too high.

The S&P warning came after the claim by an influential Lords' committee that Britain is not legally obliged to pay Brussels any compensation.

“This is being presented in a binary way as a divorce bill, in which we owe them. It's not like that. It's more like leaving a gym or a club. You don't continue to pay for other people to use the facilities after you leave,” an unnamed government source said as quoted by the Telegraph.

 

[Glenn]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

It looks like Brexit might resemble a divorce after decades of marriage, with a house, a mortgage and a family business to share. I can't find any information confirming that the UK has to pay the EU for leaving. Just like the EU doesn't have to give the UK a good deal on their departure.

https://www.rt.com/business/384488-brexit-divorce-negative-impact-eu/

UK rejection of €60bn Brexit bill would hurt EU's credit rating - S&P

The European Union's credit rating could be downgraded if the UK refuses to pay the €60 billion obligation in the course of implementing the country's exit from the bloc, warns Standard & Poor's.

“The EU ratings could come under pressure in an adverse scenario. This is because our ratings on the EU are to a certain extent predicated on our expectation that the UK would honor its share of financial obligations to the EU,” S&P said in a report seen by the Telegraph.

EU officials are not only demanding Britain pay €60 billion as it quits the bloc but insist a settlement of the issue should be reached before any other stages of Brexit negotiations can start.

The so-called divorce bill is aimed at covering the costs of significant pension contributions and financial liabilities, according to Brussels.

The warning issued by the agency will reportedly make the EU even more steadfast when it comes to the matter, as it reveals the risks the bloc may face in case of a hard Brexit.

The EU has an AA credit rating, the second highest awarded by S&P. Previously the EU enjoyed the highest AAA rating but was downgraded shortly after the results of the UK referendum.

“After the decision by the UK electorate to leave the EU, we have reassessed our opinion of cohesion within the EU, which we now consider to be a neutral rather than positive rating factor,” S&P said at the time.

British officials said the UK was ready to pay a settlement to the EU but the demanded sum was too high.

The S&P warning came after the claim by an influential Lords' committee that Britain is not legally obliged to pay Brussels any compensation.

“This is being presented in a binary way as a divorce bill, in which we owe them. It's not like that. It's more like leaving a gym or a club. You don't continue to pay for other people to use the facilities after you leave,” an unnamed government source said as quoted by the Telegraph.

I wonder if the setting up of the EU was not properly thought out, in the sense of having everything specified in writing in the case of a member choosing to leave. It seems that it is more of a 'flying by the seat of your pants' scenario playing out. Or maybe another case of wishful thinking, not seeing all the possibilities, and being sideswiped down the road with unforeseen scenarios . I suppose they thought they could manage it with the usual threats and bribes and would never have to face the possibility of this eventuality.

 

[Ant22]

Re: Brexit wins, UK to leave the EU

(...)
I wonder if the setting up of the EU was not properly thought out, in the sense of having everything specified in writing in the case of a member choosing to leave. It seems that it is more of a 'flying by the seat of your pants' scenario playing out. Or maybe another case of wishful thinking, not seeing all the possibilities, and being sideswiped down the road with unforeseen scenarios . I suppose they thought they could manage it with the usual threats and bribes and would never have to face the possibility of this eventuality.

You're probably right. Given that the Brexit vote was such a huge surprise for the PTB, the concept of EU was probably set up to entrap countries and ensure ease of management through centralised government. There is a 'way out' in the form of Article 50 but I doubt a lot of thinking went into the details of this scenario - since it wasn't supposed to happen. It was there to make it look like the EU is a voluntary union of independent countries.

When the British PM resigned upon the announcement of the Brexit vote, I heard someone say that he probably had enough insider's knowledge to decide to run from the mess that was coming. When I think about this, he might have been told all along (by his handlers?) the Brexit vote was going to be 'stay'. This would explain going ahead with the referendum despite his party not wanting to leave. And then the result was announced as 'leave'. I'd really like to see his face when he saw the results :P