SNP's Nicola Sturgeon announces she is to publish a second referendum bill next week [Archive]

-:Undertaker:-

13-10-2016, 12:54 PM

this is the exact attitude which causes the resentment in the first place, openly shouting how much of a burden scotland and NI are to you

yes i know all that. but there's only so much whinging one can take from Nicola and her gang

which brings me onto....

why do you care so much for their reasoning behind their vote? who are you to say if they're true unionists or not, your phrasing of 'it benefits them' is sloppy and fails to express whatever opinion you're trying to give :rolleyes:

because they should vote with their true beliefs and not how much money they can get out of it. i want Scotland/Northern Ireland/Wales to be part of my Kingdom because I believe in the Union as an ideal. whether England benefits or loses from this in terms of net billions doesn't particularly bother me as it isn't about money for me just as being in the EU wasn't about costs vs benefits in terms of money hence why i always said i'd of voted out even if the EU was handing us £350m a day to be in it.

but when i hear the constant moaning about how they hate us or how they're gonna threaten to leave then let them leave if that's what they want deep down and go and be subsidised (and ruled) by France and Germany.

WHICH IS WHY i put in italics at the bottom of my thread starter that i know the majority of Scots aren't like Sturgeon.

- - - Updated - - -

@wixard (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=64175);

i saw you'd like my post so catch my drift on what i'm trying to say

and i'd add to it that it annoys and gets me down even more because i regard myself as British first and foremost above all. i'm 100% committed as a unionist. i defend the Union on here. i fly the flags of england, scotland, northern ireland and wales from my flagpole on national days. i have some family members/friends who are more or less English nationalists and i try defend the Union all the time to them but they're now full of resentment now because this cow and her lunatic fringe who don't even want real (non EU) independence keep stirring it up all the time.

so when i see likes of scot who just say "i hate the english" it's so damn demoralising.

wixard

13-10-2016, 01:13 PM

i respect what you've said and that it reflects your own ideals/values

i just think you're in a minority when it comes to money and the economy, therefore i think it's harsh to say that people voting out for financial/economical reasons are being ridiculous or are only doing it because 'they didn't get their own way'

dbgtz

13-10-2016, 02:42 PM

-:Undertaker:-

13-10-2016, 03:00 PM

I don't know why you're saying they shouldn't vote based on "how much money they can get". Money is a big part of every referendum (£350 million to the NHS or this lovely piece (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L9GXGY6Qz7U/VghkfHq6eTI/AAAAAAAAEoY/LyyatoC6iII/s1600/no2av.jpg)) or any election (tax cuts etc). Everybody is in it for themselves and when it came to the EU referendum, I would assume they thought they'd be better off financially or will soon be. The vast majority of people don't give a stuff about identity or basically anyone else outside their own family, they just want the best for themselves. Are they wrong for wanting that? No. Are they often mislead? Almost certainly.

If you had looked at any research on what drove votes in the EU referendum then you would know the £350m had little effect. The big drivers of the vote were identity, sovereignty and immigration - all of which is linked. There's masses of research out there backing up the motivations of voters in the referendum and it is a fantasy of bitter remainers that the £350m bus motto somehow stole victory from you. It didn't. You had the entire establishment on your side and you still lost - because factors you could not answer (immigration) or were beyond your control (sovereignty/identity) could not be ovecome.

That's why your side lost. And don't just take it from me listen to what those behind the Remain campaign say.

More specifically to the thread, it's no surprise she's pushing for this. As far as I have seen it, the leaders of the SNP will jump at any opportunity for independence and in my opinion is just an attempt at a power grab. They're a nasty populist party as far as I am concerned who simply want to seize it for themselves. That's not to say I believe those who want independent are like that, as that's you can't generalise like that in the same way you can't generalise all Brexiters to be racist. However, I will say that you probably could generalise and say most of them are uneducated on the subject for any referendum.

I have said countless times to the likes of Lewis; that whilst I do not agree with Scottish independence as a concept it is not a wrong one and can be seen as noble. My issue especially with the SNP version of independence is that independence is impossible whilst also remaining a member of the European Union. I cannot understand how she can argue for more of a say by being independent from the UK (56/650 seats with devolution) when she wants to sign up to the EU (something like 4/600 seats with constant powers being transferred to Brussels). It's illogical.

Gladly seeing as we're leaving the EU she's going to have to now advocate joining the Euro in a referendum campaign.

I hope May gives the power of "Brexit" to Parliament. I hope Parliament reject it. I hope this independence bill doesn't go through because of this, but I can still see them pushing for it even if no "Brexit".

Hang on what? You want Parliament to override the biggest democratic mandate we've had in our history?

And the SNP actually can't put this bill through. Constitutional affairs are reserved for Westminster alone.

On a side note, I kind of do want to see what happens. Oil was a big topic the last time around and it was probably the biggest topic they could talk about, except possibly Trident. Interesting to see where they will take it.

Oil is on the floor so she doesn't have that magic money pot anymore. As for Trident, the last poll I saw on the topic had most Scottish people supporting it so again she's running out of options in regards to those two 'big' issues.

Interesting that most Scots don't want a re-run of the 2014 vote so I say let's give it to her post-Brexit.

786566728167796737

dbgtz

13-10-2016, 03:27 PM

If you had looked at any research on what drove votes in the EU referendum then you would know the £350m had little effect. The big drivers of the vote were identity, sovereignty and immigration - all of which is linked. There's masses of research out there backing up the motivations of voters in the referendum and it is a fantasy of bitter remainers that the £350m bus motto somehow stole victory from you. It didn't. You had the entire establishment on your side and you still lost - because factors you could not answer (immigration) or were beyond your control (sovereignty/identity) could not be ovecome.

That's why your side lost. And don't just take it from me listen to what those behind the Remain campaign say.

They are not inherently linked. If I voted for it based on immigration, I might simply blame immigrants for my low pay or cuts to public services. Nothing to do with identity and sovereignty there.

Please don't say "you" as if I'm a big remainer. I literally changed from spoiling the paper to remain at the booth.

Pretty sure also the media was general for Brexit so...

I have said countless times to the likes of Lewis; that whilst I do not agree with Scottish independence as a concept it is not a wrong one and can be seen as noble. My issue especially with the SNP version of independence is that independence is impossible whilst also remaining a member of the European Union. I cannot understand how she can argue for more of a say by being independent from the UK (56/650 seats with devolution) when she wants to sign up to the EU (something like 4/600 seats with constant powers being transferred to Brussels). It's illogical.

Gladly seeing as we're leaving the EU she's going to have to now advocate joining the Euro in a referendum campaign.

I will point out that, at the very least, Scotland would be able to veto a lot of things in the EU which is arguably more than they can do currently. But yes they do have a bigger say (arguably disproportional too) in the UK as a whole.

Arguably, the EU might treat Scotland as the successor state to the UK and they will get our quite frankly comfortable deal, but I imgine that is unlikely.

Hang on what? You want Parliament to override the biggest democratic mandate we've had in our history?

And the SNP actually can't put this bill through. Constitutional affairs are reserved for Westminster alone.

Yes I want the Parliament we voted in to do the job it's supposed to do, isn't that basically what you keep banging on about with sovereignty? I want the people who actually do this for a living to make the right decision. I want them to acknowledge what a shit show the whole thing was, which it quite frankly was. It was full of lies, it was full of fear and ultimately we're currently all worse off (partially) because of it.

Would you hire an electrician to install plumbing?

Oil is on the floor so she doesn't have that magic money pot anymore. As for Trident, the last poll I saw on the topic had most Scottish people supporting it so again she's running out of options in regards to those two 'big' issues.

Interesting that most Scots don't want a re-run of the 2014 vote so I say let's give it to her post-Brexit.

786566728167796737

It's all about spin, so just because of a poll last month doesn't mean it won't change in 2 years.

Inseriousity.

13-10-2016, 03:48 PM

Tbh this is all hypothetical as I don't think there'll be a 2nd referendum for a long time.

FlyingJesus

13-10-2016, 04:01 PM

or be a lamp shade

What

-:Undertaker:-

13-10-2016, 04:45 PM

They are not inherently linked. If I voted for it based on immigration, I might simply blame immigrants for my low pay or cuts to public services. Nothing to do with identity and sovereignty there.

Please don't say "you" as if I'm a big remainer. I literally changed from spoiling the paper to remain at the booth.

And if people did vote Leave because of mass immigration so what?

Who the hell are you people to void people's votes based on what you consider a reasonable argument?

I will point out that, at the very least, Scotland would be able to veto a lot of things in the EU which is arguably more than they can do currently. But yes they do have a bigger say (arguably disproportional too) in the UK as a whole.

And Scotland would have to accept the principle of 'ever closer union' aka less independence and eventually none.

Arguably, the EU might treat Scotland as the successor state to the UK and they will get our quite frankly comfortable deal, but I imgine that is unlikely.

No legal basis for it.

Sturgeon travelled around the EU after the vote and basically had the door shut in her face. An independent Scotland wouldn't be a successor state in international law and would have to join the Euro and the rest of the circus.

Yes I want the Parliament we voted in to do the job it's supposed to do, isn't that basically what you keep banging on about with sovereignty? I want the people who actually do this for a living to make the right decision. I want them to acknowledge what a shit show the whole thing was, which it quite frankly was. It was full of lies, it was full of fear and ultimately we're currently all worse off (partially) because of it.

Would you hire an electrician to install plumbing?

So in other words you're still in the denial stage of grief.

And yes I do keep banging on about sovereignty: the same Parliament that handed over the powers to the EU that belong to we the people with treaty after treaty and they did not once consult us despite numerous pledges to give us a say on the issue. It is our turn now to ignore them as they have done with us. In any case, I expect May will go the the country if Parliament does attempt to block and will win a 100+ seat majority.

I will also add a warning: you speak of a shitstorm because you did not get your way and that's fair enough as you're naturally unhappy with the result. However, if Parliament dares to ignore the will of the people then quite frankly violence could be justified. You have no idea of the forces/elements you're risking unleashing if you block the will of the people.

It's all about spin, so just because of a poll last month doesn't mean it won't change in 2 years.

Indeed but that is how opinion stands now.

- - - Updated - - -

Tbh this is all hypothetical as I don't think there'll be a 2nd referendum for a long time.

The problem is that she [Sturgeon] could be whipping up a momentum that will be unstoppable even if she doesn't mean it.

That's why I say it is worth Westminster maybe outplaying her and holding the referendum itself. And wouldn't it be funny to hold the referendum on the terms she demanded for the EU referendum? IE a UK-wide vote with a veto from England/Wales/Northern Ireland. :P Now that would be fun to see. You wanted a confederal referendum model Nicola well there you go!

scottish

13-10-2016, 04:50 PM

yes i know all that. but there's only so much whinging one can take from Nicola and her gang

which brings me onto....

because they should vote with their true beliefs and not how much money they can get out of it. i want Scotland/Northern Ireland/Wales to be part of my Kingdom because I believe in the Union as an ideal. whether England benefits or loses from this in terms of net billions doesn't particularly bother me as it isn't about money for me just as being in the EU wasn't about costs vs benefits in terms of money hence why i always said i'd of voted out even if the EU was handing us £350m a day to be in it.

but when i hear the constant moaning about how they hate us or how they're gonna threaten to leave then let them leave if that's what they want deep down and go and be subsidised (and ruled) by France and Germany.

WHICH IS WHY i put in italics at the bottom of my thread starter that i know the majority of Scots aren't like Sturgeon.

- - - Updated - - -

@wixard (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=64175);

i saw you'd like my post so catch my drift on what i'm trying to say

and i'd add to it that it annoys and gets me down even more because i regard myself as British first and foremost above all. i'm 100% committed as a unionist. i defend the Union on here. i fly the flags of england, scotland, northern ireland and wales from my flagpole on national days. i have some family members/friends who are more or less English nationalists and i try defend the Union all the time to them but they're now full of resentment now because this cow and her lunatic fringe who don't even want real (non EU) independence keep stirring it up all the time.

so when i see likes of scot who just say "i hate the english" it's so damn demoralising.

It's scott not scot

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know why you're saying they shouldn't vote based on "how much money they can get". Money is a big part of every referendum (£350 million to the NHS or this lovely piece (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L9GXGY6Qz7U/VghkfHq6eTI/AAAAAAAAEoY/LyyatoC6iII/s1600/no2av.jpg)) or any election (tax cuts etc). Everybody is in it for themselves and when it came to the EU referendum, I would assume they thought they'd be better off financially or will soon be. The vast majority of people don't give a stuff about identity or basically anyone else outside their own family, they just want the best for themselves. Are they wrong for wanting that? No. Are they often mislead? Almost certainly.

More specifically to the thread, it's no surprise she's pushing for this. As far as I have seen it, the leaders of the SNP will jump at any opportunity for independence and in my opinion is just an attempt at a power grab. They're a nasty populist party as far as I am concerned who simply want to seize it for themselves. That's not to say I believe those who want independent are like that, as that's you can't generalise like that in the same way you can't generalise all Brexiters to be racist. However, I will say that you probably could generalise and say most of them are uneducated on the subject for any referendum.

I hope May gives the power of "Brexit" to Parliament. I hope Parliament reject it. I hope this independence bill doesn't go through because of this, but I can still see them pushing for it even if no "Brexit".

On a side note, I kind of do want to see what happens. Oil was a big topic the last time around and it was probably the biggest topic they could talk about, except possibly Trident. Interesting to see where they will take it.

I'm all for trident, rip oil.

-:Undertaker:-

13-10-2016, 05:07 PM

I'm all for trident, rip oil.

How can you be both for Trident but want to leave the realm?

dbgtz

13-10-2016, 05:10 PM

And if people did vote Leave because of mass immigration so what?

Who the hell are you people to void people's votes based on what you consider a reasonable argument?

I just said the 3 reasons you said weren't inherently linked. At what point did I say immigration as a reason was poor?

And Scotland would have to accept the principle of 'ever closer union' aka less independence and eventually none.

Except they could just veto it or seek exclusion, you know like how we get a rebate, no Euro, no Schengen etc.

No legal basis for it.

Sturgeon travelled around the EU after the vote and basically had the door shut in her face. An independent Scotland wouldn't be a successor state in international law and would have to join the Euro and the rest of the circus.

Yes similarly to how we're getting the door at the moment. Makes sense since there's no point discussing something that isn't necessarily going to happen.

So in other words you're still in the denial stage of grief.

And yes I do keep banging on about sovereignty: the same Parliament that handed over the powers to the EU that belong to we the people with treaty after treaty and they did not once consult us despite numerous pledges to give us a say on the issue. It is our turn now to ignore them as they have done with us. In any case, I expect May will go the the country if Parliament does attempt to block and will win a 100+ seat majority.

I will also add a warning: you speak of a shitstorm because you did not get your way and that's fair enough as you're naturally unhappy with the result. However, if Parliament dares to ignore the will of the people then quite frankly violence could be justified. You have no idea of the forces/elements you're risking unleashing if you block the will of the people.

Nothing to do with denial? I'm not saying it's not going to happen, I'm saying I don't want it to be at the hands of say someone like this guy: http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/which-eu-law-are-you-looking-forward-to-losing/

I said the referendum campaigns were shit shows i.e. full of lies and crap from both sides. Nothing to do with it going my way or not, I'd have said that if remain was the majority so if you could stop making assumptions and twisting my words that would be great.
I also want to say that 48% of those people voted to remain, so maybe they should go be violent? :) Because you are saying all of this as if there was a huge majority for hard Brexit when there wasn't at all and you've basically just justified violence if it doesn't go your way on a non-binding referendum which got a rather slim majority.

-:Undertaker:-

13-10-2016, 05:26 PM

I just said the 3 reasons you said weren't inherently linked. At what point did I say immigration as a reason was poor?
You seem to be saying that a dislike of immigrants was to blame. Quite frankly, anybody who does not understand the anger out there of being ignored on immigration now with the vote and everything needs their head checking. It is after all the main reason - along with courts supremacy - as to why we'll be leaving the Single Market.

Except they could just veto it or seek exclusion, you know like how we get a rebate, no Euro, no Schengen etc.

We only got those by threatening to stall treaties. A Scotland applying to the European Union would not have that veto. In any case, vetoes are slowly being phased out given the introduction of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) which was one of the many thousands of reasons to have voted to Leave, as 52% of the country thank heavens did.

Yes similarly to how we're getting the door at the moment. Makes sense since there's no point discussing something that isn't necessarily going to happen.

I don't mind being shown the door at all. The shorter the negotiations are the better.

I also want to say that 48% of those people voted to remain, so maybe they should go be violent? :) Because you are saying all of this as if there was a huge majority for hard Brexit when there wasn't at all and you've basically just justified violence if it doesn't go your way on a non-binding referendum which got a rather slim majority.

Fed up of this mental gymnastics from Remoaners still not accepting the will of the people.

48% is a smaller number than 52% so in a democratic vote 52% won as it is greater. Therefore, if that vote - carried on the largest turnout and mandate of any vote held in this country ever - was ignored then yes things could turn serious.

And what is this nonsense about a 'slim' majority? Many of our governments and governments around the world are elected on a 4% majority. If Clinton wins Trump on a 4% majority, will people call into question the result? It's an absurdity.

scottish

13-10-2016, 06:15 PM

How can you be both for Trident but want to leave the realm?

I like my nukes.

dbgtz

13-10-2016, 06:16 PM

You seem to be saying that a dislike of immigrants was to blame. Quite frankly, anybody who does not understand the anger out there of being ignored on immigration now with the vote and everything needs their head checking. It is after all the main reason - along with courts supremacy - as to why we'll be leaving the Single Market.

I mean, I didn't at all I just used it to prove that the reasons of immigration, identity and sovereignty have no inherent link to each other.

We only got those by threatening to stall treaties. A Scotland applying to the European Union would not have that veto. In any case, vetoes are slowly being phased out given the introduction of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) which was one of the many thousands of reasons to have voted to Leave, as 52% of the country thank heavens did.

Every country has a say stop being absurd. Ireland is around a similar size to Scotland yet they avoided Schengen. We did not obtain these because we threatened to stall treaties (or if we did, source please :)). Admittedly, we really did only avoid the Euro and Schengen because it wasn't a prerequisite when the UK joined, so Scotland wouldn't get the luxury unless they fiddle it a bit like other countries.

Oh yeah sure that's the reason. This is literally the first time I've even heard of this, so I doubt many others have quite frankly. I'm not going to take on that point in any depth since I've read nothing on it, but I'd like a source on that "phasing out" vetoes. I do think you need to stop fantasising about how education the majority of people are on this subject, but maybe if this was the other way around you might say that the remainers were improperly educated on the subject :P

I don't mind being shown the door at all. The shorter the negotiations are the better.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

Fed up of this mental gymnastics from Remoaners still not accepting the will of the people.

48% is a smaller number than 52% so in a democratic vote 52% won as it is greater. Therefore, if that vote - carried on the largest turnout and mandate of any vote held in this country ever - was ignored then yes things could turn serious.

And what is this nonsense about a 'slim' majority? Many of our governments and governments around the world are elected on a 4% majority. If Clinton wins Trump on a 4% majority, will people call into question the result? It's an absurdity.

Stop calling me a "remoaner" as if that's a valid thing to say. Stop turning this into some kind of school yard argument where you just throw names at people. It's stupid and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Right you don't need to explain 52% > 48% (on the same dataset), I do study maths so you'd think I would understand that. First, lets think of public opinion. It changes, a lot. Secondly, there are going to be errors in there somewhere and you can probably find information on this somewhere. Whilst I'm not going to suggest ~630,000 votes are an error, it is something to consider (whilst this could be more votes for remain, it could also be more for leave). Thirdly, comparing it to the US presidential election is different since that is not a major constitutional change. They vote in a new president every 4 years, we don't vote on the EU or Scottish independence every 4 years (though saying that, looking quite likely on a 2018 referendum lmao). It's not absurd to have want a significant majority on a significant change and referendums in the past have reflected that and I think it is stupid it wasn't put in to place beforehand.

Let me ask you, if remain won 52-48, what would you be saying right now? Would you just be sitting and accepting the result?

-:Undertaker:-

13-10-2016, 06:28 PM

I like my nukes.

Except they wouldn't be your nukes if you voted to end the Union.

Every country has a say stop being absurd. Ireland is around a similar size to Scotland yet they avoided Schengen. We did not obtain these because we threatened to stall treaties (or if we did, source please ). Admittedly, we really did only avoid the Euro and Schengen because it wasn't a prerequisite when the UK joined, so Scotland wouldn't get the luxury unless they fiddle it a bit like other countries.

The Euro didn't exist when we joined that is how we never had to adopt. Legally, every new EU member is now obliged to commit to eventually joining the Euro. If you're a newly joining member then you have to join on their terms, not your own.

Let me ask you, if remain won 52-48, what would you be saying right now? Would you just be sitting and accepting the result?

Yes. I said quite clearly before the vote that whilst I believed many of the promises of the Remain campaign would turn out to be false (and they have), that our next realistic chance of securing a referendum would only be at the next treaty change which could be a a decade or more away. I was reasonable to assume that if we did not secure victory at this referendum, then our next fight to prepare for would be ten or so years away and would likely be over the terms of a new treaty on an in/out on that basis.

On the rest of your post, you're finding any way possible you can to dismiss people's votes. You cannot keep re-running votes because you do not like that although I know that is a great EU tradition having re-run the votes of the French, Irish and Dutch before. The fact is that this is a major constitutional change yes, but so was 1973 when we were taken in without an initial referendum. Further huge transfers of powers took place with the Single European Act, the Maaschtrict Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty and not once were we asked whether or not we agreed to this huge change to our constitution. That was..... until 2016 when we were asked. And we reflected on 42 years of EEC/EU membership and decided to leave. That's the inescapable reality of it: parliament put the question to us in a referendum and we wanted out.

By all means you can campaign to re-join the EU in a decade or so once we've left. Funnily enough, I think both you and I both know that by that stage public opinion will be Norway-style set against joining and we'll be out forever which is why your desperate to block it now.

abc

13-10-2016, 08:31 PM

That bitch is crazy.

dbgtz

13-10-2016, 09:03 PM

The Euro didn't exist when we joined that is how we never had to adopt. Legally, every new EU member is now obliged to commit to eventually joining the Euro. If you're a newly joining member then you have to join on their terms, not your own.

I mean, that's basically what I said. But there are ways I think Sweden and some others have sort of "got out of it".

Yes. I said quite clearly before the vote that whilst I believed many of the promises of the Remain campaign would turn out to be false (and they have), that our next realistic chance of securing a referendum would only be at the next treaty change which could be a a decade or more away. I was reasonable to assume that if we did not secure victory at this referendum, then our next fight to prepare for would be ten or so years away and would likely be over the terms of a new treaty on an in/out on that basis.

On the rest of your post, you're finding any way possible you can to dismiss people's votes. You cannot keep re-running votes because you do not like that although I know that is a great EU tradition having re-run the votes of the French, Irish and Dutch before. The fact is that this is a major constitutional change yes, but so was 1973 when we were taken in without an initial referendum. Further huge transfers of powers took place with the Single European Act, the Maaschtrict Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty and not once were we asked whether or not we agreed to this huge change to our constitution. That was..... until 2016 when we were asked. And we reflected on 42 years of EEC/EU membership and decided to leave. That's the inescapable reality of it: parliament put the question to us in a referendum and we wanted out.

By all means you can campaign to re-join the EU in a decade or so once we've left. Funnily enough, I think both you and I both know that by that stage public opinion will be Norway-style set against joining and we'll be out forever which is why your desperate to block it now.

So you'd disagree with what Farage said about a second referendum before the result? And what exactly are you referring to that remain has said that's turned out false?

You could argue people were asked by the party they voted or even just the people they elected. You will probably be thinking when you see that "well it was in their manifesto", well perhaps people shouldn't then revote that party if the EU was such a big concern. The problem here though is ultimately FPTP, which I'm curious where you stand on that.

We also may have been taking in without a referendum but we got one just 2 years later which showed clear support. I think it should be obvious that I'm very against referendums though.

There's also no guarantee of a Norway option. Do you actually want to know why I don't want to leave? I don't want to leave because we actually have a fairly comfortable position in the EU; a rather large member with lots of exclusions which benefit us, and lots of inclusions which benefit us. Perhaps we can't make trade deals on our own, but we pretty much act as an almost access country for a lot of things, like being one of two native (if you count Ireland as native) English speaking countries in the EU which attracts thanks to English being the lingua franca and for financial services, which you certainly know about.

Tell me, in all honesty, what's actually going to be different? What will you, in your day-to-day life, actually notice? Because that's the problem I see is that most people voted out won't see the difference, but those who voted in will. Want to go to France? Visa! Want to study in Switzerland for a year? Visa! Want to work in Spain? Lol, visa! Need that science funding? Oh, bad luck because it doesn't seem like the UK government has any intention to actually increase it! But that's probably a good thing for you since private = magically better in all ways. Let's not also forget we will probably see prices rise if May goes hard Brexit not just from the drop in the pound (which was going to happen anyway), but from the fact we won't be part of a larger market.

AgnesIO

14-10-2016, 07:48 AM

If Scotland wants to go, let them go.

Drain on our economy, anyway. Ironically, just like how Brexiteers like to say about the EU.

FlyingJesus

14-10-2016, 09:05 AM

4real though I am so confused about the lampshade thing

-:Undertaker:-

14-10-2016, 09:08 AM

I mean, that's basically what I said. But there are ways I think Sweden and some others have sort of "got out of it".

Sweden is still bound by that law to eventually join. It has only stalled joining, for now. If banking, treasury and eventually political union goes ahead then Sweden will have no choice but to join the Euro: or leave the EU.

So you'd disagree with what Farage said about a second referendum before the result?

Yes. I set out before the referendum how I would react/respond in the event of losing. The campaign would have continued of course, but I would have accepted the result and waited until the next treaty change (10 yrs+).

The fight was never going to be over of course given the EU's direction towards eventual political union.

And what exactly are you referring to that remain has said that's turned out false?

The European Defence integration that was announced immediately after the referendum for one.

You could argue people were asked by the party they voted or even just the people they elected. You will probably be thinking when you see that "well it was in their manifesto", well perhaps people shouldn't then revote that party if the EU was such a big concern. The problem here though is ultimately FPTP, which I'm curious where you stand on that.

I support FPTP.

And remember, it was through votes and decades of campaigning that we secured the referendum. Ukip pressured the Conservatives via by-elections into holding a referendum. The Conservatives were then elected on a promise to hold a referendum which they did. In the past, various referendums on treaties have been promised but none were ever delivered. It was our turn to have our say and so we did, reflecting on 40 odd years of membership. We said out.

There's also no guarantee of a Norway option.

Good, and we're not going to get that as the Tory right will not accept it. I did not vote to continue to be subject to the Single Market rules of the EU nor did I vote to continue the jurisdiction of the ECJ or Freedom of Movement.

We'll have access to the Single Market in a Canadian style deal is my view.

Do you actually want to know why I don't want to leave? I don't want to leave because we actually have a fairly comfortable position in the EU; a rather large member with lots of exclusions which benefit us, and lots of inclusions which benefit us. Perhaps we can't make trade deals on our own, but we pretty much act as an almost access country for a lot of things, like being one of two native (if you count Ireland as native) English speaking countries in the EU which attracts thanks to English being the lingua franca and for financial services, which you certainly know about.

The rest of us don't see it like that.

Tell me, in all honesty, what's actually going to be different? What will you, in your day-to-day life, actually notice? Because that's the problem I see is that most people voted out won't see the difference, but those who voted in will. Want to go to France? Visa! Want to study in Switzerland for a year? Visa! Want to work in Spain? Lol, visa! Need that science funding? Oh, bad luck because it doesn't seem like the UK government has any intention to actually increase it! But that's probably a good thing for you since private = magically better in all ways. Let's not also forget we will probably see prices rise if May goes hard Brexit not just from the drop in the pound (which was going to happen anyway), but from the fact we won't be part of a larger market.

See, your side just doesn't understand it even now.

It was never about material things to me and many of the campaigners. There are things in life more important than money, more important than grants, more important than opt outs, more important than spending ten minutes to fill in a visa. This to me was about national sovereignty and my country's independence. Those are the ultimate values to me politically that underpin absolutely everything else, and I wanted it to matter when I went to the ballot box and voted.

I fundamentally disagree with the concept of a federal Europe and therefore the European project is something I cannot go along and do not want my country to go along with. I believe it will end in blood and economic ruin. I have said before that even if the EU was paying us or even me personally £350m a week to be in it, I would still have voted out. Had God appeared before me on the 22nd June and told me I was going to drop dead if I voted Leave then I would have still done it and gladly dropped dead.

I voted on virtues, values, history and identity. Nothing - money, politicians, events - could ever alter my choice. Generations of Britons and our Empire have voluntarily given their very lives for our sovereignty and national independence and I am not going to hand it away to avoid filling in a visa or to avoid a 2.5% trade tariff. Not not, not ever or in a thousand years.

abc

14-10-2016, 10:10 PM

Breaking News: London Mayor Sajid Khan to hold a referendum to make London an independent country.

Oh wait, he won't. Why? Because even if I disagree with the result, we voted as a country and we must respect the decision (even though it was fucking stupid).

Sadly Sturgeon just wants her name in the history books, she doesn't give a rats ass about Scotland. She is a typical politician. Gosh, soon we will have women running everything. Hillary Clinton, Nicola Sturgeon, Theresa May, Angela Merkel, the Queen... and people say women are discriminated against?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Mark

14-10-2016, 11:20 PM

Lucy

15-10-2016, 12:54 PM

Will be interesting to see what happens this time around, I expected this to come after our vote to leave the EU. I think she may be hoping they get to stay in the EU but if I recall they were told last time it doesn't work that way.

-:Undertaker:-

15-10-2016, 03:47 PM

Sturgeon's game is obviously to demand what cannot be had as to force a referendum. Here's her latest trick for today:

787297429930377217

787307326529277952

None of it makes constitutional sense what so ever. The United Kingdom is not a confederation or even a federal state, it is a unitary state. For Scotland to have an 'independent' Parliament would mean Scotland having the status of one of the German Kingdoms in the pre-German Empire - a sort of Holy Roman Empire set up. Now last time I checked, I and everyone else in this realm was not consulted on turning this country into a confederacy?

And as for the Single Market, again deluding herself. On Britain leaving the Single Market, we will no longer be subject to ECJ rulings or Freedom of Movement. In other words, she's advocating a hard border between Scotland and England in order to stay in the Single Market. You'd be forgiven for thinking 100% of Scottish Britons voted to stay in the EU when the reality is that 2 in 5 voted to Leave.

She's right about this though, we have taken over. ;)

787300779270938626

dbgtz

15-10-2016, 03:55 PM

Sweden is still bound by that law to eventually join. It has only stalled joining, for now. If banking, treasury and eventually political union goes ahead then Sweden will have no choice but to join the Euro: or leave the EU.

Whilst you're right, I do wonder how long they can hold off on it for.

Yes. I set out before the referendum how I would react/respond in the event of losing. The campaign would have continued of course, but I would have accepted the result and waited until the next treaty change (10 yrs+).

The fight was never going to be over of course given the EU's direction towards eventual political union.

Just out of curiosity, any evidence of this view I can see?

The European Defence integration that was announced immediately after the referendum for one.

Can't find evidence of Remain denying this would happen.

I support FPTP.

And remember, it was through votes and decades of campaigning that we secured the referendum. Ukip pressured the Conservatives via by-elections into holding a referendum. The Conservatives were then elected on a promise to hold a referendum which they did. In the past, various referendums on treaties have been promised but none were ever delivered. It was our turn to have our say and so we did, reflecting on 40 odd years of membership. We said out.

Decades that could have been avoided if UKIP and others had actually got proper representation in Parliament, not that I believe the EU would have been as big of an issue as it is today if we had PR.

Good, and we're not going to get that as the Tory right will not accept it. I did not vote to continue to be subject to the Single Market rules of the EU nor did I vote to continue the jurisdiction of the ECJ or Freedom of Movement.

We'll have access to the Single Market in a Canadian style deal is my view.

So what you actually are saying is we will have to take on some of the rules of the single market.

The rest of us don't see it like that.

Literally the first thing I say: Do you actually want to know why I don't want to leave? Which I believe I said because you kept assuming you knew why I voted remain.

See, your side just doesn't understand it even now.

It was never about material things to me and many of the campaigners. There are things in life more important than money, more important than grants, more important than opt outs, more important than spending ten minutes to fill in a visa. This to me was about national sovereignty and my country's independence. Those are the ultimate values to me politically that underpin absolutely everything else, and I wanted it to matter when I went to the ballot box and voted.

I fundamentally disagree with the concept of a federal Europe and therefore the European project is something I cannot go along and do not want my country to go along with. I believe it will end in blood and economic ruin. I have said before that even if the EU was paying us or even me personally £350m a week to be in it, I would still have voted out. Had God appeared before me on the 22nd June and told me I was going to drop dead if I voted Leave then I would have still done it and gladly dropped dead.

I voted on virtues, values, history and identity. Nothing - money, politicians, events - could ever alter my choice. Generations of Britons and our Empire have voluntarily given their very lives for our sovereignty and national independence and I am not going to hand it away to avoid filling in a visa or to avoid a 2.5% trade tariff. Not not, not ever or in a thousand years.

Except money isn't just about material goods. It's the food, which we import a lot of from other EU countries which there's no certainty of any kind of deal post-Brexit. It may not be about grants to you directly, but what happens if Westminster doesn't match current EU funding? We just take a massive dump on science? Oh well we may not be innovating but at least I have my sweet sovereignty which I can have with my Shreddies. I'd also argue you've very much understated how frustrating visas can be at times.

You keep going on about not liking a federal Europe, and that's fine I can see your positions in that and I believe if the EU were to evolve into that a lot of remainers would vote out also. But we're not there. We don't have to be there as it has been shown before since we essentially are in our own little club. The only reason we would go further is if we had someone who believed in it which is, you know, if we democratically under FPTP (lol) voted someone to do that.

I like how you reference the British Empire and sovereignty in the same sentence. It's also quite possible that no soldier actually gave a shit about all of that and rather were called under conscription! Or, in more modern cases, simply needed a job i.e. they needed money.

So let me ask, how has the EU in the current form affected British virtues, values, history and identity?

-:Undertaker:-

15-10-2016, 04:30 PM

Whilst you're right, I do wonder how long they can hold off on it for.

Not much longer I think. The EU knows that the long term survival of the Euro depends on the formation of a single treasury, subsidies from west to east in the currency zone and shared financial institutions. All of these of course will lead to the formation of shared political institutions aka a political union. Crunch time is coming.

And that's why I always said to those who claimed they did not want a federal Europe that it was time to disembark the train now rather than in the near future. Had we stayed on the integration train, extracting ourselves would have been much harder and messy ten years down the line when it moved to political union and we were de facto forced out as we could no longer go along with it. What would have been the purpose prolonging our stay on a train that was taking us to a destination we found unpalatable?

Just out of curiosity, any evidence of this view I can see?

On the referendum thread I suspect. I'm a realist. Treaty change would have been our next shot.

Can't find evidence of Remain denying this would happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2IyolsVu8o

Decades that could have been avoided if UKIP and others had actually got proper representation in Parliament, not that I believe the EU would have been as big of an issue as it is today if we had PR.

Ukip could have got into parliament had it fought by-elections properly as well as circumstances favouring them. Ukip is not the only group that has fought for this though, this has long been the work of the Tory backbenches too for decades: the Anti-Federalist League, the Bruges Group, Open Europe, the Maaschtricht Rebels....

The Guardian did an excellent article on the Tory side of the victory and the amount of work over the years that has gone into this if you're interested. Excellent article, very interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/29/daniel-hannan-the-man-who-brought-you-brexit

So what you actually are saying is we will have to take on some of the rules of the single market.

In the sense that companies which trade with the Single Market will abide by EU standards, yes. But that's just like how now anything we sell to Australia abides by Australian standards. Or Japanese standards. Or Canadian standards. The current situation we have is where we're compelled to apply Single Market standards to all of our goods even if they're being sold in this country.

Literally the first thing I say: Do you actually want to know why I don't want to leave? Which I believe I said because you kept assuming you knew why I voted remain.

I think because like the bulk of Remainers you confuse the real purpose of the EU (politics) for economics.

"Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.” - Jean Monnet, Founding Father of European integration

I have never understood how the people advocating the EU often know so little about its origins & purpose.

Except money isn't just about material goods. It's the food, which we import a lot of from other EU countries which there's no certainty of any kind of deal post-Brexit. It may not be about grants to you directly, but what happens if Westminster doesn't match current EU funding? We just take a massive dump on science? Oh well we may not be innovating but at least I have my sweet sovereignty which I can have with my Shreddies. I'd also argue you've very much understated how frustrating visas can be at times.

If you don't like what Westminster is doing then you can vote to change it which has been my point all along.

You keep going on about not liking a federal Europe, and that's fine I can see your positions in that and I believe if the EU were to evolve into that a lot of remainers would vote out also. But we're not there. We don't have to be there as it has been shown before since we essentially are in our own little club. The only reason we would go further is if we had someone who believed in it which is, you know, if we democratically under FPTP (lol) voted someone to do that.

Why is it then that despite the British public in poll after poll, decade after decade, promise after promise being told that no more powers are going to Brussels end up with more powers going to Brussels? Because we're being lied to. Read what Edward Heath wrote a few years after taking us into the EEC about the true intent. Or the secret FCO papers on the complications of joining the EEC. The salami slice method of having us "irrevocably" being pulled into a federal Europe was always the intent and remains the intent for the 27 countries who remain.

Type in almost any EU official's name next to "federal" and you'll get a quote on them advocating it.

I like how you reference the British Empire and sovereignty in the same sentence. It's also quite possible that no soldier actually gave a shit about all of that and rather were called under conscription! Or, in more modern cases, simply needed a job i.e. they needed money.

Actually, false. Britain herself only had to introduce conscription halfway through World War I for example and many patriotic people from all classes signed up to fight for King and Country. In World War II, Enoch Powell himself left his post at an Australian university to go and voluntarily sign up immediately. Across the Empire itself, many countries never introduced conscription - including India - of which many thousands gave their lives for us. Indeed, prior to the World Wars I am not even sure this country had conscription before in it's history.

Money cannot make any sane man go over that trench to face a living Hell. Only God, the nation and family.

So let me ask, how has the EU in the current form affected British virtues, values, history and identity?

Well let me put it like this, can you name a similar constitutional/political development in the last 500 or more years that has applied to our kingdom in the way that European Union law and politics has done? Anybody who understands the political and legal history of this realm understands that EEC/EU membership was truly revolutionary on constitutional terms.

As Professor Anthony King observed in his book The British Constitution: “Not only did Parliament cease to be sovereign, Britain itself ceased to be an old-fashioned sovereign state. The fact of being a member of the EU permeates almost the whole of the British government – to a far greater extent than most Britons seem to realise.”

I cannot since the break with Rome under King Henry VIII think of a comparable 'tumour' on our constitution.

dbgtz

15-10-2016, 05:35 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2IyolsVu8o

>March 2015

Ukip could have got into parliament had it fought by-elections properly as well as circumstances favouring them. Ukip is not the only group that has fought for this though, this has long been the work of the Tory backbenches too for decades: the Anti-Federalist League, the Bruges Group, Open Europe, the Maaschtricht Rebels....

The Guardian did an excellent article on the Tory side of the victory and the amount of work over the years that has gone into this if you're interested. Excellent article, very interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/29/daniel-hannan-the-man-who-brought-you-brexit

It would not have had adequate representation in Parliament from a couple of by elections. That's like saying their 1 current seat represents them well and is totally just. I honestly can't believe you think this is fine yet having a small majority of voters (but not a majority of the electorate) pull us into this unknown state is fine? We probably wouldn't even need rebellious back benchers if we had a better voting system.

In the sense that companies which trade with the Single Market will abide by EU standards, yes. But that's just like how now anything we sell to Australia abides by Australian standards. Or Japanese standards. Or Canadian standards. The current situation we have is where we're compelled to apply Single Market standards to all of our goods even if they're being sold in this country.

But you also can't deny it probably is cheaper in the long run anyway, producing the same thing for a large market rather than slightly altered things for smaller markets?

I think because like the bulk of Remainers you confuse the real purpose of the EU (politics) for economics.

I have never understood how the people advocating the EU often know so little about its origins & purpose.

And yet again you assume my view and my knowledge :) You realise just proposing points like that actually weakens what you say since you basically just end up arguing with yourself. And you say all of that, but it didn't take me long to find that he didn't say the quote and is actually from a book on Europe.

If you don't like what Westminster is doing then you can vote to change it which has been my point all along.

Except FPTP doesn't really work when there is more than 2 parties to choose from, so no it's not that easy to vote for change. MPs get elected without even majority support in most constituencies.

Why is it then that despite the British public in poll after poll, decade after decade, promise after promise being told that no more powers are going to Brussels end up with more powers going to Brussels? Because we're being lied to. Read what Edward Heath wrote a few years after taking us into the EEC about the true intent. Or the secret FCO papers on the complications of joining the EEC. The salami slice method of having us "irrevocably" being pulled into a federal Europe was always the intent and remains the intent for the 27 countries who remain.

Type in almost any EU official's name next to "federal" and you'll get a quote on them advocating it.

If you don't like what Westminster is doing then you can vote to change it which has been your point all along.
You've basically just proved it's not easy to vote for change.

Actually, false. Britain herself only had to introduce conscription halfway through World War I for example and many patriotic people from all classes signed up to fight for King and Country. In World War II, Enoch Powell himself left his post at an Australian university to go and voluntarily sign up immediately. Across the Empire itself, many countries never introduced conscription - including India - of which many thousands gave their lives for us. Indeed, prior to the World Wars I am not even sure this country had conscription before in it's history.

Money cannot make any sane man go over that trench to face a living Hell. Only God, the nation and family.

True, but it was present for all of WW2. I think even the fact it was introduced showed a lot of people would rather live than cared otherwise. Everyone had their own motivations. I'd love for you to say that Indians died for us in the world wars on say /r/india, I'm sure they'd love your almost romanticised view. You are making rather basic views on something that is far more complex.

Well let me put it like this, can you name a similar constitutional/political development in the last 500 or more years that has applied to our kingdom in the way that European Union law and politics has done? Anybody who understands the political and legal history of this realm understands that EEC/EU membership was truly revolutionary on constitutional terms.

I cannot since the break with Rome under King Henry VIII think of a comparable 'tumour' on our constitution.

Depends how you defined a constitutional/political development. I'd say the whole enlightenment/industrial revolution changed a lot. The masses of commoners actually starting to get real input. Yeah I'd say that was pretty big.

-:Undertaker:-

15-10-2016, 06:41 PM

>March 2015

?

It would not have had adequate representation in Parliament from a couple of by elections. That's like saying their 1 current seat represents them well and is totally just. I honestly can't believe you think this is fine yet having a small majority of voters (but not a majority of the electorate) pull us into this unknown state is fine? We probably wouldn't even need rebellious back benchers if we had a better voting system.

Ukip simply did not do well enough to win seats. It can be done though, look at the Liberal Democrats.

As for the result, it is not a small majority of voters. No party or mandate in British electoral history has done over 17 million votes as the Leave campaign did. I can't account for those who didn't bother to vote nor can you. The government presented the referendum to us, promised to implement the result and the country voted Leave on the highest level of turnout in our history. I can't believe you think it's fine to somehow dismiss that mandate.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CurFXpAW8AAhWI4.jpg

But you also can't deny it probably is cheaper in the long run anyway, producing the same thing for a large market rather than slightly altered things for smaller markets?

Even if it were cheaper it wouldn't be an argument for handing over the regulatory system of your whole economy to others. In any case, I don't believe it is cheaper: European countries are much more protectionist than Britain (hence external tariffs the Single Market applies to the rest of the world) and much more a fan of making regulations and rules to protect their industries (see France). Britain has always had a much more free market philosophy so it makes sense that we can regulate to our own needs rather than those of French farmers and Italian industry.

And yet again you assume my view and my knowledge :) You realise just proposing points like that actually weakens what you say since you basically just end up arguing with yourself. And you say all of that, but it didn't take me long to find that he didn't say the quote and is actually from a book on Europe.

He did say the quote - despite what EU federalist Richard Corbett says - and there's tonnes more out there even if that were to be false. Heath, Monnet, Spinelli, Schuman, Delors and countless others. Here's another.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet

"There will be no peace in Europe if the States rebuild themselves on the basis of national sovereignty, with its implications of prestige politics and economic protection…. The countries of Europe are not strong enough individually to be able to guarantee prosperity and social development for their peoples. The States of Europe must therefore form a federation or a European entity that would make them into a common economic unit." ~ Jean Monnet's Speech to the French National Liberation Committee (5 August 1943)

The founders, the treaty itself which states "ever closer union" and everything they've done since literally could not be more clear. This is what I mean by EU advocates seemingly not even knowing the principles, history and motivations behind the very thing they support. At least an admitted EU federalist (rare, although they do exist) has an idea about what he is arguing for no matter how wrong he may be. :P

Except FPTP doesn't really work when there is more than 2 parties to choose from, so no it's not that easy to vote for change. MPs get elected without even majority support in most constituencies.

The problem with proportional representation is that you get even less change than under FPTP. Our current electoral system works excellent when there's a difference between the two major parties: something we've been lacking in the last two decades although it is now obviously changing. Under proportional representation, often a government that has just been voted out ends up back in government despite being absolutely loathed as it is needed to make up the numbers in forming a Coalition.

My view is that FPTP is much more healthy for democracy and even helps avert potential revolution.

If you don't like what Westminster is doing then you can vote to change it which has been your point all along.

You've basically just proved it's not easy to vote for change.

Whoever said anything would be easy? We fought for it though and we won.

True, but it was present for all of WW2. I think even the fact it was introduced showed a lot of people would rather live than cared otherwise. Everyone had their own motivations. I'd love for you to say that Indians died for us in the world wars on say /r/india, I'm sure they'd love your almost romanticised view. You are making rather basic views on something that is far more complex.

Whoever said the post-independence and often Hindu-nationalist Indians of today represent the Indians of the early 1900's who marched into battle in imperial uniform? It's a totally different political culture, although that being said I doubt middle-class affluent Indians on Reddit are that reflective of India even today. That doesn't negate the fact that soldiers from the Raj volunteered to fight for King, the Empire and Britain and over 70,000 lost their lives in that sacrifice.

As I said, it takes more than money - unless you worship Mammon - to walk into bullets and almost certain death. Human beings are complex, and I would argue that there are virtues worth dying for unless you're a cultural desert. Nationhood is certainly one of them, as is family, and a belief in God (to perform a moral duty) doesn't hurt either.

Depends how you defined a constitutional/political development. I'd say the whole enlightenment/industrial revolution changed a lot. The masses of commoners actually starting to get real input. Yeah I'd say that was pretty big.

I mean in terms of sovereignty, self-government and external influence over this realm.

dbgtz

15-10-2016, 07:10 PM

?

I was asking for something from the official Remain campaign, not what one remain backer has said.

Ukip simply did not do well enough to win seats. It can be done though, look at the Liberal Democrats.

As for the result, it is not a small majority of voters. No party or mandate in British electoral history has done over 17 million votes as the Leave campaign did. I can't account for those who didn't bother to vote nor can you. The government presented the referendum to us, promised to implement the result and the country voted Leave on the highest level of turnout in our history. I can't believe you think it's fine to somehow dismiss that mandate.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CurFXpAW8AAhWI4.jpg

But it got like what 3+million votes? And you honestly think that's only good enough for one seat? Are you a joke? Somehow it's OK for me to suggest ignoring the referendum since it's only advisory but screw those 3 million who get next to no real representation on a daily basis.
Honestly the fact you're using raw figures is also a huge joke and I can't even tell if you're doing it intentionally or not.

Even if it were cheaper it wouldn't be an argument for handing over the regulatory system of your whole economy to others. In any case, I don't believe it is cheaper: European countries are much more protectionist than Britain (hence external tariffs the Single Market applies to the rest of the world) and much more a fan of making regulations and rules to protect their industries (see France). Britain has always had a much more free market philosophy so it makes sense that we can regulate to our own needs rather than those of French farmers and Italian industry.

Except, as you said yourself, we would have to take their laws into account anyway. At the end of the day, neither of us are economists nor have I done adequate research into this so I won't bother refuting further.

He did say the quote - despite what EU federalist Richard Corbett says - and there's tonnes more out there even if that were to be false. Heath, Monnet, Spinelli, Schuman, Delors and countless others. Here's another.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet

The founders, the treaty itself which states "ever closer union" and everything they've done since literally could not be more clear. This is what I mean by EU advocates seemingly not even knowing the principles, history and motivations behind the very thing they support. At least an admitted EU federalist (rare, although they do exist) has an idea about what he is arguing for no matter how wrong he may be. :P

"He did say the quote" he says with no proof.
In that second quote you sent, not only was that well before anything even existed, it explicitly states "form a federation or a European entity". Arguably, the EU falls under "Europeon entity" so this doesn't really support your theory of further integration.
I also want to say that just because someone said something a long time ago, doesn't make it applicable to today. Surprisingly, things change.

The problem with proportional representation is that you get even less change than under FPTP. Our current electoral system works excellent when there's a difference between the two major parties: something we've been lacking in the last two decades although it is now obviously changing. Under proportional representation, often a government that has just been voted out ends up back in government despite being absolutely loathed as it is needed to make up the numbers in forming a Coalition.

My view is that FPTP is much more healthy for democracy and even helps avert potential revolution.

Except, and I believe you like to make this point, there's very little difference between the Labour we saw in recent government (i.e. New Labour) and the Conservatives, so where is this change you speak of?

I also want to point out honestly how shitty your argument is. If that government was so loathed they wouldn't get votes in the first place and thus would have no chance in government. If they are needed to actually make up coalition numbers then yes there is change in the government that you seem to be complaining about since the "big player" changes. Imagine how different it would have been if the Lib Dems and Conservatives switched places during 2010-2015.

I'm honestly baffled about someone who in this very thread is complaining about how ignoring he "will of the people" is such a bad thing, but ignoring what is almost certainly a majority of people during an election cycle is OK because you have a belief, with absolutely no historical backing, FPTP "averts potential revolution". And then, the cheek of it, says it's more democratic even though it is almost certainly less so since more people get ignored in elections!

Whoever said anything would be easy? We fought for it though and we won.

Right but you said to me if I didn't like what the government was doing then I should vote for change, which is presumably what you did with UKIP but that ultimately didn't work so you had to revert to other means. You fought, sure, but you didn't get change in government is the whole point. I'd also sort of argue UKIP had very little to do with the actual referendum coming about too (though probably did impact the actual result), but that's a rather different topic.

Whoever said the post-independence and often Hindu-nationalist Indians of today represent the Indians of the early 1900's who marched into battle in imperial uniform? It's a totally different political culture, although that being said I doubt middle-class affluent Indians on Reddit are that reflective of India even today. That doesn't negate the fact that soldiers from the Raj volunteered to fight for King, the Empire and Britain and over 70,000 lost their lives in that sacrifice.

As I said, it takes more than money - unless you worship Mammon - to walk into bullets and almost certain death. Human beings are complex, and I would argue that there are virtues worth dying for unless you're a cultural desert. Nationhood is certainly one of them, as is family, and a belief in God (to perform a moral duty) doesn't hurt either.

I'm not going to continue this assumption of peoples motives.

I mean in terms of sovereignty, self-government and external influence over this realm.

So basically, exactly where it suits you.
But perhaps in the last 500 years, the Scottish, Irish and maybe Welsh might like to have a word with you.

-:Undertaker:-

15-10-2016, 07:39 PM

I was asking for something from the official Remain campaign, not what one remain backer has said.

I have not yet seen one Remain official admit to it.

Instead, like Clegg, they deny it as a delusion of eurosceptics when EU officials say it themselves.

But it got like what 3+million votes? And you honestly think that's only good enough for one seat? Are you a joke? Somehow it's OK for me to suggest ignoring the referendum since it's only advisory but screw those 3 million who get next to no real representation on a daily basis.
Honestly the fact you're using raw figures is also a huge joke and I can't even tell if you're doing it intentionally or not.

It isn't "good" but at the end of the day you have to win seats in Parliament. That's our parliamentary system, and Ukip - through its own faults but also external events - could not do this where as other parties have managed this. But that doesn't matter as it has achieved its goals anyway through exerting pressure on a mainstream party to bring about its aims. I was a member of Ukip, but I am very happy with what we've done and achieved. It was never about the party or acquiring power for the party, it was about the country.

Except, as you said yourself, we would have to take their laws into account anyway. At the end of the day, neither of us are economists nor have I done adequate research into this so I won't bother refuting further.

Sure, but they'll have to take our laws into account. That's what happens when you export goods. I do not mind abiding by other people's regulations when selling in their country: but I do mind being ordered on my own regulations.

"He did say the quote" he says with no proof.
In that second quote you sent, not only was that well before anything even existed, it explicitly states "form a federation or a European entity". Arguably, the EU falls under "Europeon entity" so this doesn't really support your theory of further integration.
I also want to say that just because someone said something a long time ago, doesn't make it applicable to today. Surprisingly, things change.

Things do change yes, and now the European Union has a currency, a central bank, a flag, an anthem, is setting up defense forces and is talking about a single treasury, having a single financial minister and EU-wide taxation. Oh, and eventual political union. Now I ask you, what do you define that as? That is building a state by any measure.

Except, and I believe you like to make this point, there's very little difference between the Labour we saw in recent government (i.e. New Labour) and the Conservatives, so where is this change you speak of?

Well now there's actually differences emerging thanks to the right-wing coup in the Tories and Corbyn's election.

The European Union is one, grammar schools, action in Syria, immigration is another and the replacement of our Trident nuclear weapons system. They're some pretty big differences now opening up between the two major parties.

I also want to point out honestly how shitty your argument is. If that government was so loathed they wouldn't get votes in the first place and thus would have no chance in government. If they are needed to actually make up coalition numbers then yes there is change in the government that you seem to be complaining about since the "big player" changes. Imagine how different it would have been if the Lib Dems and Conservatives switched places during 2010-2015.

You haven't got me.

Say in a hypothetical country with proportional representation people are very angry and vote in a radical new party which manages to get over 50% of the vote which is very hard under proportional systems. Now, five years down the line that party - let's call it the Radical Party - is an absolute failure and is polling a mere 5% (which often happens in PR due to the fluid nature of it). The election comes, and the Radical Party polls 10%. Two other parties, the Communist Party and the Monarchist Party have won the most votes in the parliament with 22% of the vote each.

To form a government, those two parties who are the total opposites of one another will then have to form a Coalition with the much loathed Radical Party to form a government. They're hated. People ask why this party is still in power if it was so badly beaten. And why, despite only having 10% of a vote, it has so much influence on the government. Answer? Because it can blackmail the other two at anytime and bring the government down.

That's not a good situation to be in and I believe Italy is trying to move away from it because of unstable government.

I'm honestly baffled about someone who in this very thread is complaining about how ignoring he "will of the people" is such a bad thing, but ignoring what is almost certainly a majority of people during an election cycle is OK because you have a belief, with absolutely no historical backing, FPTP "averts potential revolution". And then, the cheek of it, says it's more democratic even though it is almost certainly less so since more people get ignored in elections!

The historical backing is between ourselves and the continent. It's also my belief for example that because we haven't got a written constitution that we've also avoided revolution and bloodshed: an unwritten constitution has made us much more fluid to response to societal changes and FPTP has - when there's a genuine sea change in public opinion - allowed us to throw an unpopular government out of office immediately.

Right but you said to me if I didn't like what the government was doing then I should vote for change, which is presumably what you did with UKIP but that ultimately didn't work so you had to revert to other means. You fought, sure, but you didn't get change in government is the whole point. I'd also sort of argue UKIP had very little to do with the actual referendum coming about too (though probably did impact the actual result), but that's a rather different topic.

But voting for Ukip in those European Elections and the General Elections did work because I helped force the referendum which we went on to win. Without the external pressure of Ukip, the Tory backbenchers would've had a hard job.

I'm not going to continue this assumption of peoples motives.

Read up on it, very interesting: it is one of the reasons I am so keen on the Commonwealth and would prioritise trade relations with them. Not just because we're more similar, but because of the blood they sacrificed for us over centuries.

I was reading the other day an interesting piece on this, said how really we betrayed those loyalists in the Raj after World War I by granting concessions (which eventually led to independence) to the Hindu and Muslim nationalists who never fought.

http://warandcolonies.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Gallery-2.jpg

So basically, exactly where it suits you.

But perhaps in the last 500 years, the Scottish, Irish and maybe Welsh might like to have a word with you.

The Scottish, Irish and Welsh are a part of this realm - they're not colonies.

dbgtz

15-10-2016, 08:20 PM

I have not yet seen one Remain official admit to it.

Instead, like Clegg, they deny it as a delusion of eurosceptics when EU officials say it themselves.

So, no, the Remain campaign never claimed such a thing.

It isn't "good" but at the end of the day you have to win seats in Parliament. That's our parliamentary system, and Ukip - through its own faults but also external events - could not do this where as other parties have managed this. But that doesn't matter as it has achieved its goals anyway through exerting pressure on a mainstream party to bring about its aims. I was a member of Ukip, but I am very happy with what we've done and achieved. It was never about the party or acquiring power for the party, it was about the country.

Right, true, but it's only like that because people like you refuse to move from a system which doesn't suit more than 2 parties. It shouldn't have to be a struggle to get representation. In fact, by saying it isn't good you've essentially agreed FPTP is a bad system but are either far too stubborn or too fixated on what was rather than what could be.

Sure, but they'll have to take our laws into account. That's what happens when you export goods. I do not mind abiding by other people's regulations when selling in their country: but I do mind being ordered on my own regulations.

Yes and it's a good thing we're in a much stronger position.

Things do change yes, and now the European Union has a currency, a central bank, a flag, an anthem, is setting up defense forces and is talking about a single treasury, having a single financial minister and EU-wide taxation. Oh, and eventual political union. Now I ask you, what do you define that as? That is building a state by any measure.

The currency doesn't concern us, a central bank relates back to the currency, a flag is used by lots of non-states, depends on the extent of these defence forces, next 2 make sense for the Euro and EU-wide taxation, well I'm not sure what you mean by that but I honestly don't see that happening if it's what I think it is. You also just used "talking about", I could talk about becoming King but doesn't mean it will happen.
You do have to recognise the Euro is very much a different beast so some of those makes sense. There's also no guarantee of us being part of anything further quite honestly.

You know, I'm not even necessarily trying to deny what people are trying to do, but quoting someone from before the EU existed really doesn't prove anything.

Well now there's actually differences emerging thanks to the right-wing coup in the Tories and Corbyn's election.

The European Union is one, grammar schools, action in Syria, immigration is another and the replacement of our Trident nuclear weapons system. They're some pretty big differences now opening up between the two major parties.

But the differences don't matter since I believe as it stands, Corbyn would not get a majority next election so we could just see it go back to New Labour times so they have a greater chance of winning. The fact of the matter is, even if they are both different they're not the only options available and we shouldn't be needlessly limited.

You haven't got me.

Say in a hypothetical country with proportional representation people are very angry and vote in a radical new party which manages to get over 50% of the vote which is very hard under proportional systems. Now, five years down the line that party - let's call it the Radical Party - is an absolute failure and is polling a mere 5% (which often happens in PR due to the fluid nature of it). The election comes, and the Radical Party polls 10%. Two other parties, the Communist Party and the Monarchist Party have won the most votes in the parliament with 22% of the vote each.

To form a government, those two parties who are the total opposites of one another will then have to form a Coalition with the much loathed Radical Party to form a government. They're hated. People ask why this party is still in power if it was so badly beaten. And why, despite only having 10% of a vote, it has so much influence on the government. Answer? Because it can blackmail the other two at anytime and bring the government down.

That's not a good situation to be in and I believe Italy is trying to move away from it because of unstable government.

You use Italy as an example, but looking they seem to have ~10 parties with 3-5 in government. It is ultimately in the second party's interest to not only stay in power too, but remain electable so they would not want to shit all over everything (for no better way to describe it atm). What you describe as blackmail is actually negotiation and that's a benefit of coalitions.

I should say I used to support FPTP for basically the same reasons until I saw that it actually kind of worked in 2010-15.

The historical backing is between ourselves and the continent. It's also my belief for example that because we haven't got a written constitution that we've also avoided revolution and bloodshed: an unwritten constitution has made us much more fluid to response to societal changes and FPTP has - when there's a genuine sea change in public opinion - allowed us to throw an unpopular government out of office immediately.

Sorry, but that's not actually giving any historical backing to your claims.

But voting for Ukip in those European Elections and the General Elections did work because I helped force the referendum which we went on to win. Without the external pressure of Ukip, the Tory backbenchers would've had a hard job.

No. Tory back benchers are the only ones who really pressured Cameron to put the election. Nobody running Leave even wanted UKIP support if I remember rightly. Again, I won't deny UKIP responsibility for the actual result I just see no evidence they were the force for the initial referendum.

The Scottish, Irish and Welsh are a part of this realm - they're not colonies.

Right but I think a lot of their law and sovereignty changed when they stopped being their own countries :P Same goes for England I suppose. Also I'm pretty sure Wales was initially actually part of England after what I assume is after being invaded before splitting off again (can't be bothered to look it up tbh).

-:Undertaker:-

15-10-2016, 09:10 PM

So, no, the Remain campaign never claimed such a thing.

Head of the Remain campaign.

729577493783584768

Right, true, but it's only like that because people like you refuse to move from a system which doesn't suit more than 2 parties. It shouldn't have to be a struggle to get representation. In fact, by saying it isn't good you've essentially agreed FPTP is a bad system but are either far too stubborn or too fixated on what was rather than what could be.

I actually used to, until a few years ago, support moving to proportional representation. I spoilt my ballot in the Alternative Vote (AV) referendum because that choice wasn't on the ballot. Now though - just as I changed my opinion on the House of Lords upon closer examination - I support FPTP because it is the better electoral system. Not perfect of course, can result in strange results but ultimately better for a variety of reasons. Stable government, more control over your local member of parliament and less under the control of the party hierarchies with the PR 'list' system.

Yes and it's a good thing we're in a much stronger position.

From what?

The currency doesn't concern us, a central bank relates back to the currency, a flag is used by lots of non-states, depends on the extent of these defence forces, next 2 make sense for the Euro and EU-wide taxation, well I'm not sure what you mean by that but I honestly don't see that happening if it's what I think it is. You also just used "talking about", I could talk about becoming King but doesn't mean it will happen.
You do have to recognise the Euro is very much a different beast so some of those makes sense. There's also no guarantee of us being part of anything further quite honestly.

Yes but there's a difference between you talking about becoming King and European Union officials signalling very strongly what their next treaty will include. And whilst it is true to say Britain was not included in the currency requirements it is also true to say that it would as a result make it very difficult for us to have remained if these changes take place. How for example would the European Union work and our membership of it work if the Eurozone states acted as one in negotiations and voting (as they're increasingly having to do)? We'd be in a permanent voting minority against the EZ bloc. That's why I said earlier, our exit was not a question of IF but a question of WHEN.

You know, I'm not even necessarily trying to deny what people are trying to do, but quoting someone from before the EU existed really doesn't prove anything.

When the people who wrote the first EU treaties say these things, you listen. When the people who all the buildings in the EU complex in Brussels are named after, you listen. When they're referred to as the Founding Fathers by federalists you listen. Many of the founders have died, but the project lives on. Ideology often outlasts the men who create it: Karl Marx was dead and buried long before the first Communist state (Russia) existed.

But the differences don't matter since I believe as it stands, Corbyn would not get a majority next election so we could just see it go back to New Labour times so they have a greater chance of winning. The fact of the matter is, even if they are both different they're not the only options available and we shouldn't be needlessly limited.

Even under proportional representation you'd still face the "realistically it is X or Y so pick X or Y" choice.

You use Italy as an example, but looking they seem to have ~10 parties with 3-5 in government. It is ultimately in the second party's interest to not only stay in power too, but remain electable so they would not want to shit all over everything (for no better way to describe it atm). What you describe as blackmail is actually negotiation and that's a benefit of coalitions.

Negotiation can often mean that nobody then gets what they wanted.

I should say I used to support FPTP for basically the same reasons until I saw that it actually kind of worked in 2010-15.

Under FPTP it is very rare for coalitions though, that is the beauty of it. Infact you could take the Conservative-Liberal Coalition of 2010-2015 as a prime example of why PR is bad. Neither Tories or Liberals were happy with it.

Sorry, but that's not actually giving any historical backing to your claims.

Look at the number of ineffective weak governments that countries with proportional representation often have. Belgium, Italy and now Spain have faced difficulty with forming coherent and strong governments capable of carrying out reforms. I think it stands to reason that if a government is always on the verge of falling, you do not get strong reforms.

No. Tory back benchers are the only ones who really pressured Cameron to put the election. Nobody running Leave even wanted UKIP support if I remember rightly. Again, I won't deny UKIP responsibility for the actual result I just see no evidence they were the force for the initial referendum.

I don't buy it was the backbenchers. If you remember in the 1990s the Conservative had hell with the eurosceptic backbenchers over the Maaschtrict Treaty which nearly brought the government down: yet no referendum was held. Ukip put the pressure on the government through the European Elections 2009 and 2014 (which they won) as well as by-election results and the defections prior to the election in 2015.

I'll agree with you it wasn't all Ukip but I do think history will remember Farage and Ukip as securing the referendum, although they alone did not win it. After all, it was Farage who first made the link between immigration and the EU: over and over and over again so the two became inseparable. In that piece from the Guardian I linked it had an interesting bit from Farage that I have long thought myself. He says that whilst the likes of Hannan, Carswell and the other Tories would bang on about sovereignty (and rightly so) that doesn't resonate on the doorsteps. You have to make the argument applicable to people's lives because reciting the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights on the doorsteps in Sunderland won't do any good. :P

Right but I think a lot of their law and sovereignty changed when they stopped being their own countries :P Same goes for England I suppose. Also I'm pretty sure Wales was initially actually part of England after what I assume is after being invaded before splitting off again (can't be bothered to look it up tbh).

Indeed but that was the formation of a state which is what the EU is doing but which many EU advocates simply do not understand or bury their heads to the reality of it. And yes Wales was an annexation into the Kingdom of England in the 1300s (from memory) where as Scotland and Ireland were Acts of Union (ie equal partners) although adopting much of the continuing English constitutional set up which became the British constitutional set up.

scottish

15-10-2016, 09:34 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cu0GbqAWgAAWAQI.jpg:large

Rue

16-10-2016, 01:36 AM

786509459514273792

Good. Hold it. I dare you. Infact, Westminster ought to pre-empt her and hold a snap one on our terms not hers.

Quite frankly at the end of my tether with her and her supporters. We had it on this forum too - one or two Scots telling us they'd now go and vote for 'independence' because they didn't get their way in the EU referendum vote. Well why don't you just **** off and vote to be ruled by Belgium/France/Germany then because you're not going to hold the rest of us to ransom anymore.

I'm a Unionist but the Scottish who pretend to be Unionist so long as it benefits just them piss me off.

PS I understand there's a majority of Unionist Scots out there who detest this woman and her ilk as much as I do.

I love Nicola! :)

She is a brilliant first minister and is the leader we need. I voted for Independance from the UK and we were told that if we left then we wouldn't be a part of the European Union and now that the country stayed, it is leaving.

From work, general chat, I've not heard a lot of people speaking about the issue or their opinions on the subject (normally because it leads to arguments lol) but I don't know if there is lots more of a drive towards independance still... Mind you I know Nicola would not risk another independance to be wasteful.

Just my view on it.

Zak

16-10-2016, 10:02 AM

As a Scot, please do not tar us all with the same brush due to the moron that is Nicola Sturgeon. The majority are not like her nor do they support independence. I wish they'd bloody get on and govern!

Ikr I'm fed up with all the drama. Everyday I see BREXIT in the news, its got real old, real fast.

dbgtz

16-10-2016, 02:08 PM

Head of the Remain campaign.

729577493783584768

OK fair enough.
At the end of the day I thought both sides were full of shite. At the very least, the veto part is true.

I actually used to, until a few years ago, support moving to proportional representation. I spoilt my ballot in the Alternative Vote (AV) referendum because that choice wasn't on the ballot. Now though - just as I changed my opinion on the House of Lords upon closer examination - I support FPTP because it is the better electoral system. Not perfect of course, can result in strange results but ultimately better for a variety of reasons. Stable government, more control over your local member of parliament and less under the control of the party hierarchies with the PR 'list' system.

FPTP is certainly not without positives, sure and the MP being more "local" I suppose is easily one of it's best merits compared to some other systems. Though, not all PR systems are list based and I would never really desire one that is since the control is at the hands of the party rather than the people (and I'm really not a fan of parties to be honest, but equally I would never suggest getting rid of them).

From what?

I was just being sarcastic as the EU is in a much stronger negotiating position, but that should be obvious.

Yes but there's a difference between you talking about becoming King and European Union officials signalling very strongly what their next treaty will include. And whilst it is true to say Britain was not included in the currency requirements it is also true to say that it would as a result make it very difficult for us to have remained if these changes take place. How for example would the European Union work and our membership of it work if the Eurozone states acted as one in negotiations and voting (as they're increasingly having to do)? We'd be in a permanent voting minority against the EZ bloc. That's why I said earlier, our exit was not a question of IF but a question of WHEN.

True, but lots of talks go on every day but it doesn't mean it will be successful.
I suppose that's a fair point, but I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to when it comes to a voting minority. We can veto a lot of decisions, and iirc the Parliament is only advisory or something? I don't know exactly, I'm a bit rusty on the subject.

When the people who wrote the first EU treaties say these things, you listen. When the people who all the buildings in the EU complex in Brussels are named after, you listen. When they're referred to as the Founding Fathers by federalists you listen. Many of the founders have died, but the project lives on. Ideology often outlasts the men who create it: Karl Marx was dead and buried long before the first Communist state (Russia) existed.

Whilst I don't inherently disagree, it's quite possible messages get warped over time. I'm just going to take the bible as an example. People often like to listen to the good parts, love thy neighbour and that but don't seem to care too much about gluttony, homosexuality or the many deaths that happen. They will choose the bits they like essentially, and maybe for some in the EU that is the federalism aspect, but I don't think it's ever going to get to the point of federalism without any other kind of arrangement.

Even under proportional representation you'd still face the "realistically it is X or Y so pick X or Y" choice.

Less so. Even if that is the case, it can still massively change the result. I suspect a lot of people would actually vote one of the big parties first and another last, and since a good chunk, possibly even a majority of MPs don't have a majority of the vote, it will almost certainly change the overall result :P

Negotiation can often mean that nobody then gets what they wanted.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. I like the balance that comes with coalitions as it's essentially the result of many views. I don't like the idea of a single party government having essentially free reign thanks to whips and most (or a lot of) MPs being more interested in their careers rather than the people they represent. It would almost certainly be easier to vote individual MPs out on certain other voting systems, well ones that aren't list based.

Under FPTP it is very rare for coalitions though, that is the beauty of it. Infact you could take the Conservative-Liberal Coalition of 2010-2015 as a prime example of why PR is bad. Neither Tories or Liberals were happy with it.

Well, the Conservatives probably are happy with it considering how well they did in 2015 :P
You say beauty though, I obviously disagree with that. I don't want them to be happy with it, I want them to be on edge. I always bought the argument a coalition is inherently unstable, but 10-15 proved that wrong.

Look at the number of ineffective weak governments that countries with proportional representation often have. Belgium, Italy and now Spain have faced difficulty with forming coherent and strong governments capable of carrying out reforms. I think it stands to reason that if a government is always on the verge of falling, you do not get strong reforms.

Then look at strong governments and countries doing well. Germany, Nordic countries etc.

I don't buy it was the backbenchers. If you remember in the 1990s the Conservative had hell with the eurosceptic backbenchers over the Maaschtrict Treaty which nearly brought the government down: yet no referendum was held. Ukip put the pressure on the government through the European Elections 2009 and 2014 (which they won) as well as by-election results and the defections prior to the election in 2015.

I'll agree with you it wasn't all Ukip but I do think history will remember Farage and Ukip as securing the referendum, although they alone did not win it. After all, it was Farage who first made the link between immigration and the EU: over and over and over again so the two became inseparable. In that piece from the Guardian I linked it had an interesting bit from Farage that I have long thought myself. He says that whilst the likes of Hannan, Carswell and the other Tories would bang on about sovereignty (and rightly so) that doesn't resonate on the doorsteps. You have to make the argument applicable to people's lives because reciting the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights on the doorsteps in Sunderland won't do any good. :P

Yes but 1990s was a very different time with Major and Cameron being very different in their approach. I'd argue that people probably saw the referendum as a means of helping a few people out (both Cameron and Boris) since they both seemed to think we would vote remain.

True, but thanks to his focus on presenting immigration as a bad thing we are actually now driving away lots of "good" immigration because not only can people not tell the difference, but they're becoming more intolerant and xenophobic/race crimes have actually risen from what I have read. This isn't to say that all those who voted leave are racist/xenophobic, but rather it was some peoples reasons to vote leave. I do believe if this actual behaviour continues then we will drive certain people away, not just immigrants but also those born here and they will tend to be the more educated ones.

Indeed but that was the formation of a state which is what the EU is doing but which many EU advocates simply do not understand or bury their heads to the reality of it. And yes Wales was an annexation into the Kingdom of England in the 1300s (from memory) where as Scotland and Ireland were Acts of Union (ie equal partners) although adopting much of the continuing English constitutional set up which became the British constitutional set up.

Huh didn't realise Wales was that early, but I guess it makes sense. Still arguably a massive change though, for all countries and I would still say bigger than the EU. Maybe when the EU gets to an actual federation, I will say differently :P