EU referendum could be held as early as 2016

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11607163/Philip-Hammond-No-treaty-change-needed-for-EU-reform.html

Philip Hammond seeks fast settlement on EU

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond signalled that Britain will not insist on major treaty change during negotiations over the country’s future relationship with Europe.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2014/10/eu-v-row.jpg
Britain is at a crossroads: a global future or a European one



Philip Hammond has signalled that Britain will not insist on major treaty change during negotiations over the country’s future relationship with Europe.

The Foreign Secretary told the Financial Times that treaty change was not “in itself” a political goal for the British government, adding: “For the vast majority of the British people the important thing is where we end up, the outcome.”

Earlier this week, David Cameron’s hopes for a far-reaching overhaul of Britain’s relationship with the EU were dealt a setback when Germany said it would not be rushed into changing the bloc’s treaties to meet UK demands.

Mr Hammond’s comments suggest the government is considering creative legal ways to achieve reform, without the need for lengthy treaty negotiations.

Asked whether treaty change should form part of the talks, Mr Hammond said: “That is how I want this process to end up: a good package of reforms; a ‘yes’ vote; and a step change in the way the relationship works, with Britain being really engaged and a loud voice in the union.”

Mr Hammond also echoed Bank of England Governor Mark Carney’s call for a speedy resolution of the European question, calling for a “fast” settlement.

His comments will now raise expectations of a possible vote in 2016.

I am still very weary about a referendum however thinking about it, given the demands of the government are unlikely to yield any real changes other than flim flam (as was the case in 1975) we have the bonus that people are much less trusting nowadays of what they are told, they have the internet to debunk what is said and as seen in the Scottish referendum: it's possible to achieve a much bigger swingback when you are the underdog.

We will end up leaving eventually of course, as the EU is hellbent on political unification of which Britain can't be a part of. The only question is, do we leave now and achieve a better global future for ourselves via the Commonwealth while we can, or do we throw the opportunity away, wait 10 years, and find ourselves unwilling to go along with political union but also alone in that the Commonwealth countries have already pressed ahead with separate trade deals themselves? That's my big concern: I know we will leave, but we're literally throwing the chances we're being given now with global growth away.

Thoughts?

[lemons]

cool it will be my first time voting

[FlyingJesus]

I love expensive referendums on things that the entire electoral system is literally set up to decide upon in a more streamlined way, it's my fave

[-:Undertaker:-]

I love expensive referendums on things that the entire electoral system is literally set up to decide upon in a more streamlined way, it's my fave

If the two major parties actually did what they promised in their manifestos in regards to the EU then we'd have left a long time ago.

That's the problem right there.

[dbgtz]

Bit of a misleading article to use figures for the Eurozone when the EU extends beyond that. It also doesn't really make much sense to compare the Commonwealth to the Eurozone, USA or China.
I'm not looking forward to this referendum as it will most likely be filled with lies and crap by both sides of the table to the extent I might not even vote.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Bit of a misleading article to use figures for the Eurozone when the EU extends beyond that. It also doesn't really make much sense to compare the Commonwealth to the Eurozone, USA or China.

I'm not looking forward to this referendum as it will most likely be filled with lies and crap by both sides of the table to the extent I might not even vote.

The EU as a percentage of global trade is predicted to dramatically shrink, whilst Commonwealth countries which Britain has close ties with and who would be willing to sign FTAs with us, are expected to massively grow over the next few decades. It's the massive potential I am trying to point out. In any case, if we were to stay in the EU and 'complete the single market' in the words of Cameron, then we'd become a part of the Eurozone eventually anyway.

Do we tie ourselves to France, Greece, Spain, Italy, Poland and the Netherlands or turn to India, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa and Australia? No-brainer.

[MKR&*42]

I'm certain the conservatives promised an EU referendum before (though the LDs may have blocked this in all fairness) so I shall be surprised if they do go ahead with it this time.

[dbgtz]

The EU as a percentage of global trade is predicted to dramatically shrink, whilst Commonwealth countries which Britain has close ties with and who would be willing to sign FTAs with us, are expected to massively grow over the next few decades. It's the massive potential I am trying to point out. In any case, if we were to stay in the EU and 'complete the single market' in the words of Cameron, then we'd become a part of the Eurozone eventually anyway.

Do we tie ourselves to France, Greece, Spain, Italy, Poland and the Netherlands or turn to India, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa and Australia? No-brainer.

I wasn't making any point to suggest which way I sway, just that the article is somewhat misleading and trying to present the EU as the weaker economy by using the Eurozone which we're not even a part of. Even if we would become a part of the Eurozone anyway (I won't point out the flaw in that argument), it's completely irrelevant to the article itself which is about British membership of the EU. It would have also been far more interesting and useful to see GDP per capita.

[Chippiewill]

It's ok dan, I'm sure Mr Cameron will get some wishy washy concessions from the EU so that he doesn't have to bother, or he'll mess up the wording, or the campaign spending will be completely unbalanced or he'll do something stupid like letting non-uk nationals vote in the referendum.

[The Don]

I can't wait for the public to vote no to leaving and for this to all blow over. If we do vote to leave however, then I think it would only be fair that Scotland should get another referendum since they are heavily pro eu.

- - - Updated - - -


I wasn't making any point to suggest which way I sway, just that the article is somewhat misleading and trying to present the EU as the weaker economy by using the Eurozone which we're not even a part of. Even if we would become a part of the Eurozone anyway (I won't point out the flaw in that argument), it's completely irrelevant to the article itself which is about British membership of the EU. It would have also been far more interesting and useful to see GDP per capita.

And the commonwealth isn't all one currency. If they are showing the entire commonwealths economy then they should show the entire EU's economy. Just some dan propaganda.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's ok dan, I'm sure Mr Cameron will get some wishy washy concessions from the EU so that he doesn't have to bother, or he'll mess up the wording, or the campaign spending will be completely unbalanced or he'll do something stupid like letting non-uk nationals vote in the referendum.

Indeed, much to be pessimistic about which is why i'm a pint half empty kinda guy. But still, there's always hope.


I can't wait for the public to vote no to leaving and for this to all blow over. If we do vote to leave however, then I think it would only be fair that Scotland should get another referendum since they are heavily pro eu.

It's a myth that Scots are heavily pro-EU: http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/scots-only-slightly-more-left-wing-and-pro-eu-than-english-study-reveals.121574735 [...] I'm actually optimistic when it comes to SNP voters, as many of them having experienced the last referendum campaign will be immune to the scaremongering and lies put about by the Conservatives and Labour, so I reckon there's great potential among SNP voters to vote to leave even if their own party is pro-EU. And it is very interesting how you'd seemingly like to see your own country carved up just to benefit the EU. If England alone voted out but the others did not, would you then say England should be able to leave?

My biggest concern is how well Cameron manages to dress up his renegotiation failure. It all hinges on whether the public will buy it.

[The Don]

Indeed, much to be pessimistic about which is why i'm a pint half empty kinda guy. But still, there's always hope.



It's a myth that Scots are heavily pro-EU: http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/scots-only-slightly-more-left-wing-and-pro-eu-than-english-study-reveals.121574735 [...] I'm actually optimistic when it comes to SNP voters, as many of them having experienced the last referendum campaign will be immune to the scaremongering and lies put about by the Conservatives and Labour, so I reckon there's great potential among SNP voters to vote to leave even if their own party is pro-EU. And it is very interesting how you'd seemingly like to see your own country carved up just to benefit the EU. If England alone voted out but the others did not, would you then say England should be able to leave?

My biggest concern is how well Cameron manages to dress up his renegotiation failure. It all hinges on whether the public will buy it.

I wouldn't want to see the UK split up, but if the UK votes to leave the EU then Scotland deserve to have a fair say in the matter, not one that's watered down by the 50 million people living in England.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I wouldn't want to see the UK split up, but if the UK votes to leave the EU then Scotland deserve to have a fair say in the matter, not one that's watered down by the 50 million people living in England.

Legally that is a nonsense as the United Kingdom is a unitary state, not a confederation.

But you didn't answer my question. Assume it was close in England yet the majority in England just about voted to leave, but in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland that swayed the total vote towards staying in - would you then allow England a 'fair say' on the matter?

[The Don]

Legally that is a nonsense as the United Kingdom is a unitary state, not a confederation.

But you didn't answer my question. Assume it was close in England yet the majority in England just about voted to leave, but in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland that swayed the total vote towards staying in - would you then allow England a 'fair say' on the matter?

You know your point is rubbish when you start arguing technicalities. The 5 million people in Scotland voted to stay in a UK that is part of the EU. If the UK leaves the EU and the Scottish people would rather stay part of it then they should be entitled to that.

And to answer your question, yes. If England voted out and the others voted to remain within then just England should leave.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You know your point is rubbish when you start arguing technicalities. The 5 million people in Scotland voted to stay in a UK that is part of the EU. If the UK leaves the EU and the Scottish people would rather stay part of it then they should be entitled to that.

And to answer your question, yes. If England voted out and the others voted to remain within then just England should leave.

Well fair enough at least you're applying some principle to your theory.

But like I said, it is a silly theory legally anyway as Scotland isn't a sovereign state and neither is England. On an international relations basis, any decision on something like this would be taken as the whole as the United Kingdom is a sovereign state and a member of the EU, not Scotland or England. It's that simple.

[The Don]

Well fair enough at least you're applying some principle to your theory.

But like I said, it is a silly theory legally anyway as Scotland isn't a sovereign state and neither is England.

Scotland is a country in its own right. It also has a separate legal system to England. You're arguing technicalities to deny a country of 5 million people the right to make a decision that will massively have an impact on them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Scotland is a country in it's own right. It also has a separate legal system to England. You're arguing technicalities to deny a country of 5 million people the right to make a decision that will massively have an impact on them.

Catalonia is also a 'country' as is Tibet yet neither are sovereign states.

Legally and constitutionally, Westminster is the centre of ultimate legal and political power in the entire United Kingdom.

[The Don]

Catalonia is also a 'country' as is Tibet yet neither are sovereign states.

Which is why they should have a referendum on whether they want England to make such a big decision for them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Which is why they should have a referendum on whether they want England to make such a big decision for them.

You can argue that politically or morally as the SNP leadership no doubt will but not legally.

I don't buy into it as I see this country as one, as we are a unitary state and not a confederation.

[The Don]

You can argue that politically or morally as the SNP leadership no doubt will but not legally.

I don't buy into it as I see this country as one, as we are a unitary state and not a confederation.

I was never arguing from a legal standpoint, which is why I pointed out how bad your argument was for being based entirely on technicalities.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I was never arguing from a legal standpoint, which is why I pointed out how bad your argument was for being based entirely on technicalities.

Not really, you and the SNP arguing for a second referendum despite this country not being a confederation is what is dishonest. If the country were a confederation then you'd have a point, but that would mean beforehand consulting the rest of the realm on whether it wanted to transform into a confederacy.

It'd be like arguing that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should each have a veto/their own say on say signing a United Nations, World Trade Organisation Treaty or war. You'd be de facto transforming the British state into something it is not, and that in itself would require permissions from the rest of the kingdom.

I don't recall being asked by Jimmy Krankie whether I wanted to change the status of the state into a confederation.

[AgnesIO]

How on earth is China's GDP going to DOUBLE in 19 months?

[The Don]

Not really, you and the SNP arguing for a second referendum despite this country not being a confederation is what is dishonest. If the country were a confederation then you'd have a point, but that would mean beforehand consulting the rest of the realm on whether it wanted to transform into a confederacy.

It'd be like arguing that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should each have a veto/their own say on say signing a United Nations, World Trade Organisation Treaty or war. You'd be de facto transforming the British state into something it is not, and that in itself would require permissions from the rest of the kingdom.

Whilst the UK is a country, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also countries in their own right. An EU referendum will be almost entirely decided by the English as we massively outweigh the rest of the countries in the union. Leaving the EU will have a big impact on all of the UK and not just England so morally each of the countries should decide for themselves, not just England.

Morally (not legally before you start banging on about how the EU isn't a country) that's like us holding a referendum to leave the EU and France, Germany, Spain, Croatia and the other 23 countries getting to vote on it as well.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Whilst the UK is a country, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also countries in their own right. An EU referendum will be almost entirely decided by the English as we massively outweigh the rest of the countries in the union. Leaving the EU will have a big impact on all of the UK and not just England so morally each of the countries should decide for themselves, not just England.

Then you are proposing a confederation there.

Whilst we're a unitary state and not a confederation then that argument doesn't stand. Unprecedented.


Morally (not legally before you start banging on about how the EU isn't a country) that's like us holding a referendum to leave the EU and France, Germany, Spain, Croatia and the other 23 countries getting to vote on it as well.

Not at all, the United Kingdom has a historic unified demos whereas the example you give doesn't.

It is true that the demos is questioned by the likes of wee Jimmy Krankie, but the majority have asserted it exists and thus it does.

[The Don]

Then you are proposing a confederation there.

Whilst we're a unitary state and not a confederation then that argument doesn't stand. Unprecedented.



Not at all, the United Kingdom has a historic unified demos whereas the example you give doesn't.

It is true that the demos is questioned by the likes of wee Jimmy Krankie, but the majority have asserted it exists and thus it does.
Again, you've intentionally ignored the point of fairness and are sidetracking. One country shouldn't get to decide for the other three. Each of the countries in the UK have distinct enough cultures separate from ours that they have differing views on pivotal issues (such as the EU and how the English are more sceptical towards it) as shown by the voting patterns of up north compared to down south. Had the conservatives promised a referendum during the Scottish referendum then the vote could have taken a completely different turn.

[dbgtz]

I wouldn't want to see the UK split up, but if the UK votes to leave the EU then Scotland deserve to have a fair say in the matter, not one that's watered down by the 50 million people living in England.

They have a right to a decision. Every person in Scotland gets their say like every person in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Stop treating England as if it's some giant hive mind which dictates what the rest of the UK does when that's simply not the case.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Again, you've intentionally ignored the point of fairness and are sidetracking. One country shouldn't get to decide for the other three. Each of the countries in the UK have distinct enough cultures separate from ours that they have differing views on pivotal issues (such as the EU and how the English are more sceptical towards it) as shown by the voting patterns of up north compared to down south.

Then you don't understand the very constitutional nature of the state you live in. Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland have no seperate say on any international matter in this country as the only real country (sovereign state in the proper sense) is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If you want to turn this into a confederation, then sure go ahead and argue for it. But I want a say on it before you and Jimmy do.


Had the conservatives promised a referendum during the Scottish referendums then the vote could have taken a completely different turn.

He did. At the start of 2013.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282

[The Don]

They have a right to a decision. Every person in Scotland gets their say like every person in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Stop treating England as if it's some giant hive mind which dictates what the rest of the UK does when that's simply not the case.

Ah yes, because we all share the same ideas and values! /s

If 70% of people from Scotland voted to remain within the EU but overall the UK voted to leave, would that be fair for the people of Scotland? They as a majority would have voted to remain within, but because they make up such a tiny percentage of the UK's population their vote would be ignored.

Hilarious that the people complaining about the FPTP system as being unfair because the majority are ignored are quite happy to do the same when they are part of the deciding minority.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ah yes, because we all share the same ideas and values! /s

If 70% of people from Scotland voted to remain within the EU but overall the UK voted to leave, would that be fair for the people of Scotland? They as a majority would have voted to remain within, but because they make up such a tiny percentage of the UK's population their vote would be ignored.

What about if Yorkshire and Lancashire voted to stay, but Kent and Essex voted to leave? Or north/south for a more simplified example.


Hilarious that the people complaining about the FPTP system as being unfair because the majority are ignored are quite happy to do the same when they are part of the deciding minority. @-:Undertaker:- (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233); @dbgtz (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=28789);

I have defended FPTP, not complained about it.

[AgnesIO]

How on earth is China's GDP going to DOUBLE in 19 months?

Can someone answer my question relating to the graph at the start of this thread??

[-:Undertaker:-]

Can someone answer my question relating to the graph at the start of this thread??

Read the small print on the IMF graph I guess.

[The Don]

Then you don't understand the very constitutional nature of the state you live in. Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland have no seperate say on any international matter in this country as the only real country (sovereign state in the proper sense) is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

If you want to turn this into a confederation, then sure go ahead and argue for it. But I want a say on it before you and Jimmy do.

They are still countries. Constituent countries. Again you are talking about the legality of it and ignoring every other aspect.


He did. At the start of 2013.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21148282

Oops, my bad.

- - - Updated - - -


What about if Yorkshire and Lancashire voted to stay, but Kent and Essex voted to leave? Or north/south for a more simplified example.



I have defended FPTP, not complained about it.

The line needs to be drawn somewhere. Clearly a constituent country composed of 5 million people has more of a claim than Kent. They are false comparisons.

[-:Undertaker:-]

They are still countries. Constituent countries. Again you are talking about the legality of it and ignoring every other aspect.

And the political realities of it.


The line needs to be drawn somewhere. Clearly a constituent country composed of 5 million people has more of a claim than Kent. They are false comparisons.

Greater London? 8m?

And that's the point really isn't it, where is the line drawn. And the answer is what i've already given you, the line has been drawn for a long time constitutionally that this is a unitary state and not a confederal or federal state. If you want to change that, then fair enough: but it would in turn require a referendum.

[The Don]

And the political realities of it.



Greater London? 8m?

And that's the point really isn't it, where is the line drawn. And the answer is what i've already given you, the line has been drawn for a long time constitutionally that this is a unitary state and not a confederal or federal state. If you want to change that, then fair enough: but it would in turn require a referendum.

Ah yes, the line you're choosing because it helps your point but I could quite easily choose a different line. Define long? 300 years isn't that long compared to how long the countries have been around. Either way we clearly disagree and you think that England should have the deciding say in the upcoming referendum but i'm pretty sure a majority of scott's would disagree with you. We'll see anyway, I can't see this going unchallenged

[dbgtz]

Ah yes, because we all share the same ideas and values! /s

If 70% of people from Scotland voted to remain within the EU but overall the UK voted to leave, would that be fair for the people of Scotland? They as a majority would have voted to remain within, but because they make up such a tiny percentage of the UK's population their vote would be ignored.

Hilarious that the people complaining about the FPTP system as being unfair because the majority are ignored are quite happy to do the same when they are part of the deciding minority.

If 70% of Yorkshire wanted to stay, should they go independent? If 70% of London wanted to stay, should they go independent? You could cut off parts of the UK anywhere and make this exact same argument. To compare this to the arguments about FPTP is ludicrous.

Part of a democracy is accepting that the vote will not always go your way.

[The Don]

If 70% of Yorkshire wanted to stay, should they go independent? If 70% of London wanted to stay, should they go independent? You could cut off parts of the UK anywhere and make this exact same argument. To compare this to the arguments about FPTP is ludicrous.

Part of a democracy is accepting that the vote will not always go your way.

Yorkshire and London are not countries that have their own separate legal systems and parliaments. The fact that you're equating them as equals is laughable.

[dbgtz]

Yorkshire and London are not countries that have their own separate legal systems and parliaments. The fact that you're equating them as equals is laughable.

So what you're saying is that because Scotland has a different legal system, they're somehow entitled to a greater voice than these people?

[The Don]

So what you're saying is that because Scotland has a different legal system, they're somehow entitled to a greater voice than these people?

No, i'm saying a country with devolved powers is entirely different from Yorkshire and that the comparison of the two is really stupid.

[AgnesIO]

Read the small print on the IMF graph I guess.

Missed the PPP bit. It won't be that high a GDP in 2017.

[dbgtz]

No, i'm saying a country with devolved powers is entirely different from Yorkshire and that the comparison of the two is really stupid.

I don't see how? Why aren't the Yorkshire people allowed their own voice like Scotland would under your proposal? Are you telling me that if the 2004 devolution referendums passed, this would magically give Yorkshire a greater say?

I really don't understand the logic that you and others say when it comes to Scotland. Complaining about how Scotland is being overwhelmed by England and Westminster as if it's some giant machine oppressing Scotland when, if anything, the people of England are the ones being screwed over right now with lower public spending by head (and ultimately less public sector employment) and less representation.

Sorry if that didn't make sense at points, I'm a bit tired so it's a bit :S

[The Don]

I don't see how? Why aren't the Yorkshire people allowed their own voice like Scotland would under your proposal? Are you telling me that if the 2004 devolution referendums passed, this would magically give Yorkshire a greater say?

I really don't understand the logic that you and others say when it comes to Scotland. Complaining about how Scotland is being overwhelmed by England and Westminster as if it's some giant machine oppressing Scotland when, if anything, the people of England are the ones being screwed over right now with lower public spending by head (and ultimately less public sector employment) and less representation.

Sorry if that didn't make sense at points, I'm a bit tired so it's a bit :S

Countries have a greater sense of self-determination. Up until only 300 years ago Scotland was an independent sovereign nation that made every decision for itself. Your comparison of Scotland to Yorkshire is false as there is a massive difference between a region of a country, and an actual country. Whilst Scotland is a part of the UK it is also a country in its own right, Yorkshire is not. Scotland has devolved powers because the people there are entitled to a basic level of self-goverance due to these differences. The people in Scotland generally hold a more favourable view towards the EU than people in England ("A study published last week by Durham University and the University of East Anglia found that while voters in the majority of constituencies in England would vote to leave the EU only four seats in Scotland backed an exit." source (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/29/nicola-sturgeon-scottish-veto-eu-referendum)) . Since Scotland is a country that has its own parliament that is responsible for health, education, crime, housing and economic development (source (https://web.archive.org/web/20100416083521/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823)) it seems fair that the Scottish people should get to decide amongst themselves on an issue which would affect those sectors (particularly the economic development one). Despite what you say about people in England not being part of some giant hivemind it's patently clear that there are distinct regional differences between Scotland and England and for population reasons it is not fair for it be one vote as clearly their vote won't matter because England has 10 times their population. Yes, there are differences between Yorkshire and the rest of England but Scotland is clearly not comparable with Yorkshire or any large cities for legislative, historical and the aforementioned factors.

[scottish]

I'll wait 10 years and see how it plays out.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@The Don (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=9475); still doesn't understand that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland have no such right to vote on international matters. Each home nation of this realm had no say on whether we joined NATO or whether we would leave tomorrow, and that applies just the same to the United Nations, World Bank, World Trade Organisation or withdrawal from the European Union. To pretend otherwise defies history, international relations as well as the very constitution of the country. The entire working of the United Kingdom as a unitary state is that decisions are taken by Westminster comprised of the 650 British constituencies.

Nowhere does it state or has ever been stated or implied that a certain % of Scottish, English, Welsh or Irish constituencies must agree to legislation in order for it to pass into British law. It is not a federal state, it is not a confederacy and we do not have a Senate or Council of nations like the United States or now defunct Yugoslavia. There's fundamentally one nation at Westminster and that is what you accept with being in the United Kingdom because that is the Union.

It's a fantasy of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP so she can have another shot at Scottish indenpedence/use it as a bargaining tool. Nothing more.

[The Don]

@The Don (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=9475); still doesn't understand that Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland have no such right to vote on international matters. Each home nation of this realm had no say on whether we joined NATO or whether we would leave tomorrow, and that applies just the same to the United Nations, World Bank, World Trade Organisation or withdrawal from the European Union. To pretend otherwise defies history, international relations as well as the very constitution of the country. The entire working of the United Kingdom as a unitary state is that decisions are taken by Westminster comprised of the 650 British constituencies.

It's a fantasy of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP so she can have another shot at Scottish indenpedence/use it as a bargaining tool. Nothing more.

"Since Scotland is a country that has its own parliament that is responsible for health, education, crime, housing and economic development (source) it seems fair that the Scottish people should get to decide amongst themselves on an issue which would affect those sectors (particularly the economic development one)"

- - - Updated - - -

Dan it says on the governments website that the UK is composed of four separate countries. You can make up definitions of countries all day long but to argue that Scotland isn't a country is just ridiculous.

[-:Undertaker:-]

"Since Scotland is a country that has its own parliament that is responsible for health, education, crime, housing and economic development (source) it seems fair that the Scottish people should get to decide amongst themselves on an issue which would affect those sectors (particularly the economic development one)"

Then you could easily apply that to if the United Kingdom decided to leave the Commonwealth, OECD, NATO, the G20, the World Bank or United Nations. Indeed why not extend it to absolutely anything? The nuclear deterrence, declarations of war or even agreement to trade deals. If you accept such a premise, again completely unfounded in our history, then you are asking for a fundamental reshaping of our state. Upon joining these bodies, each nation was not consulted because the United Kingdom is a unitary state with one sovereign government: it is not a Confederation like Switzerland or the former German Confederation.

And that in itself would require a referendum.


Dan it says on the governments website that the UK is composed of four separate countries. You can make up definitions of countries all day long but to argue that Scotland isn't a country is just ridiculous.

'Countries' (a loose term anyway) are irrelevant on the international stage. It is sovereign states which are actual countries in the proper sense.

The assemblies in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast on the international stage are no more sovereign than Barnsley Town Council is. It's especially the case under the British constitution where our parliament is sovereign and there's no written constitution: any power is lent outwards by Westminster and at her will.

In a Confederation this is different as each political unit is seen as retaining its own sovereignty, or at least partially. See early Germany or Canada.

[The Don]

Then you could easily apply that to if the United Kingdom decided to leave the Commonwealth, OECD, NATO, the G20, the World Bank or United Nations. Indeed why not extend it to absolutely anything? The nuclear deterrence, declarations of war or even agreement to trade deals. If you accept such a premise, again completely unfounded in our history, then you are asking for a fundamental reshaping of our state.

And that in itself would require a referendum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

You're ignoring the point. Scotland has control over those aspects of their country whether you like it or not. Leaving the EU affects those sectors, ultimately it should be up to Scotland and not England as to whether they remain within the EU as that falls into economic development and education. You're also back to arguing the legality of it all because it's obvious that morally they should have the final say.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Leaving the EU affects those sectors, ultimately it should be up to Scotland and not England as to whether they remain within the EU as that falls into economic development and education. You're also back to arguing the legality of it all because it's obvious that morally they should have the final say.

No it isn't the slippery slope argument at all, that is a fact. You have absolutely no historical examples to back yours and Sturgeon's assertions on this.

Here are mine. The United Kingdom joining NATO was absolutely fundamental to our security policy and the security of Scotland during the post-war era during the Cold War, yet Scotland was not consulted as though it were a separate political unit and nor was England. And the same applies to when we joined the United Nations (key to foreign policy), the World Trade Organisation (key to trade) or the World Bank and IMF (key to financial security).

I'm sure Nicola Sturgeon would love to hold a referendum every five minutes over any of these issues, but the facts are against her.


You're ignoring the point. Scotland has control over those aspects of their country whether you like it or not.

Only due to the will of the Westminster parliament, which can extend or withdraw power over these sectors at will just as it could with Barnsley Town Council. In addition, under the Westminster constitution strictly speaking Parliament actually has the power to abolish the Scottish 'parliament', Barnsley Town Council and the borders of the entity it calls 'Wales' should it wish to do so as it is the holder of ultimate sovereignty and not a constitutional document like in America.

In any case, that's a slight diversion which ignores the point that neither England or Scotland has control or say over foreign policy or international treaties.

[The Don]

Here are mine. The United Kingdom joining NATO was absolutely fundamental to our security policy and the security of Scotland during the post-war era during the Cold War, yet Scotland was not consulted as though it were a separate political unit and nor was England. And the same applies to when we joined the United Nations (key to foreign policy), the World Trade Organisation (key to trade) or the World Bank and IMF (key to financial security).

Only due to the will of the Westminster parliament, which can extend or withdraw power over these sectors at will just as it could with Barnsley Town Council. In addition, under the Westminster constitution strictly speaking Parliament actually has the power to abolish the Scottish 'parliament', Barnsley Town Council and the borders of the entity it calls 'Wales' should it wish to do so as it is the holder of ultimate sovereignty and not a constitutional document like in America.

In any case, that's a slight diversion which ignores the point that neither England or Scotland has control or say over foreign policy or international treaties.

Scotland has been given more powers (and a parliament) since all of your examples making them void. Yes, Westminster has supremacy and could remove all of their powers and whilst we're at it the Queen could dismiss the Prime Minister and declare war on China but neither of these things will happen. Anyway, i'm done arguing legality, morally a country of 5 million people should not be forced to leave the EU (that a majority of them want to remain a part of) because the English population votes to leave.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Scotland has been given more powers (and a parliament) since all of your examples making them void. Yes, Westminster has supremacy and could remove all of their powers and whilst we're at it the Queen could also dissolve parliament but neither of these things will happen. Anyway, i'm done arguing legality, morally a country of 5 million people should not be forced to leave the EU (that a majority of them want to remain a part of) because the English population votes to leave.

It doesn't make them void as there is historical precedent already on this: the Northern Ireland Parliament (1920s to 1970s). The existence of such a 'parliament' (again, subject to the remit of the Westminster parliament) did not turn the United Kingdom into a confederal state whereby each of the two political units needed to agree for an international treaty to be signed. The decision is solely up to Westminster and Westminster alone. It's the same today in 2015.

And on a side note, you say neither of these things (your examples) will happen and maybe not now, but the genius in having an unwritten constitution with sovereignty in parliament is that is it so adaptable hence why we've avoided as a country so many revolutionary waves. After all, the Northern Ireland Parliament no longer exists today after being abolished in the 1970s and the Queen dismissed Her Australian Government in 1975. It's very flexible.

[FlyingJesus]

Morally a country of 64 million people shouldn't be forced to pay for referendums and all sorts because of what 2.5 million think

[The Don]

It doesn't make them void as there is historical precedent already on this: the Northern Ireland Parliament (1920s to 1970s). The existence of such a 'parliament' (again, subject to the remit of the Westminster parliament) did not turn the United Kingdom into a confederal state whereby each of the two political units needed to agree for an international treaty to be signed. The decision is solely up to Westminster and Westminster alone.

Anyway, i'm done arguing legality, morally a country of 5 million people should not be forced to leave the EU (that a majority of them want to remain a part of) because the English population votes to leave.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Anyway, i'm done arguing legality, morally a country of 5 million people should not be forced to leave the EU (that a majority of them want to remain a part of) because the English population votes to leave.

Then you are arguing for a fundamental change in our constitution and statehood.

And that'll require a referendum as it would be morally wrong to change it for everybody else without asking them.

[The Don]

Then you are arguing for a fundamental change in our constitution and statehood.

And that'll require a referendum as it would be morally wrong to change it for everybody else without asking them.

Not really, just give each country their own separate EU referendums innit, or even better... just don't have one.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not really, just give each country their own separate EU referendums innit, or even better... just don't have one.

Well that doesn't work as there's only one member of the EU here: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[The Don]

Well that doesn't work as there's only one member of the EU here: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Looks like the only solution here is to not have one.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Looks like the only solution here is to not have one.

Or just have a referendum on whether the United Kingdom, a member of the EU, should remain or withdraw.

I do agree with you however better really not to have one, instead our government ought to come clean exactly what the European project has been about, admit it lied that it was just about trade, and start proceedings immediately for withdrawal and start doing its job negotiating FTAs with the world. Sorted.

[The Don]

Or just have a referendum on whether the United Kingdom, a member of the EU, should remain or withdraw.

I do agree with you however better really not to have one, instead our government ought to come clean exactly what the European project has been about, admit it lied that it was just about trade, and start proceedings immediately for withdrawal and start doing its job negotiating FTAs with the world. Sorted.

So if there's a no vote what are you gonna do? Keep on campaigning for a second one like you're criticising the Scotts for or just accept defeat?

[-:Undertaker:-]

So if there's a no vote what are you gonna do? Keep on campaigning for a second one like you're criticising the Scotts for or just accept defeat?

I don't really criticise the SNP for it, I disagree with them of course but I am saying that the idea you were putting forward (and that Nicola Sturgeon puts forward for political reasons) don't stand up to any real scrutiny that another referendum somehow must be held if Scotland were to vote different to the rest of Britain. I understand her thinking, motives and reasoning but I am saying that unless you are a Scottish nationalist then that argument doesn't fly.

In terms of membership of the European Union, I will never ever accept the erosion of British sovereignty and democracy until the government stop pretending it is about trade and until I am standing in a ballot booth with the question "Should Britain cease to be a sovereign nation and join the United States of Europe?" which is the real question in all of this. If the real question were put forward and the truth told and we voted to join, then ultimately I would have to accept it in which case I would leave the country if I could and never come back. But will I accept British sovereignty being handed away on the basis of a decades old lie? Never.

As I have said before though, I believe it more likely that we'll be forced out in the end by the political reality of the project rather than leave on our own accord.

[The Don]

I don't really criticise the SNP for it, I disagree with them of course but I am saying that the idea you were putting forward (and that Nicola Sturgeon puts forward for political reasons) don't stand up to any real scrutiny that another referendum somehow must be held if Scotland were to vote different to the rest of Britain. I understand her thinking, motives and reasoning but I am saying that unless you are a Scottish nationalist then that argument doesn't fly.

In terms of membership of the European Union, I will never ever accept the erosion of British sovereignty and democracy until the government stop pretending it is about trade and until I am standing in a ballot booth with the question "Should Britain cease to be a sovereign nation and join the United States of Europe?" which is the real question in all of this. If the real question were put forward and the truth told and we voted to join, then ultimately I would have to accept it in which case I would leave the country if I could and never come back. But will I accept British sovereignty being handed away on the basis of a decades old lie? Never.

As I have said before though, I believe it more likely that we'll be forced out in the end by the political reality of the project rather than leave on our own accord.

Why would you move to a different country though if the UK public knowingly and democratically voted to join a federal europe?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why would you move to a different country though if the UK public knowingly and democratically voted to join a federal europe?

Because it would cease to be my country and I wouldn't want anything ever to do it with.

[The Don]

Because it would cease to be my country and I wouldn't want anything ever to do it with.

But why? In this scenario the public have knowingly voted to join a federal europe, so it's not like you can use dishonesty or a lack of democracy as your reason for hating Europe enough to move away from Britain. Why do you feel compelled to move away if the British public decided to join a federation?

[-:Undertaker:-]

But why? In this scenario the public have knowingly voted to join a federal europe, so it's not like you can use dishonesty or a lack of democracy as your reason for hating Europe enough to move away from Britain. Why do you feel compelled to move away if the British public decided to join a federation?

I would give my life, as generations have before us, for British independence and sovereignty. If my fellow subjects decided to end a thousand years of independence voluntarily then that would be unforgivable. Infact, I can't think of a nightmare worse to me than that. I'd disown it all and be broken.

[The Don]

I would give my life, as generations have before us, for British independence and sovereignty. If my fellow subjects decided to end a thousand years of independence voluntarily then that would be unforgivable. Infact, I can't think of a nightmare worse to me than that. I'd disown it all and be broken.

Fair enough. It does seem a bit like you would be "cutting off the nose to spite the face" though. You love Britain so much you would leave it and move to a different country if it ever gave up its sovereignty. For you as a citizen and where day to day life is concerned it would remain the same Britain as it always has been but based on principle you couldn't stomach to live in a Britain that is no longer sovereign. Then again, i've never really understood nationalism so I guess that's why I can't relate.

[scottish]

We're not leaving the EU, calm down everyone.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Fair enough. It does seem a bit like you would be "cutting off the nose to spite the face" though. You love Britain so much you would leave it and move to a different country if it ever gave up its sovereignty. For you as a citizen and where day to day life is concerned it would remain the same Britain as it always has been but based on principle you couldn't stomach to live in a Britain that is no longer sovereign. Then again, i've never really understood nationalism so I guess that's why I can't relate.

You could argue that for anything then, couldn't you? I am sure when German armies were marching into France, for the majority life continued as 'normal' and you can see that from pictures at the time. And I am sure that as long as you could still go to work, marry the girl you loved and have children then you would probably have thought what is the point in fighting, am I right? For the millions of men who did give their lives for their countries independence though who actually feel it is better to live standing on your feet than on your knees, a nation that feels it can no longer rule itself isn't worth living in.

There are values and principles in life that are far more important than still being able to watch television, go bowling and go to work. It is the duty of all British people today to honour and uphold the sacrifices made in the past for us, and make sacrifices if need be for generations of Britons to come.

[The Don]

You could argue that for anything then, couldn't you? I am sure when German armies were marching into France, for the majority life continued as 'normal' and you can see that from pictures at the time. And I am sure that as long as you could still go to work, marry the girl you loved and have children then you would probably have thought what is the point in fighting, am I right?

That's a ridiculous and false comparison. Nazi Germany was slaughtering civilians and for many millions they weren't able to live a normal life which was the whole point of my comment. In the scenario we're discussing, Britain would be diplomatically joining a federation, it wouldn't be being invaded and oppressed as your example of Nazi Germany in France. Life in occupied France wasn't the same as it was before the Germans rolled in. An actual comparable scenario would be one where a nation diplomatically joined another, such as Scotland joining England. Not one where a bigger country invades and occupies another by force.


For the millions of men who did give their lives for their countries independence though who actually feel it is better to live standing on your feet than on your knees, a nation that feels it can no longer rule itself isn't worth living in.
By your logic Scotland isn't worth living in for the Scottish people then, since as you've pointed out yourself Westminster holds supremacy over their country.


There are values and principles in life that are far more important than still being able to watch television, go bowling and go to work. It is the duty of all British people today to honour and uphold the sacrifices made in the past for us, and make sacrifices if need be for generations of Britons to come.

There is no duty that all British people must follow. People are individuals and like Tom said earlier there is no hivemind that dictates what a British person must do or think. Your entire argument seems to be independence for independence sake and not what's best for Britain.

[-:Undertaker:-]

That's a ridiculous and false comparison. Nazi Germany was slaughtering civilians and for many millions they weren't able to live a normal life which was the whole point of my comment. In the scenario we're discussing, Britain would be diplomatically joining a federation, it wouldn't be being invaded and oppressed as your example of Nazi Germany in France. Life in occupied France wasn't the same as it was before the Germans rolled in. An actual comparable scenario would be one where a nation diplomatically joined another, such as Scotland joining England. Not one where a bigger country invades and occupies another by force.

Not at all, of course the circumstances are different but the actual value being saved is the principle of political sovereignty and national independence. We fought not because of death camps, but because we have a right as a people and as a nation to our political self-determination and that would be the case tomorrow if a foreign nation without death camps attempted to neuter our political sovereignty with a prime example of this being how we broke with the Roman Catholic Church and the power of the Papacy. And the same story is sprawled across our history books. Time after time again the people of these islands have fought to retain their independence as a people despite constant attempts from the European continent to end that political sovereignty and independence.

So again by taking your own logic, unless it directly affected you then you wouldn't fight for that value and principle, would you?


By your logic Scotland isn't worth living in for the Scottish people then, since as you've pointed out yourself Westminster holds supremacy over their country.

I believe there's a British demos so I do not see it that way. For a Scottish nationalist, again I can understand - but not agree - with their position if they do not believe there is a British demos and thus would view the Union as a foreign power and encroachment on Scottish sovereignty.

In such cases, the only way to decide such a matter is via referendum.


There is no duty that all British people must follow. People are individuals and like Tom said earlier there is no hivemind that dictates what a British person must do or think. Your entire argument seems to be independence for independence sake and not what's best for Britain.

What is best for the people of these islands is to have their own future and destiny in their own hands, and to allow future generations of Britons the same benefit which for over a thousand years millions have laid down their lives for. Of course people are individuals, but people also belong to a demos and thus are a people and become a nation. The fact is that the people of these islands are a demonstrable body of people, and those here in the present are merely the guardians of what they have been gifted by those who have gone: it is not theirs to give away.

A European demos does not exist so political union cannot exist without political subjugation: in contrast to German unification.

[The Don]

Not at all, of course the circumstances are different but the actual value being saved is the principle of political sovereignty and national independence. We fought not because of death camps, but because we have a right as a people and as a nation to our political self-determination and that would be the case tomorrow if a foreign nation without death camps attempted to neuter our political sovereignty with a prime example of this being how we broke with the Roman Catholic Church and the power of the Papacy. And the same story is sprawled across our history books. Time after time again the people of these islands have fought to retain their independence as a people despite constant attempts from the European continent to end that political sovereignty and independence.

Nope, it’s still a false comparison. A country that’s forcefully annexed will have fewer rights than one that democratically votes to join a federation. They are not comparable at all. Compare Scotland and Tibet for example, you can’t compare the principles behind not wanting to be invaded to the principles behind not wanting to democratically joining a federation.

You can literally use the same arguments about any area that’s become a part of something bigger. I’m tired of using Scotland as my example but Scotland fought to remain independent for years, they then peacefully joined with England and it was beneficial to their people.


I believe there's a British demos so I do not see it that way. For a Scottish nationalist, again I can understand - but not agree - with their position if they do not believe there is a British demos and thus would view the Union as a foreign power and encroachment on Scottish sovereignty.

In such cases, the only way to decide such a matter is via referendum.

There wasn’t a British demos 300 years ago when Great Britain was formed. Despite these differences I would argue, and I’m sure you would agree, that Scotland joining England worked out better than had they had your same nationalistic ideology and remained as independent states. Clearly it wasn’t necessary for the success of the UK.


What is best for the people of these islands is to have their own future and destiny in their own hands, and to allow future generations of Britons the same benefit which for over a thousand years millions have laid down their lives for. Of course people are individuals, but people also belong to a demos and thus are a people and become a nation. The fact is that the people of these islands are a demonstrable body of people, and those here in the present are merely the guardians of what they have been gifted by those who have gone: it is not theirs to give away.

No, the best thing for Britain is what provides the best quality of life for its citizens. I think that being in the EU will provide a higher quality of life for the population than being nationalistic and isolated will.


A European demos does not exist so political union cannot exist without political subjugation: in contrast to German unification.
Well it clearly can as it is. You use this as your key argument all the time but it’s nonsense. Anyone can make up their own criteria of what’s needed for political union, that doesn’t mean that it actually is needed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Nope, it’s still a false comparison. A country that’s forcefully annexed will have fewer rights than one that democratically votes to join a federation. They are not comparable at all. Compare Scotland and Tibet for example, you can’t compare the principles behind not wanting to be invaded to the principles behind not wanting to democratically joining a federation.

That isn't true at all.

In Vietnam, those in the southern state which was propped up by the United States were arguably much more free and democratic yet many Vietnamese supported the northern state as the northern state forces were seen as independent and fighting for national independence where as the south was viewed as a puppet of a foreign government. In that example, the people sided with the cause of national independence and self-determination rather than which regime would give them most freedoms.

When faced with the prospect of a bigger widescreen or self-determination, people will pick self-determination.


You can literally use the same arguments about any area that’s become a part of something bigger. I’m tired of using Scotland as my example but Scotland fought to remain independent for years, they then peacefully joined with England and it was beneficial to their people.

Scotland and England were able to join together in a Union for a number of reasons: the people were highly mixed culturally and ethnically, spoke the same language, there had always been the notion of a pan-British identity dating from Roman times and one hundred years before there had already been the Union of the Crowns. In much the same way, i'll give the example of German unification below.

None of these conditions exist in Europe today.


There wasn’t a British demos 300 years ago when Great Britain was formed. Despite these differences I would argue, and I’m sure you would agree, that Scotland joining England worked out better than had they had your same nationalistic ideology and remained as independent states. Clearly it wasn’t necessary for the success of the UK.

Yes there was, see above.


No, the best thing for Britain is what provides the best quality of life for its citizens. I think that being in the EU will provide a higher quality of life for the population and being nationalistic and isolated will.

How is arguing for self-determination and closer ties with the Commonwealth isolationist?


Well it clearly can as it is. You use this as your key argument all the time but it’s nonsense. Anyone can make up their own criteria of what’s needed for political union, that doesn’t mean that it actually is needed.

No they cannot.

You need a demos for a political union to happen naturally, especially if you want a democratic state, as in the German example where by what was standing in the way of German unification was aristocratic dynasties holding on to their own power blocs. German unification was de facto subjugation by the German princely states and dukedoms to the more powerful Prussian state, but that was not seen as subjugation as the people of Germany considered themselves German and felt a sense of German identity so it was a natural progression unlike European integration.

No such factors exist or have existed in Europe for European integration or eventual European unification to happen. Indeed, the opposite examples being Yugoslavia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Czechslovakia show the complete opposite, where you had different people put together in a political union which fell apart shortly after the aggressive forces holding those 'nations' together disappeared or were weak enough to be collapsed.

Why? Because those people were completely different to one another and couldn't exist within the same political state.

[The Don]

That isn't true at all.
Can you really not understand the differences between the rights of a country that’s being occupied and one that democratically merges with others and will have a guaranteed, agreed upon set of rights rather than one that’s dictated to them?


Scotland and England were able to join together in a Union for a number of reasons: the people were highly mixed culturally and ethnically, spoke the same language, there had always been the notion of a pan-British identity dating from Roman times and one hundred years before there had already been the Union of the Crowns. In much the same way, i'll give the example of German unification below.

They shared a language about as much as we do with the European Union currently. A vast majority of EU citizens can speak English. A vast majority of Scotts didn’t speak English when Great Britain was formed. It’s only because English people persecuted any highlanders that dared speak Gaelic that we ended up being the dominant language. It’s laughable that you can call the Scottish and English a demos in the 1700’s when their cultural differences were massive. The only difference is that we shared the same island as opposed to them being on the continent. How many Scott’s now let alone in the 1700’s felt they shared a ‘demos’ with the English? I guarantee you the answer is close to none.


None of these conditions exist in Europe today.
Well a vast majority of English speakers exist over on the continent. More importantly you’re ignoring the fact that we already share a political union with these countries.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/English_foreign_and_second_language_EU.jpg



Yes there was, see above.
No, there really wasn’t. See above.


How is arguing for self-determination and closer ties with the Commonwealth isolationist?
Arguing against ties and trade with Europe is. Especially considering the fact that if we wish to leave the EU and keep the FTA we’ll have to follow EU policy anyway, something which you’re obviously against.




No they cannot.

You need a demos for a political union to happen naturally, especially if you want a democratic state, as in the German example where by what was standing in the way of German unification was aristocratic dynasties holding on to their own power blocs. German unification was de facto subjugation by the German princely states and dukedoms to the more powerful Prussian state, but that was not seen as subjugation as the people of Germany considered themselves German and felt a sense of German identity so it was a natural progression unlike European integration.

No such factors exist or have existed in Europe for European integration or eventual European unification to happen. Indeed, the opposite examples being Yugoslavia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Czechslovakia show the complete opposite, where you had different people put together in a political union which fell apart shortly after the aggressive forces holding those 'nations' together disappeared or were weak enough to be collapsed.

Why? Because those people were completely different to one another and couldn't exist within the same political state.

As I said before, clearly it isn’t needed. The UK is a testament to that. You can’t compare Dictatorships or an Empire absorbing unwilling states to that of peaceful, democratic integration.

[FlyingJesus]

This is such a cringe thread

[The Don]

This is such a cringe thread

Who cares this is a habbo forum fgs. Nothing is more cringe than us still being here if we're honest.

[FlyingJesus]

This argument is

[The Don]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlpYAaS2Efc

[-:Undertaker:-]

Can you really not understand the differences between the rights of a country that’s being occupied and one that democratically merges with others and will have a guaranteed, agreed upon set of rights rather than one that’s dictated to them?

If the people in that country are not part of the same demos then it is subjugation. Ultimately power must be held on one side (assuming unlike in Germany there are different demos as there are in Europe today) and Britain in a European superstate would be the de facto prisoner just as it is now. The continent have very different cultural ideas to us, different ideas of law, different ideas of freedom, different ideas of political culture, different on just about every level... and that's without talking about the differences between themselves.


They shared a language about as much as we do with the European Union currently. A vast majority of EU citizens can speak English. A vast majority of Scotts didn’t speak English when Great Britain was formed. It’s only because English people persecuted any highlanders that dared speak Gaelic that we ended up being the dominant language. It’s laughable that you can call the Scottish and English a demos in the 1700’s when their cultural differences were massive. The only difference is that we shared the same island as opposed to them being on the continent. How many Scott’s now let alone in the 1700’s felt they shared a ‘demos’ with the English? I guarantee you the answer is close to none.

The English language was not suddenly introduced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language#Language_shift) with political union, it was creeping in anyway as what I said earlier is true: greater cultural interaction between the kingdoms of Scotland and England was happening quickly especially on a trading and political level. In any case, with the Highlanders you bring up an interesting point which backs mine: the completion of political union even in a union that was almost natural between Scotland and England was still heavily marked with the use of violent and force, something that would be unthinkable today.

It was also made much easier in that England and Scotland were not democratic states, so force could be used to bring the two together and complete political union. Remember what I said about Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia? They were held together by force and force alone.


Well a vast majority of English speakers exist over on the continent. More importantly you’re ignoring the fact that we already share a political union with these countries.

As a second language.

And the European Union isn't a sovereign state.


Arguing against ties and trade with Europe is. Especially considering the fact that if we wish to leave the EU and keep the FTA we’ll have to follow EU policy anyway, something which you’re obviously against.

In regards to European trade we would, but that is the same as we do now when we trade with the United States. When we trade with America, we have to follow American standards for their goods and vice versa... so that's a statement of the obvious really, isn't it?

In any case, if you are so desperate to remain in the Single Market then you can simply adopt the Norway position.


As I said before, clearly it isn’t needed. The UK is a testament to that. You can’t compare Dictatorships or an Empire absorbing unwilling states to that of peaceful, democratic integration.

The United Kingdom isn't a testament to that, although you seem to hold that the United Kingdom was bound together by force... are you proposing the same for European nations, that we're forced together for a century or two and then maybe we'll accept it?

A question though: if a USE was seriously proposed, what do you think the peoples - not people - of Europe would vote like and why?

[Chippiewill]

A very interesting article by Peter Hitchens: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/05/why-i-place-no-hope-in-a-referendum-on-britains-eu-membership.html

[-:Undertaker:-]

A very interesting article by Peter Hitchens: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/05/why-i-place-no-hope-in-a-referendum-on-britains-eu-membership.html

A good article.

I was reading another article then in the Daily Telegraph of a simple Italian - or so was made out - demanding a vote in the referendum because she paid her taxes here but isn't a British subject. On a simple search of her name, public comments below found she was part of an EU campaigning group. Quelle surprise.

As the comments asked, would you give guests staying in your house a say on whether or not you should sell your house? Do lodgers have a say in that? No. In my eyes, if they try and use that trick to include 1.5m+ EU migrants in the referendum then the whole thing is already illegitimate.