Why it's time to accept the fact that Brexit may never happen

[Tinch]

It's about leverage, the EU has more leverage then the UK. I mean lets be clear if the UK had any leverage other than useless bluffs don't you think they would have invoked article 50?

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...iously-thought

What leverage is going to help with this? Do you think the EU will support Scotland to cover such a large deficit?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[ati87]

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...iously-thought

What leverage is going to help with this? Do you think the EU will support Scotland to cover such a large deficit?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

What's your argument now then? My argument is that if Scotland can stay within the EU they will benefit (stay the same really) in terms of trade much more (even with the UK).

Your argument is that they can;t afford to leave?

Given what they calculated when leaving the UK and given what;s calculated for leaving the EU it seems pretty obvious which is more expensive.

[Shadowmelded]

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...iously-thought

What leverage is going to help with this? Do you think the EU will support Scotland to cover such a large deficit?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

This is rather irrelevant so long as we're not in the Eurozone. It's also fairly disingenuous as it's based on the premise that expenditure would remain the exact same.

[Tinch]

What's your argument now then? My argument is that if Scotland can stay within the EU they will benefit (stay the same really) in terms of trade much more (even with the UK).

Your argument is that they can;t afford to leave?

Given what they calculated when leaving the UK and given what;s calculated for leaving the EU it seems pretty obvious which is more expensive.

As the article states, that Scotland would be worse off economically if it was outside the UK than if it remains. It would need a huge increase in the global price of oil for this to change.

Like I said two thirds of their trade is with the UK and I think it's about 15% to the EU, how could they possibly benefit more from trade by being outside the UK?

[Tinch]

This is rather irrelevant so long as we're not in the Eurozone. It's also fairly disingenuous as it's based on the premise that expenditure would remain the exact same.

So what currency would an independent Scotland have?

And the SNP is suddenly going to become the party of austerity? Can't see that going down to well.

[Shadowmelded]

As the article states, that Scotland would be worse off economically if it was outside the UK than if it remains. It would need a huge increase in the global price of oil for this to change.

Like I said two thirds of their trade is with the UK and I think it's about 15% to the EU, how could they possibly benefit more from trade by being outside the UK?

Oil has already doubled in price in 2016 (yes I know it fell today and there's talk of a correction, it's still not the only facet of our economy) and last I checked the UK want to retain access to the single market, which iScotland would be a member of so how would iScot-rUK trade be impacted?

So what currency would an independent Scotland have?

And the SNP is suddenly going to become the party of austerity? Can't see that going down to well.

Probably a new Scottish currency pegged initially to Sterling.

[Tinch]

Oil has already doubled in price in 2016 (yes I know it fell today and there's talk of a correction, it's still not the only facet of our economy) and last I checked the UK want to retain access to the single market, which iScotland would be a member of so how would iScot-rUK trade be impacted?

Without oil you would be running a deficit far greater than that of the rest of the UK. Oil has barely been over $50 a barrel this year, weren't the independence figures based on it being something like $110?

We're constantly told that we can't stay in the single market if we want curbs on freedom of movement. And even if we do remain a member, the predictions on the damage to the UK economy would then have been massively overblown and our growth will likely increase so it works both ways.

[Deleted]

oil has dropped in price, [ www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36887112 ] its now $43.11 or £32.72 a barrel all i can say is good luck scotland if you wanna be independant

[Shadowmelded]

Without oil you would be running a deficit far greater than that of the rest of the UK. Oil has barely been over $50 a barrel this year, weren't the independence figures based on it being something like $110?

Again, that's based on the premise that expenditure remains the same. No currency union = no reason to accept any % of the national debt. That's £4 billion p/a gone right there.

oil has dropped in price, [ www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36887112 ] its now $43.11 or £32.72 a barrel all i can say is good luck scotland if you wanna be independant

And a low oil price is good for the onshore economy as it makes transporting goods cheaper, leaves people with more money to spend that they would have spent on heating their homes or filling up their cars etc... The drop in oil price only reduced revenue by 1% or £600million.

[Deleted]

and what does scotland have to offer anyone in goods and services 90% of scotland is just hills and mountains

[Shadowmelded]

and what does scotland have to offer anyone in goods and services 90% of scotland is just hills and mountains

Well this is just straight up ignorance.

Food and beverages
Chemicals
Business services
Electronics and instrument engineering
Mechanical engineering
Textiles
Oil & gas
Fuel-based equipment
Renewable energies, equipment and technology

[AeneasBK]

You're wasting your breath, the various reasons have been explained a thousand times but people just opt for immigration and sovereignty because it fits their narrative

As someone who has followed both threads on this topic with mild interest, this is categorically untrue. EVERY time people have been asked for their reasoning it has fallen into "better control of immigration" or "more control over out nation". Any time people are asked for a different reason (and you yourself have done this exact thing) they say "Oh it's been said a thousand times already."

What has been said a thousand times already is "We want better control of immigration" and "We want more sovereignty".

I invite you to prove otherwise, I really do

[Deleted]

Without oil you would be running a deficit far greater than that of the rest of the UK. Oil has barely been over $50 a barrel this year, weren't the independence figures based on it being something like $110?

We're constantly told that we can't stay in the single market if we want curbs on freedom of movement. And even if we do remain a member, the predictions on the damage to the UK economy would then have been massively overblown and our growth will likely increase so it works both ways.

I don't know why you think they would be overblown. Every company in Britain has to redraw a contract with any european partner. Until they know what is happening that contract can't be redrawn. No one knows what is happening.

If the government doesn't get its shit together then it is going to become impossible to do business in europe for the simple reason that trade can't take place in a vacuum. That's a serious possibility. It can be avoided but the markets are right to be sceptical.

[Tinch]

Again, that's based on the premise that expenditure remains the same. No currency union = no reason to accept any % of the national debt. That's £4 billion p/a gone right there.
.

And as I said, how is that going to look if the party that promotes itself as anti austerity, states that austerity is ideologically driven and is completely uneccesary then goes on to propose tax rises or public spending cuts?

[Tinch]

I don't know why you think they would be overblown. Every company in Britain has to redraw a contract with any european partner. Until they know what is happening that contract can't be redrawn. No one knows what is happening.

If the government doesn't get its shit together then it is going to become impossible to do business in europe for the simple reason that trade can't take place in a vacuum. That's a serious possibility. It can be avoided but the markets are right to be sceptical.

If we remain in the single market then that uncertainty disappears and it's pretty much business as usual.

If the argument is that Scotlands trade with the UK won't be affected, then the UK's trade with the EU won't be affected, you can't have it both ways.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Shadowmelded]

And as I said, how is that going to look if the party that promotes itself as anti austerity, states that austerity is ideologically driven and is completely uneccesary then goes on to propose tax rises or public spending cuts?

I don't know how many times I need to keep explaining this to you; this is based on the false premise that expenditure would remain the same. No longer having to pay for HS2, renewing London's sewers, servicing the national debt etc... would save a lot of money plus you're ignoring borrowing.

[Koyoti]

As someone who has followed both threads on this topic with mild interest, this is categorically untrue. EVERY time people have been asked for their reasoning it has fallen into "better control of immigration" or "more control over out nation". Any time people are asked for a different reason (and you yourself have done this exact thing) they say "Oh it's been said a thousand times already."

What has been said a thousand times already is "We want better control of immigration" and "We want more sovereignty".

I invite you to prove otherwise, I really do

And all the remain camp came up with is 'oh, it might cost us monies for a few years' and were really surprised when people said 'so what, it's worth it'

An interesting read http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36865791

and a quote from the article

In the end Downing Street maintained the focus of its campaign on the economy. Lord Cooper of Windrush, the Conservative peer who was the main pollster for the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign, told Newsnight that the pro-EU side's failure to address concerns about immigration had been a weakness.
He said: "The people who are very, very concerned about immigration, what they wanted was purely and simply for the UK to be able to have total control of its borders and total control of the flow of people into this country. And we didn't have an argument that could remotely compete with that.
"It meant we couldn't really engage in the campaign on that vital issue. We didn't have much option but to keep trying to pivot back to the economic risks."

Edit: spelling

[Tinch]

I don't know how many times I need to keep explaining this to you; this is based on the false premise that expenditure would remain the same. No longer having to pay for HS2, renewing London's sewers, servicing the national debt etc... would save a lot of money plus you're ignoring borrowing.

Because to address such a large deficit you would either have to raise taxes or cut spending, the idea that cutting those expenses would be enough is fanciful, and the idea Scotland could just take no responsibility for any of the debt is ridiculous.

The IFS points out that a deficit “anything like that in our projections” would have meant the Scottish government being forced to cut spending or raise taxes to shore up the public finances.

Remain voters told us all throughout the referendum campaign that we needed to start listening to the experts, maybe Scots Nats should start doing the same.

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

US government is hoping brexit doesn't happen. Personally it would be neat to see cause it's a historical event, but it doesn't affect me either way.





http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7148816.html


1. The Conservative government has a small majority of just 12 seats.

2. Prime minister Theresa May is pro-Remain.

3. A majority of MPs are pro-Remain. "Parliament had a clear pro-Remain bias since over 70% of all MPs and over 50% of Conservative MPs supported Remain," according to Morgan Stanley.

4. The government faces a general election in 2020, right after the UK — in theory — leaves the EU.

5. One million UK voters live in EU countries. The vast majority of them will vote against any government that threatens their EU residency status.

6. Reduced access to the single market will hurt the economy. The mere prospect of it is already triggering a recession in the second half of this year.

7. Do the Tories really want to go into the 2020 election defending a policy that hurts the economy and increases unemployment?

8. The EU will not offer the UK a "special deal" featuring full access to the single market but control of UK borders because such a deal would encourage other nations to leave. Nationalist movements, and anti-EU sentiment, are on the rise across Europe.

9. The EU can withdraw the UK's bank "passport" that gives UK financial services firms access to the single market. Do the Tories want to go into 2020 defending a policy that decimates The City, which (according to Morgan Stanley) pays 11% of the UK's entire tax base?

10. Triggering Article 50 is reversible! Not many people know this. But the UK can formally trigger its Article 50 request and then withdraw the request before Brexit actually takes place, if the country wants to.

On those assumptions, May's government is heavily incentivised to drag its feet over the Leave negotiations. It would be much easier for the Tories to be seen to be negotiating an exit, while not actually exiting, than actually leaving Europe. Especially when 2020 comes around.

The new government after 2020 will face a similar choice. Unless that government is an expanded Tory majority dominated by hardcore eurosceptics, then you should expect Brexit to be pushed back even further as "crucial" trade negotiations continue ... indefinitely.

But I want it.

[Deleted]

If we remain in the single market then that uncertainty disappears and it's pretty much business as usual.

If the argument is that Scotlands trade with the UK won't be affected, then the UK's trade with the EU won't be affected, you can't have it both ways.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I don't know why you think we will remain in the single market. If we do we probably have to continue to accept immigration and either way it will be seen as an anti-democratic betrayal.