Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%

  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%
  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
Barnfred 55 said:
My original question was that the SNP was happy to leave the UK in 2014 knowing that it also meant leaving the EU. But suddenly, membership of the EU became all important. What happened to affect that change in opinion.

Or has it always just been about leaving the UK at any cost?
Click to expand...

They always disagreed with the premise that Scotland wouldn’t be a successor state to the UK in EU treaties so membership of the EU would be automatic.

Their position was and has always been that EU membership is critical for Scotland
 
BlueToff said:
Let us, but the cost of admission - so to speak - would go up.

Three years of ifs and buts. They are playing it so hard as it is as they don't want other nations leaving. They need to show they have the upper hand and there are repercussions.

There's no chance we just get to 'revoke' and that's it forgotten.
Click to expand...

The fact that we come waddling back with our tail between our legs would be a cautionary tale enough for others.

There was also the case put before the ECJ last year that says we can revoke and keep the same terms without needing approval from the EU:

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling last year confirmed that the UK could revoke Article 50 itself, without having to ask the other 27 EU countries for permission.

This could be done by writing a letter to the European Council, made up of EU heads of state.

The ECJ said the UK would then remain a member of the EU on the same terms - as it has now - including keeping its budget rebate.

But it did set some conditions.

The ruling said revocation should be "unequivocal and unconditional", suggesting that the UK could not simply revoke Article 50 in order to buy more time and then resubmit it at a later date.

A senior lawyer at the ECJ said that "appropriate legal instruments" could be used if a member state tried to trigger and revoke Article 50 in order to secure a better withdrawal deal.
 
tsubaki said:
No, he didn't. There is a lot wrong with the EU but none of what Cameron proposed to do (either in his "negotiations" beforehand or in the referendum) was designed to reform it for the better; that is why he lost, and why the moment it became clear he'd lost, he ran off.

The irony is that we actually probably are the best placed nation to reform the EU in the way you describe, even now - we have the oldest, most stable, most powerful and most aggressive legislature of the 28 states. A smart PM could have looked at the problems with the EU, recognized that the leadership will never try and fix them (and they won't, because they would lose out), and recognized that the way you deal with that is via the Parliamentary route (just as we did between 1660 and the mid 1800s).

If that hypothetical PM was able to build a movement that could win a genuine majority in the EU Parliament, everything you cite as a problem could then be fixed - the legitimacy that control of the Parliament would give would inevitably sweep away anything that stood in its path; it would become sovereign (as ours is).
Click to expand...

We disagree on Cameron's intentions, but I broadly agree with the rest of your post.

This hypothetical PM...does he or she exist? Many Tories think it might be Boris, I don't think many Labourites think it could be Jeremy.
 
Barnfred 55 said:
My original question was that the SNP was happy to leave the UK in 2014 knowing that it also meant leaving the EU. But suddenly, membership of the EU became all important. What happened to affect that change in opinion.

Or has it always just been about leaving the UK at any cost?
Click to expand...

Anything to get away from the English apparently.....and find someone with deeper pockets to pay the Scottish exchequer....
 
peteblue said:
I don’t believe any of theses things will happen. If we leave with no deal, we will continue as before, but be out of the EU.....
Click to expand...

Well if we aren’t in a period of political turmoil I’m not sure what we are in and undoubtedly it is impacting the economy.

But to my question, even if you don’t believe they will happen hypothetically these things could happen as a consequence of no deal. Is any price of an exit worth paying?

Our government could be talking about health, education, social care; things that will improve people’s lives. Instead we are mired in this constant hamster wheel of debate where nothing changes. That in and of itself is a cost of the brexit process.
 
tim cahill said:
They won't be able to stop it, but the fact that this is going on shows that parliament needs to be updated. They're literally trying to bore people into submission.
Click to expand...

The pro bill peers are organising rotas to ensure that there is enough of them to keep voting down the amendments so they (brexiteers) should run out of steam way before monday.
 
davek said:
Looking now like Corbyn has been corralled into making sure 31st October has come and gone before agreeing to an election.

That would see Johnson in a very poor place with his promise to the British people to get the job done by then.

The LP would then presumably fight Brexit on a Remain platform.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter though Dave. Boris can just point at Corbyn and say that he stopped it happening. Boris has been given a get out of jail free card by Corbyn.......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top