[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Elegiac]

It's less about hypocrisy than about what's legal. Not to mention everyone knows full well the SNP would call just enough referendums to get the result they want, then declare that the binding one. Now in fairness, had the Remoaners won the Brexit referendum I'm sure us Brexiteers would do exactly the same thing, but hey, that's what you get when you allow subordinate political bodies to hold these referendums :P .

So, hypocrisy.

Doesn't need to be written to be a constitution. Israel and New Zealand also get along just fine without a written one.

Israel is an apartheid state and New Zealand has a population smaller than most American states.

Hard pass. I'd rather not leave it to chance when a country that was formerly renowned for the quality of its civil service is currently involved in shooting itself in the foot.

[Mayhem]

However even if this did not exist Scotland is a long way from meeting the criteria to be considered for EU membership.

You have yet to show that this is actually the case.

- - - Updated - - -

What part of becoming independent doesn't automatically guarantee you any part of the North Sea oil fields don't you understand? What part of "driving a hard bargain", for that matter?

Yeah, it does, it then is their territory.

Might turn some people off it though, no? And require that the Scottish government make spending changes it otherwise wouldn't.

Takes years to implement so I doubt it will turn people off.

Figures from the Scottish parliament, so I assume they've some idea what they're on about.

yeah

No way will the EU give out another rebate. Scotland doesn't have a Maggie Thatcher, or the political / economic clout.

I do understand that you still don't get what the EU is about.

The Catalonians think they're in the same position as Scotland, you realise, and the Spanish government is rightly concerned that others will see it in the same light.

Yep, the catalonians think a bunch of stuff that makes no sense.

[Flarelaine]

So it seems that now that Brexit is done, EU is finally going to start playing dirty.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-finance-rules
The City is banking on equivalences to maintain its trading position. The UK also lobbied succesfully for certain changes to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive when it was changed during the financial crisis. Now that it is out, the EU seems ready to undo those changes. More importantly, they may do so piecemail, making equivalencies a running target for the City.

There ain't going to be any good will going forward from EITHER side. We are now officially competitors.

Cue Cell Block Tango.

[Teleros]

So, hypocrisy.

Well yes, but that's politics for you.

Israel is an apartheid state and New Zealand has a population smaller than most American states.

Irrelevant. They work.

= = =

Yeah, it does, it then is their territory.

You should try reading the links I give sometimes. TL;DR is that Scotland is not a sovereign country (just like England, Wales, and Northern Ireland), it's a part of the UK.

"Given that Scotland is not a sovereign state, it has no effective maritime boundaries; and any claims Scotland may assert are subsumed as part of claims made by the United Kingdom. However, due to the existence of two separate legal systems in Great Britain — that of Scots law pertaining to Scotland and English law pertaining to England and Wales — constitutional law in the United Kingdom has provided for the division of the UK sector of the North Sea into specific Scottish and English components. The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law[6] meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland. This has been subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits."

Takes years to implement so I doubt it will turn people off.

"We'd like to implement our lavish education spending plans but because of EU / Euro membership criteria we can't."

But no, that definitely won't turn a land of people who love government largesse off, no sirree !

Yep, the catalonians think a bunch of stuff that makes no sense.

Again, it's also about what other people (ie, non-Catalonians & non-Spanish) think. What happens if, for the sake of argument, the French or German voters are persuaded that Catalonia = Scotland as far as independence goes? And then pressure their governments over this? Or what if the USA does the same? Etc.

[Elegiac]

Well yes, but that's politics for you.

Yes. English politics.

Irrelevant. They work.

Apartheid states are never functional, and there is a known relationship between population size and the effectiveness of delegate model democratic governments such as Westminster. Economy of scale doesn't apply to democracy.

[Mayhem]

You should try reading the links I give sometimes. TL;DR is that Scotland is not a sovereign country (just like England, Wales, and Northern Ireland), it's a part of the UK.

"Given that Scotland is not a sovereign state, it has no effective maritime boundaries; and any claims Scotland may assert are subsumed as part of claims made by the United Kingdom. However, due to the existence of two separate legal systems in Great Britain — that of Scots law pertaining to Scotland and English law pertaining to England and Wales — constitutional law in the United Kingdom has provided for the division of the UK sector of the North Sea into specific Scottish and English components. The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law[6] meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland. This has been subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits."

Scotland upon leaving would become a sovereign country.

"We'd like to implement our lavish education spending plans but because of EU / Euro membership criteria we can't."

But no, that definitely won't turn a land of people who love government largesse off, no sirree !

Yeah, again, it takes years to implement.

Again, it's also about what other people (ie, non-Catalonians & non-Spanish) think. What happens if, for the sake of argument, the French or German voters are persuaded that Catalonia = Scotland as far as independence goes? And then pressure their governments over this? Or what if the USA does the same? Etc.

The USA? WHAT?!

[LeGin Tufnel]

A well-written blog here detailing how Johnson & co. are continuing to misrepresent & deceive in an attempt to stimulate jingoism via the right wing press:

https://chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot...sfx8XSHw6ZXjWc

The first and most important thing that would have to change is for Boris Johnson, his government, and all the Brexiter commentators and advisers to stop lying. If they are serious about Brexit they need to face up to the realities of what it entails and that means telling the truth to themselves and others.

To take an example from this week. Hardly had the celebrations ended than Johnson was reported to be “infuriated” that the EU had “reneged” on its commitments to strike a ‘Canada- style’ free trade deal by now insisting on ‘Level Playing Field’ (LPF) commitments in terms of state aid, workers’ rights, environmental standards and so on. But that this was the EU’s position has been clear for at least a year and, more importantly, was set out in the text of the Political Declaration (paragraph 77) that Johnson himself signed. It’s this kind of constant gaslighting that would need to stop.

- - - Updated - - -

You should try reading the links I give sometimes. TL;DR is that Scotland is not a sovereign country (just like England, Wales, and Northern Ireland), it's a part of the UK.

"Given that Scotland is not a sovereign state, it has no effective maritime boundaries; and any claims Scotland may assert are subsumed as part of claims made by the United Kingdom. However, due to the existence of two separate legal systems in Great Britain — that of Scots law pertaining to Scotland and English law pertaining to England and Wales — constitutional law in the United Kingdom has provided for the division of the UK sector of the North Sea into specific Scottish and English components. The Continental Shelf Act 1964 and the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968 defines the UK North Sea maritime area to the north of latitude 55 degrees north as being under the jurisdiction of Scots law[6] meaning that 90% of the UK's oil resources were under Scottish jurisdiction. In addition, section 126 of the Scotland Act 1998 defines Scottish waters as the internal waters and territorial sea of the United Kingdom as are adjacent to Scotland. This has been subsequently amended by the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 which redefined the extent of Scottish waters and Scottish fishery limits."

It's as if Scottish nationalism doesn't exist.

Seriously - I am going to laugh in your face when Scotland, eventually, secedes. If Ireland reunifies, that's a bonus.

It'll just be you & your ilk left waving your shitty little St George's flags.

And, just so we're clear, this is the economic cost of Brexit so far:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...it-for-the-u-k

$170bn and counting.

Brexit dividend? No - Brexiteer lies.

You lot lied to achieve your aims, you did from the start and you continue to do so now.

[Teleros]

Scotland upon leaving would become a sovereign country.

Yes, but right now "their" North Sea waters are UK waters. Hence they can't just expect to gain independence and gain all the North Sea territory they want.

The USA? WHAT?!

Because MURRICA supports the right of self-determination blah blah blah rhubarb?

= = =

A well-written blog here detailing how Johnson & co. are continuing to misrepresent & deceive in an attempt to stimulate jingoism via the right wing press

Eh, whatever. At least half of the negotiations seen in the press are kabuki theatre and PR (from both sides), and have been since about 30 seconds after the referendum was announced. Of course BoJo is "infuriated" by this and that and the other, and of course the EU is angry because of something else. Gotta play up the drama to sell more copy / get more clicks / advance your paper's agenda / whatever.

It's as if Scottish nationalism doesn't exist.

It does exist, but what has that got to do with the legal position of Scotland vis-a-vis control over UK waters?

And, just so we're clear, this is the economic cost of Brexit so far:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...it-for-the-u-k

$170bn and counting.

Is it true though? God only knows - literally, because this kind of what-if scenario is a joke in economics. Hell, even calculating GDP is a joke - the ~2001-2003 US recession no longer exists thanks to revisions in the GDP data for the period.

Anyway, let's assume Bloomberg know what they're talking about (!), and look at the article, shall we? Well, first off, the holy GDP number has gotten bigger, so the economy has continued to grow despite Brexit. So, the cost has been a difference between forecast figures and the latest, still-subject-to-massive-revision GDP figures.

Second, the reason is due to "uncertainty", which then begs the question of what might cause the uncertainty? Answer: Treasonous May & the Remoaner Parliament repeatedly trying to sabotage Brexit. Thus, it's entirely reasonable under the circumstances to suppose that an actual pro-Brexit government would have had much less uncertainty, and thus a much lower negative impact on the economy. You disagree? That's fine - we're talking make-believe with make-believe GDP numbers anyway, so whatever.

Third, what assumptions did the author include in his model? I dunno, because it's behind a paywall and all that fun stuff. Still, consider all the end-of-the-world scenarios from the Project Fear types - point is, you can pull numbers out of your posterior all day long for these exercises.

Fourth, and finally, IDGAF. GDP is a nonsense number, and there are far, far more important things than chasing GDP. Want to massively increase GDP as the UK? Slap massive tariffs on all imports, effective immediately. Per the maths (C+I+G+X-M), given that the UK imports much more than it exports, GDP will increase. Or if you don't like that, just have the government borrow £2tn a year and blow it on blackjack and hookers for everyone. That's a GDP increase folks!

You lot lied to achieve your aims, you did from the start and you continue to do so now.

Speak for yourself. My position has always been national sovereignty uber alles, even if it meant a bit of economic pain (not that I think we'll experience much, if any). I said as much both during the referendum and after.

[Mayhem]

Yes, but right now "their" North Sea waters are UK waters. Hence they can't just expect to gain independence and gain all the North Sea territory they want.

If they gain independence they also gain their share of north sea territory.

Because MURRICA supports the right of self-determination blah blah blah rhubarb?

Are you having a stroke?

[Teleros]

If they gain independence they also gain their share of north sea territory.

What is "their" share though? That's my whole point. Scotland currently has no share of the North Sea - the UK does, and the UK has chosen to divide its share of the North Sea between two legal systems. If Scotland becomes independent, then there's no guarantee whatsoever that the division of the North Sea between the UK & Scotland will be along the lines presently used within UK waters.

[zealo]

What is "their" share though? That's my whole point. Scotland currently has no share of the North Sea - the UK does, and the UK has chosen to divide its share of the North Sea between two legal systems. If Scotland becomes independent, then there's no guarantee whatsoever that the division of the North Sea between the UK & Scotland will be along the lines presently used within UK waters.

Current maritime convention for exclusive economic zones is at most 200 nautical miles from the shore of a country.

That puts portions of the north sea closer to Scotland than the rest of the UK under Scotland, if they were to become a sovereign state.

[Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang]

So it seems that now that Brexit is done, EU is finally going to start playing dirty.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-finance-rules
The City is banking on equivalences to maintain its trading position. The UK also lobbied succesfully for certain changes to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive when it was changed during the financial crisis. Now that it is out, the EU seems ready to undo those changes. More importantly, they may do so piecemail, making equivalencies a running target for the City.

There ain't going to be any good will going forward from EITHER side. We are now officially competitors.

Hmm... they also tried the trick of stock exchange equivalence to push our politics without any regard to our democratic process...

...long story short it did not work, our stock exchange is more dynamic than ever, and now our forever pro-european left will never recede on barriers against wage-dumping, while the eurosceptic conservatives are pushing for us to leave Schengen altogether.

Currently they are trying to use medical equipment certification as a bargaining chip (we have a very strong biotech sector, and the EU is our 1st market).

[Byleth]

New Zealand has a population smaller than most American states.

Also, we don't get along just fine... We have A LOT of problems caused by a lack of constitution - Like no clear owners of any land.

[tyuiopla]

Speak for yourself. My position has always been national sovereignty uber alles, even if it meant a bit of economic pain (not that I think we'll experience much, if any). I said as much both during the referendum and after.

It is not "national" sovereignty. I am English. This is nothing to do with me or most other ordinary people. I am not being represented.

You speak for a small unrepresentative elite of public schoolboys that, quite literally, despise most of the population. If you actually knew any of those people, which you clearly don't, you'd understand that they see things exclusively in terms of class, much more so than even the most dogmatic Marxist. They do however recognize that they can simply claim to represent "the British" or "the (white) working class" and co-opt the weak-minded and ignorant to vote against their own interest.

The truth is the EU, revolting bureaucratic neo-liberal institution that it is, did a far better job of securing the rights and affluence of the British people than Westminster has ever done.

Additionally the current government is clearly selling out the country to non-eu foreign interests. Currently they are deciding whether to sell out the communications infrastructure to the Chinese or bow down to the Americans who don't like that idea. Any notion of "national sovereignty" is frankly comically ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

Fourth, and finally, IDGAF. GDP is a nonsense number

Yes everyone knows. You still have to come up with an alternative metric where things are supposedly better under Brexit (hint: there aren't any).

To state the blindingly obvious creating a massive amount of unnecessary paperwork and delay for everyone has no upside for any one, except possibly for lawyers, accountants and organized crime.

[Mayhem]

What is "their" share though? That's my whole point. Scotland currently has no share of the North Sea - the UK does, and the UK has chosen to divide its share of the North Sea between two legal systems. If Scotland becomes independent, then there's no guarantee whatsoever that the division of the North Sea between the UK & Scotland will be along the lines presently used within UK waters.

You not being familiar with anything is not my problem. Read up a bit on it. The UK can't just keep sovereignty upon stuff that then is part of another country. Their legal system would cease to apply to Scotland, quite obviously as Scotland would not be under its jurisdiction anymore.

For someone who writes stuff like "My position has always been national sovereignty uber alles" you seem to care little for a countries sovereignty.

[Teleros]

Current maritime convention for exclusive economic zones is at most 200 nautical miles from the shore of a country.

Yes, but that's generally for countries that already exist and might be trying to hash out who gets what. This is a case of a single country splitting into two, so it's by no means obvious that the UK would have to give up the parts of the North Sea closer to Scotland.

The UK can't just keep sovereignty upon stuff that then is part of another country. Their legal system would cease to apply to Scotland, quite obviously as Scotland would not be under its jurisdiction anymore.

/sigh

1. The UK has jurisdiction over all UK waters (duh).
2. Parliament has decided that some of its waters will be run according to the Scottish legal system. Legally, there is nothing stopping Parliament from re-designating said waters as being under normal UK law, or Chinese law for that matter.
3. Does this mean that, if Scotland becomes independent, those waters automatically leave the UK & become Scottish waters?
4. No. There will have to be negotiations. The UK government could be generous or not, depending on how it thinks it could best serve the interests of the UK. If that means screwing an independent Scotland out of North Sea oil etc, I guess it sucks to be Scottish.

[Gorsameth]

Yes, but that's generally for countries that already exist and might be trying to hash out who gets what. This is a case of a single country splitting into two, so it's by no means obvious that the UK would have to give up the parts of the North Sea closer to Scotland.


/sigh

1. The UK has jurisdiction over all UK waters (duh).
2. Parliament has decided that some of its waters will be run according to the Scottish legal system. Legally, there is nothing stopping Parliament from re-designating said waters as being under normal UK law, or Chinese law for that matter.
3. Does this mean that, if Scotland becomes independent, those waters automatically leave the UK & become Scottish waters?
4. No. There will have to be negotiations. The UK government could be generous or not, depending on how it thinks it could best serve the interests of the UK. If that means screwing an independent Scotland out of North Sea oil etc, I guess it sucks to be Scottish.

They don't 'become' Scottish waters, they never stopped being Scottish waters, but because Scotland is part of the UK the UK can decide what happens in Scottish waters.
If Scotland stops being in the UK the Scottish waters are still Scottish waters.

[tyuiopla]

The UK government could be generous or not, depending on how it thinks it could best serve the interests of the UK. If that means screwing an independent Scotland out of North Sea oil etc, I guess it sucks to be Scottish.

It would be decided by international law. If what remains of the UK (look how f***ing successful your strategy is, what "remains"...) violates international law then international trade bodies can respond in numerous effective ways. I'm guessing you are one of those people who think that would amount to the Scots not selling us Haggis or something, but in reality even the threat of, say, suspension of intellectual property rights, is enough to get any nation to back down. That's why international laws exist, to stop people taking the piss.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed. I strongly oppose the modern trend of neo-liberalism, that dying ideology, but at least under the EU there was a strong protection of freedom and civil rights. There were countless occasions during which British citizens could sue their local government before the EU court and the EU court more than often sided with the common man. Most likely this is part of why some of the Tories are so anti-EU, they can abuse the british people unopposedly now without having to worry about the EU court slapping them on their fingers for it.

The problem is the British people voted for it...I'm finding it increasingly difficult to give a shit about them. If the turkey keeps voting for Xmas then eventually it is going to get its head cut off.

- - - Updated - - -

They should just measure the average amount of disposable income for the lowest 50% of earners instead. With an incremental rating the higher it is for every lower 10%.

Right now GDP only directly benefits the top 10 to 1%, so it's completely irrelevant to the common people.

Amen to that.

[Teleros]

They don't 'become' Scottish waters, they never stopped being Scottish waters

Scotland has no waters. Nor does England, Wales, or Northern Ireland. Only the UK. Understand?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Scotland's_oil

Note the "reality of the claim" section.

The problem is the British people voted for it...I'm finding it increasingly difficult to give a shit about them.

Then please stop, and go pester people with your sock-puppet account in some other thread.

[Gorsameth]

Scotland has no waters. Nor does England, Wales, or Northern Ireland. Only the UK. Understand?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_Scotland's_oil

Note the "reality of the claim" section.

Correct while Scotland is not an independent country, but that isn't what we're talking about here.
International law is very clear in this.