Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

The accuracy of the GERS figures are up for some debate, but that's not particularly relevant to the point you're raising except for the general scale.

The current scale of Scotland's notional 'National debt' as part of the UK is worthless because the finances of an independent Scotland would be arranged quite differently within a relatively few years. Not paying for nukes, investing in renewable energy, possibly setting up an oil fund (if the price ever goes up again). Those policy ideas could totally change under a non-SNP governement too. Being so small, and apparently so poor, an EU member might actual mean Scotland is a net beneficiary of EU membership, which would lighten the debt load somewhat.
The real number could be higher or lower but, an extreme fluke of mathematics aside, it isn't that number.

That's almost a side-issue though as the bolded part of your comment is speculation based on nothing. What examples do you have? Anything relevant or just some more wheeze comparing Scotland being run as a component part of the UK to the UK as a whole? What other nations have entered the world debt market in similar circumstances and what was the outcome?

Nuclear weapons are a tiny, tiny fraction of the UK's budget. I mean, I agree there are better uses of the funding, but the UK govt spent £753.9bn in the last fiscal year, of which nuclear weapons were £2.4bn or 0.3%. That wouldn't clear up Scotland's rather large budget deficit.

Nor is the problem that Scotland is poor; it's only slightly behind France in GDP per capita and would be an EU net contributor (and would probably contribute more per person if it were to join post-independence than it did before Brexit due to the rebate). The main problem is that the Barnett formula is rather generous to Scotland. There would have to be a rather substantial restructuring of the services provided within Scotland in a post-independence world, be it prolonged austerity or a sharp increase in tax rates. Joining the EU would also necessitate joining the Euro, which would be a very poor idea for Scotland because Scotland is and would be regardless of Brexit an intrinsic part of the UK's markets - the pound's monetary policy is almost guaranteed to suit Scotland better than the ECB.

I'm not arguing against independence, because I think Scotland has been woefully treated. I'm just saying it is very difficult to make an economic case for independence. The rUK purchases 61% of all goods exported from Scotland; ending the free trade union that is the UK would have a disastrous effect on that. If you want to make an argument on Scottish independence, it needs to be: this will be economically tough, but sometimes there's a cost to controlling your own future, and frankly, the rUK is dreadful at it.

Personally, I think the best move for Scotland is a push towards effective federalization. Stay in the UK, keep the pound and the various shared legal aspects and so on, but push to repatriate as much else as possible away from Westminster. But I don't know how much patience there is left for that, and I don't blame you.

 

[Audioboxer]

At the end of the day it'll be a decision for the Scottish people, not anyone living in England, Wales or Ireland.

That's precisely what a big portion of the Scottish people are fed up with. Others, namely English, telling us what is best for us. Then if we decide something quite often it ends up the English decided differently and they know best (namely referring to Westminster there).

We need less interference from posh London twats if we hold another referendum and more debate up here amongst ourselves. No more vows, no more promises, no more wheeling the Queen about and waving flags. Just let us debate with our own people and then vote.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

At the end of the day it'll be a decision for the Scottish people, not anyone living in England, Wales or Ireland.

That's precisely what a big portion of the Scottish people are fed up with. Others, namely English, telling us what is best for us.

Sure. I mean, I'm Welsh, but I get your point. I'm just pointing out facts about the economic case, because I'm a pedant and I like economics. If I was Scots, I'd be mighty tempted by independence; I can't see the Conservatives offering federalization and I'm actually rather skeptical Labour would because it would essentially be a permanent concession on the idea they could ever use Scotland again to leverage influence at Westminster. Right now I think I'd be clinging on to the dream, but who knows how things will play out...

 

[Audioboxer]

Sure. I mean, I'm Welsh, but I get your point. I'm just pointing out facts about the economic case, because I'm a pedant and I like economics. If I was Scots, I'd be mighty tempted by independence; I can't see the Conservatives offering federalization and I'm actually rather skeptical Labour would because it would essentially be a permanent concession on the idea they could ever use Scotland again to leverage influence at Westminster. Right now I think I'd be clinging on to the dream, but who knows how things will play out...

Well you guys want out the EU so you're probably all happier than we are up here

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well you guys want out the EU so you're probably all happier than we are up here

I can assure you I personally did not. If anything, I'd say Wales is angrier, though - we're the poorest of the four nations, the one hit hardest by Thatcherism, the one with the highest unemployment rates, the one with the most broken homes and upset dreams. The Leave vote was one of anger and pain and frustration; I've seen precious few celebrations.

 

[Audioboxer]

I can assure you I personally did not. If anything, I'd say Wales is angrier, though - we're the poorest of the four nations, the one hit hardest by Thatcherism, the one with the highest unemployment rates, the one with the most broken homes and upset dreams. The Leave vote was one of anger and pain and frustration; I've seen precious few celebrations.

Yeah I was just jesting. I have no idea what happened in Wales other than to think you chaps were trying to stick it to the man in London. Unfortunately that has backfired so far.

Cameron and Boris are away, but our new incoming overlord isn't exactly looking a great deal better. Potentially worse. There is some merit in joking at Thatcher 2.0.

 

[Maledict]

As with Brutus, the one who wields the knife ends up being skewered himself. Not that I have much love for Johnson or the Tories in general.

At the end of the day it'll be a decision for the Scottish people, not anyone living in England, Wales or Ireland.

That's precisely what a big portion of the Scottish people are fed up with. Others, namely English, telling us what is best for us. Then if we decide something quite often it ends up the English decided differently and they know best (namely referring to Westminster there).

We need less interference from posh London twats if we hold another referendum and more debate up here amongst ourselves. No more vows, no more promises, no more wheeling the Queen about and waving flags. Just let us debate with our own people and then vote.

I think you need to drop the London hate. The public attitude survey showed that the place most similar to Scotland in the Uk is London in terms of political learning and beliefs, London voted almost identically to Scotland in the EU referendum and like Scotland London is considerably more left wing than the rest of the country. Most MPs don't come from London either.

The English idiots you need to focus on are the Home Counties and the stupid fucks up north who voted for economic suicide like Sunderland. London and Scotland should be forming our own federation and escape England!

 

[Mr-Joker]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...nt-homophobes-and-ones-about-to-a7125131.html

What's funny there are some people getting exited that Britain will have another female Prime Minister and this another form of female empowerment that will inspire girls but completely forgetting that those two women are not nice people and not the role model that little girls should be looking up to.

 

[Audioboxer]

I think you need to drop the London hate. The public attitude survey showed that the place most similar to Scotland in the Uk is London in terms of political learning and beliefs, London voted almost identically to Scotland in the EU referendum and like Scotland London is considerably more left wing than the rest of the country. Most MPs don't come from London either.

The English idiots you need to focus on are the Home Counties and the stupid fucks up north who voted for economic suicide like Sunderland. London and Scotland should be forming our own federation and escape England!

London is corruption central. The hate is for the banks, big business and Westminster.

Not the everyday people who may well be the most similar to us up here, and more left leaning. I'd take the London people with us but fuck bringing the business and political side of London. That is what lives inside a bubble of the United Kingdom of London. "Fuck the rest of the country we have our wealth!"

The biggest mistake the rest of England made was shooting themselves in the foot to use the EU vote to get at the establishment. It wasn't the right vote to use that hate. Yes we ejected Cameron but the Tories still rule and are about to insert the next cretin on the Tory production line of the worst fucking MP's imaginable. London is still for all intents and purposes going to retain its wealth and the rest of England who voted to get at London are now going to be even poorer than before without the EU.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

London is corruption central. The hate is for the banks, big business and Westminster.

Not the everyday people who may well be the most similar to us up here, and more left leaning. I'd take the London people with us but fuck bringing the business and political side of London. That is what lives inside a bubble of the United Kingdom of London. "Fuck the rest of the country we have our wealth!"

The biggest mistake the rest of England made was shooting themselves in the foot to use the EU vote to get at the establishment. It wasn't the right vote to use that hate. Yes we ejected Cameron but the Tories still rule and are about to insert the next cretin on the Tory production line of the worst fucking MP's imaginable.

Don't call it London, then. Call it the Westminster bubble or whatnot, but I don't think your average Londoner gets much more out of their friendly neighbourhood banker than you do. Probably less, in the form of cripplingly high rents.

 

[Audioboxer]

Don't call it London, then. Call it the Westminster bubble or whatnot, but I don't think your average Londoner gets much more out of their friendly neighbourhood banker than you do. Probably less, in the form of cripplingly high rents.

Isn't London a Tory haven though? As a Scot I can't help be pissed that we reject that party like the plague but get forced to put up with them non-stop.

Either way I cleared up my thoughts and there's no need for anyone to get upset who lives in London.

If anything you can just look at me as one of the cunts from up North who doesn't think like you down South lol. Hence why you'd be best to just let us fight it out ourselves up here and cut ourselves away from you guys if we do vote that to stay in EU.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Isn't London a Tory haven though? As a Scot I can't help be pissed that we reject that party like the plague but get forced to put up with them non-stop.

Either way I cleared up my thoughts and there's no need for anyone to get upset who lives in London.

No. London overwhelmingly votes Labour and is consistently the most left-leaning part of the UK, more so than Scotland.

I'm not from London and don't live there, but fair's fair.

 

[Audioboxer]

No. London overwhelmingly votes Labour and is consistently the most left-leaning part of the UK, more so than Scotland.

What makes you think it's more left leaning than Scotland? The SNP are undoubtedly the most left leaning party.

Corbyn is more left leaning but as we've just seen the Labour Party is still Tory lite and if they get rid of Corbyn... Well, it's back to business as usual for Labour.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What makes you think it's more left leaning than Scotland? The SNP are undoubtedly the most left leaning party.

Corbyn is more left leaning but as we've just seen the Labour Party is still Tory lite and if they get rid of Corbyn... Well, it's back to business as usual for Labour.

If you look at opinion polling of questions like support for austerity or support for redistribution and so on, London consistently ranks ahead of Scotland on things that most people would consider leftwing hallmarks. In fact, Scotland isn't actually much more leftwing than the UK average (although it is somewhat); I think much of the dislike of the Conservatives and so lack of success in Scotland is a cultural thing and that a non-Conservative branded rightwing party would do very well in Scotland. Ruth Davidson is sort of an example of that insofar as she's run as far away from the national Conservative brand as is possible, but she's still at least somewhat hindered by it.

I don't actually think the SNP are especially left-leaning. They talk big talk, but their policy manifesto is quite difficult to distinguish from late '90s Blair before he managed to establish complete personal control; this is a party that pledged to cut corporation tax after all. Scottish Labour, the Scottish Greens and the Scottish Lib Dems all have party platforms that, on paper at least, are more heavily redistributive than what the SNP offers; Ed Miliband's Labour ran on a UK platform that was more redistributive than the SNP's Scottish platform that year. It's worth noting that people who intend to vote Labour on average see themselves as more leftwing than those who intend to vote SNP - English Labour voters, on a 1 to 10 scale where 1 is most leftwing and 10 is most rightwing, on average place themselves at 3.0. Scottish SNP voters are at 3.9. (If you're curious, England as a whole was 5.2 (ever so marginally rightwing), while Scotland was 4.4 (marginally leftwing, although not quite as marginal as England).

It's a small difference, but I think the main difference between rUK and Scotland is not some giant leftwing predominance, because there isn't really any evidence for that (mild leftwing hegemony at best), but that the "centrist progressives" in the UK died a death insofar as that Blair discredited himself with the Iraq War and then Brown bottled it combined with bad timing from the Great Recession, whereas the SNP fly that banner very successfully and persuasively. Nicola Sturgeon is absolutely excellent at setting out a clear and coherent message; English Labour don't have anyone with an ounce of equivalent talent. The English left as a whole is dying for lack of talent.

 

[gerg]

What makes you think it's more left leaning than Scotland? The SNP are undoubtedly the most left leaning party.

When given power to increase taxes the SNP's proposals were the second most modest, behind only the Tories.

The SNP is certainly left-leaning, but contains contradictions within it such as a love of centralisation. (Plus, any nationalist party might be considered to work inherently against an internationalist perspextive.)

 

[Out 1]

I can't believe we are in a situation where I WANT Theresa May as prime minister.
This are fucking crazy times.
Oh sorry Theresa, I said fuck on the internet I know you're reading this and I can only apologise for that and my thought crimes.

lol

The prospect of Theresa May as the leader of a major European country is scary.

 

[Arials]

eferring to LGBT asylum seekers having to prove their sexuality. Why would their sexuality even be of interest?

If they're asking for asylum because they're saying they've been persecuted for being homosexual in their home country. Obviously in such cases it is of interest. Every asylum seeker is expected to provide evidence and explain the bad things that happened to them, how else would the asylum process work?

 

[Yamauchi]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...nt-homophobes-and-ones-about-to-a7125131.html

So ... they're conservatives?

Articles like this are so silly. Look how disgusting it is that this person holds a conservative position on a given social issue!

 

[twobear]

So ... they're conservatives?

Articles like this are so silly. Look how disgusting it is that this person holds a conservative position on a given social issue!

It's actually more like, look how disgusting this person is for holding a disgusting position on a given social issue.

 

[Beefy]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...nt-homophobes-and-ones-about-to-a7125131.html

Today on ITV News she clarified that she was “not happy” about the gay marriage law because of “hurt caused to many Christians”. Marriage, she continued, should have remained “as a Christian service that was for men and women who wanted to commit in the eyes of god"

Scary shit.

 

[anonymous_abc]

So when do the tories vote?

 

[Elaugaufein]

No. London overwhelmingly votes Labour and is consistently the most left-leaning part of the UK, more so than Scotland.

I'm not from London and don't live there, but fair's fair.

Huh, that's interesting. Not really surprising on reflection though, since London is a much larger version of the sort of demographics that produce seats where the real fight is between be Greens and Labor in Australia.

 

[Hasney]

So ... they're conservatives?

Articles like this are so silly. Look how disgusting it is that this person holds a conservative position on a given social issue!

Yet David Cameron was very much in favour of equality. This is what people are worried about, we're going back to the Tory leader of 30 years ago in terms of social issues, which is a huge shame because for all his faults, Cameron did good in that area.

 

[Pandy]

Nuclear weapons are a tiny, tiny fraction of the UK's budget. I mean, I agree there are better uses of the funding, but the UK govt spent £753.9bn in the last fiscal year, of which nuclear weapons were £2.4bn or 0.3%. That wouldn't clear up Scotland's rather large budget deficit.

Nor is the problem that Scotland is poor; it's only slightly behind France in GDP per capita and would be an EU net contributor (and would probably contribute more per person if it were to join post-independence than it did before Brexit due to the rebate). The main problem is that the Barnett formula is rather generous to Scotland. There would have to be a rather substantial restructuring of the services provided within Scotland in a post-independence world, be it prolonged austerity or a sharp increase in tax rates. Joining the EU would also necessitate joining the Euro, which would be a very poor idea for Scotland because Scotland is and would be regardless of Brexit an intrinsic part of the UK's markets - the pound's monetary policy is almost guaranteed to suit Scotland better than the ECB.

I'm not arguing against independence, because I think Scotland has been woefully treated. I'm just saying it is very difficult to make an economic case for independence. The rUK purchases 61% of all goods exported from Scotland; ending the free trade union that is the UK would have a disastrous effect on that. If you want to make an argument on Scottish independence, it needs to be: this will be economically tough, but sometimes there's a cost to controlling your own future, and frankly, the rUK is dreadful at it.

Personally, I think the best move for Scotland is a push towards effective federalization. Stay in the UK, keep the pound and the various shared legal aspects and so on, but push to repatriate as much else as possible away from Westminster. But I don't know how much patience there is left for that, and I don't blame you.

We're not talking abput the past, we're talking about the future.

The renewal of Trident was expected to cost £100bn over something like a decade (who knows what the falling pound has done to that, but anyway,) Scotland's share of that would be roughly £8-10bn over the decade depending how you do the mathematics, let's say circa £1bn a year.
The number given for Scotland's deficit was £15bn, we haven't reduced it, but on that one item alone we've prevented Scotland's deficit from being 6.7% above that for 10 years. That's not a 'tiny' fraction, and it's a good example of how the finances of an independent Scotland would be different from Scotland remaining in the UK.

While personally I have no issue with joining the Euro if the numbers look good, particularly if the Pound goes down the toilet, there is nothing that says Scotland would be forced to join the Euro. You're regurgitating old debunked arguments from the Indy ref.

I agree that it would be economically tough, but no tougher than for most small countries once everything was up and running, and, to return to the topic, with the benefit of not erasing our links with the EU and giving us other options for future growth beyond being trapped in either May or Leadsome's vision of the future.

EDIT: Tidied up some phrasing.

 

[Commander Jameson]

Not sure I've seen this here. Comparison of options facing the UK (how valid it is, I don't know, but looks sensible).

Edit: There are some obvious issues with the chart about the ticks and crosses and the viewpoint you can take when looking at the rows. For example, "Regulatory independence" might be seen as a good thing by a Leave voter. The chart rows, in particular, need to be reworded to be more neutral and the ticks and crosses revised to reflect the viewpoints.

 

[accel]

Not sure I've seen this here. Comparison of options facing the UK (how valid it is, I don't know, but looks sensible).

The cell for "Norway" / free movement of people should have an additional note reading "may limit through article 112" near the check mark.

 

[BossDarkseid]

Finally got an email reply from Chris Grayling about the result and his intentions if it went to a vote in parliament.

Basically said it's impossible to tell what the result is in Epsom & Ewell as it was about a 2/3 turn out. Which somehow boggles my mind considering it was a...mid 70s turnout nationwide? I mean the reported result in E&E is Remain so....eh.

 

[Uzzy]

Don't call it London, then. Call it the Westminster bubble or whatnot, but I don't think your average Londoner gets much more out of their friendly neighbourhood banker than you do. Probably less, in the form of cripplingly high rents.

London does get a ton of resources poured into it though. Just as an example, there's been four major rail projects in London since 2000, while Hull can't even get a timetable for electrification of it's rail line.

You're right though, it'd be better to call it City of London & Westminster hate. Maybe when they shut down the Palace of Westminster for essential renovation work, they can move Parliament up here to Hull, there's plenty of vacant office space around for them to work in. Might even focus their minds on investing in the rest of the country.

 

[kmag]

The cell for "Norway" / free movement of people should have an additional note reading "may limit through article 112" near the check mark.

Not according almost every single EU law expert I've read.

if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectoral or regional nature arise and are liable to persist"

Very very difficult to make a case that you could use that to limit free movement of people nationwide in the country the size of Britain (ie we're not effing Liechtenstein) . It's essentially meant to be a per market sector limitation.

It's only the usual UKIP/Flexcit fantasists making the case (literally google EEA article 112 and you'll get all the usual suspects and no one else except one Bloomberg reference talking about Flexcit talking about it, and since the flexcit/ukip/nutters are where you seem to get most of your fantasies from it's hardly surprising you'd cling to it) that 112 is any sort of solution to the free movement of people.

CHAPTER 4
SAFEGUARD MEASURES
Article 112
1. If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.
2. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement.
3. The safeguard measures shall apply with regard to all Contracting Parties.
Article 113
1. A Contracting Party which is considering taking safeguard measures under Article 112 shall, without delay, notify the other Contracting Parties through the EEA Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.
2. The Contracting Parties shall immediately enter into consultations in the EEA Joint Committee with a view to finding a commonly acceptable solution.
3. The Contracting Party concerned may not take safeguard measures until one month has elapsed after the date of notification under paragraph 1, unless the consultation procedure under paragraph 2 has been concluded before the expiration of the stated time limit. When exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action exclude prior examination, the Contracting Party concerned may apply forthwith the protective measures strictly necessary to remedy the situation.For the Community, the safeguard measures shall be taken by the EC Commission.
4. The Contracting Party concerned shall, without delay, notify the measures taken to the EEA Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.
5. The safeguard measures taken shall be the subject of consultations in the EEA Joint Committee every three months from the date of their adoption with a view to their abolition before the date of expiry envisaged, or to the limitation of their scope of application. Each Contracting Party may at any time request the EEA Joint Committee to review such measures.
Article 114
1. If a safeguard measure taken by a Contracting Party creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under this Agreement, any other Contracting Party may towards that Contracting Party take such proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of the EEA.
2. The procedure under Article 113 shall apply.

And if you don't like what the EEA Joint Committee has to say, you have abide by the the leavers most favoured institution the ECJ (who have consistently backed free movement)

If the EEA Joint Committee in such a dispute has not reached an agreement on a solution within six months from the date on which this procedure was initiated or if, by then, the Contracting Parties to the dispute have not decided to ask for a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, a Contracting Party may, in order to remedy possible imbalances,
- either take a safeguard measure in accordance with Article 112(2) and following the procedure of Article 113;
- or apply Article 102 mutatis mutandis.
4. If a dispute concerns the scope or duration of safeguard measures taken in accordance with Article 111(3) or Article 112, or the proportionality of rebalancing measures taken in accordance with Article 114, and if the EEA Joint Committee after three months from the date when the matter has been brought before it has not succeeded to resolve
the dispute, any Contracting Party may refer the dispute to arbitration under the procedures laid down in Protocol
33. No question of interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement referred to in paragraph 3 may be dealt with in such procedures. The arbitration award shall be binding on the parties to the dispute.

Like pretty much all of your theories, the cold harsh light of logic and you know reality turns it to smoke when you spend more than cursory glance at it. Actually that's slightly unfair, I suppose you could argue that article 112 should put a check mark against free movement of people but it's far far far far more limited than actual limits. It's mean to be used if you are getting too many fruit pickers or too many dentists and they're depressing one sector. It's not a panacea against all free movement at all.

 

[RedShift]

London does get a ton of resources poured into it though. Just as an example, there's been four major rail projects in London since 2000, while Hull can't even get a timetable for electrification of it's rail line.

You're right though, it'd be better to call it City of London & Westminster hate. Maybe when they shut down the Palace of Westminster for essential renovation work, they can move Parliament up here to Hull, there's plenty of vacant office space around for them to work in. Might even focus their minds on investing in the rest of the country.

London is by far a net contributor to the UK budget. In fact it's pretty much the only part of the UK that is.

So really you mean 'not as much money is poured out of London as you'd like'. Which isn't necessarily a wrong opinion, Id probably agree, but to say resources are being poured into London is pretty inaccurate.

 

[Uzzy]

London is by far a net contributor to the UK budget. In fact it's pretty much the only part of the UK that is.

So really you mean 'not as much money is poured out of London as you'd like'. Which isn't necessarily a wrong opinion, Id probably agree, but to say resources are being poured into London is pretty inaccurate.

London gets 24 times as much spent on infrastructure per resident than north-east England

 

[RedShift]

London gets 24 times as much spent on infrastructure per resident than north-east England

Yes, but it still creates more in tax revenue than is spent in London. So it's not like the rest of the country is paying for London's transport infrastructure.

 

[mrklaw]

So Gove backstabbing Boris basically guaranteed neither would stand for PM - Boris withdrew and Gove somehow upset the tories who normally are well up for a good backstab.

Leaving us now with thatcher 2.0 and George W Bush in a wig

 

[Uzzy]

Yes, but it still creates more in tax revenue than is spent in London. So it's not like the rest of the country is paying for London's transport infrastructure.

No, the rest of the country just get much less spent on it. 24 times less in some cases.

Maybe the North would have more to contribute in taxes if every part of the English economy and politics and culture wasn't geared towards benefitting London.

 

[Lego Boss]

Yes, but it still creates more in tax revenue than is spent in London. So it's not like the rest of the country is paying for London's transport infrastructure.

London is like smoking, it generates more revenue for the exchequer than it takes out, but those who aren't invested in it, only see the negatives, especially as it seems to be the centre of the world (for now).

Spoiler

I like London and don't live there

 

[accel]

Very very difficult to make a case that you could use that to limit free movement of people nationwide in the country the size of Britain (ie we're not effing Liechtenstein).

The UK would argue that it is facing a "societal difficulty of regional nature liable to persist" with respect to immigrants, I imagine. Whether or not it will be successful, I don't know, but I don't see much suggesting it wouldn't be. Ie, there have been way more people entering the UK than leaving for years, that's just numbers, and we just had the referendum voting to Leave the EU partly based on that, that demonstrates "societal difficulty". Maybe the UK wouldn't be successful, but that requires something other than the text of the EEA agreement, because the agreement doesn't suggest that it wouldn't be, article 112 is a pretty regular safeguard, it was invoked several times, not sure why not now as well.

The size of the country is irrelevant, that's why there are no references to it in text.

I am not saying the article is a panacea, it is a temporary measure.

It's only the usual UKIP/Flexcit fantasists making the case (literally google EEA article 112 and you'll get all the usual suspects and no one else except one Bloomberg reference talking about Flexcit talking about it, and since the flexcit/ukip/nutters are where you seem to get most of your fantasies from it's hardly surprising you'd cling to it) that 112 is any sort of solution to the free movement of people.

That's a new vibe - pairing Flexcit since I mentioned it with "nutters" in order to just say that this is all irrelevant and unrealistic and be done with it? OK.

 

[Kathian]

Yes, but it still creates more in tax revenue than is spent in London. So it's not like the rest of the country is paying for London's transport infrastructure.

Can't believe people still spout this nonsense. London raises revenue because that's where business likes to operate - why? Because that's where the infrastructure is.

 

[kmag]

The UK would argue that it is facing a "societal difficulty of regional nature liable to persist" with respect to immigrants, I imagine. Whether or not it will be successful, I don't know, but I don't see much suggesting it wouldn't be. Ie, there have been way more people entering the UK than leaving for years, that's just numbers, and we just had the referendum voting to Leave the EU partly based on that, that demonstrates "societal difficulty".

The size of the country is irrelevant, that's why there are no references to it in text.

I am not saying the article is a panacea, it is a temporary measure.

Regional. Not National. Regional.

 

[Monty Mole]

No, the rest of the country just get much less spent on it. 24 times less in some cases.

Maybe the North would have more to contribute in taxes if every part of the English economy and politics and culture wasn't geared towards benefitting London.

It absolutely would. The ongoing London-centric attitude of Westminster is shocking. If other UK cities had seen anywhere near the same amount of investment over the years, then they'd be right up there with the capital. And as London gets overpopulated and house prices become ridiculous, you'd think the government would be focusing on creating a true second city, whether Birmingham or Manchester, rather than just pumping more money in to Crossrail, another Heathrow runway and HS2. And yes, HS2 is all about getting more people in and out of London, not the other way round.

 

[Maledict]

It absolutely would. The ongoing London-centric attitude of Westminster is shocking. If other UK cities had seen anywhere near the same amount of investment over the years, then they'd be right up there with the capital. And as London gets overpopulated and house prices become ridiculous, you'd think the government would be focusing on creating a true second city, whether Birmingham or Manchester, rather than just pumping more money in to Crossrail, another Heathrow runway and HS2. And yes, HS2 is all about getting more people in and out of London, not the other way round.

I'm all for criticsicing the neglect of the other cities, particulary in the north. But let's not pretend that spending a lot of money on Birmingham would turn it into another London. London is an oddity - it's the world financial capital for a lot of reasons, and very few of those have to do with cross rail. It's a unique city and has a unique place in the country / world.

 

[accel]

Regional. Not National. Regional.

You aren't being serious, are you. If there is a national problem with immigration, there are regional problems with immigration. It's the reverse that isn't necessarily true. (To put it shortly, if the UK lays out the argument for a national problem and the EU objects based on it being "National, not Regional' like you do above, the UK will simply pick a region that voted Leave and repeat all points without changes. There is always a region where the problem is at least as bad as all over the country, that's just math.)

 

[kmag]

The UK would argue that it is facing a "societal difficulty of regional nature liable to persist" with respect to immigrants, I imagine. Whether or not it will be successful, I don't know, but I don't see much suggesting it wouldn't be. Ie, there have been way more people entering the UK than leaving for years, that's just numbers, and we just had the referendum voting to Leave the EU partly based on that, that demonstrates "societal difficulty". Maybe the UK wouldn't be successful, but that requires something other than the text of the EEA agreement, because the agreement doesn't suggest that it wouldn't be, article 112 is a pretty regular safeguard, it was invoked several times, not sure why not now as well.

The size of the country is irrelevant, that's why there are no references to it in text.

I am not saying the article is a panacea, it is a temporary measure.



That's a new vibe - pairing Flexcit since I mentioned it with "nutters" in order to just say that this is all irrelevant and unrealistic and be done with it? OK.

No the flexcit proposal is pure nutballary. A simple extension of getting the cake and eating it brexiters are so fond of. The notion that the EU would let you in as temporary measure while you destablise them is pure utter stupidity. And flexcit has been overtaken by political events. Very hard to have a super secret plan to pump and dump the EEA when you have to tell the racist nutballs at home no we don't really want to see with these pesky freedoms of movement, it'll only be until we get out shit together.

 

[accel]

No the flexcit proposal is pure nutballary. A simple extension of getting the cake and eating it brexiters are so fond of. The notion that the EU would let you in as temporary measure while you destablise them is pure utter stupidity. And flexcit has been overtaken by political events. Very hard to have a super secret plan to pump and dump the EEA when you have to tell the racist nutballs at home no we don't really want to see with these pesky freedoms of movement, it'll only be until we get out shit together.

That's your argument? That's a "pure nutballary", they want to "get the cake and eat it", the notion that the EU would let them is "pure utter stupidity" and they will also fail because they will have to tell the "racist nutballs" something (and obviously racist nutballs are too racist and too nutty)???

There's nothing worth replying to here. I am going to skip all future messages like this.

 

[Chinner]

I wonder if Westminster will learn from the vote and invest more into Northern towns and cities.

I'm guessing no.

 

[kmag]

That's your argument? That's a "pure nutballary", they want to "get the cake and eat it", the notion that the EU would let them is "pure utter stupidity" and they will also fail because they will have to tell the "racist nutballs" something (and obviously racist nutballs are too racist and too nutty)???

There's nothing worth replying to here. I am going to skip all future messages like this.

Oh noes. Simple question why would the 31 EU, EEA and EFTA (each of whom can stop the process dead) let the UK join the EEA what would be a transparently temporary measure? What possible reasoning would each of them have (considering a few of them have almost no trade with the UK at all) for double dipping on the disruption. Destabilising the entire EU, EEA and EFTA by agreeing a special deal with the UK to get around the UK's own internal political considerations for a short term measure to er protect the UK economy?

It's nonsense dreamt up by fantasists to try to give some made up rationale to support the self-harm they're perpetrating on accounts their fear of the other.

When your answer to every tricky question is "because we're the UK" or "German Car Manufacturers" then you're in the realm of nutballery.

 

[Maledict]

I wonder if Westminster will learn from the vote and invest more into Northern towns and cities.

I'm guessing no.

Would it make a difference? The EU pours money into those places and look how they voted. Heck, Sunderland voting to leave with what impact it will have on the car industry there is staggering.

Let's not forget that according to ashcrofts polling the biggest single indicators of whether someone voted leave wasn't their wealth, their age or where they live - it was their beliefs on *cultural* issues. The death penalty, feminism, climate change. This vote was in many ways a cultural push back vote from the part of the country that is a lot more right wing culturally than we thought. After all, it's not like the wealthy areas of Kent need more investment,

 

[shinra-bansho]

My god.

The members of the EEA aren't going to give the UK a special arrangement because a bunch of xenophobes want it.

And the EU isn't going to continue to negotiate some magical agreement that gives the UK everything it wants when the UK is in the EEA assuming it even gets in, which isn't safe.

If you don't want people pointing out that you're posting fanciful nonsense that will never happen then don't post fanciful nonsense that will never happen.

 

[oti]

New German polls:

About the UK deciding to leave the EU:
70% Not good / 12% Good / 16% Don't care

About possible concessions the EU should make in negotiations with the UK:
10% EU should make very strong or strong concessions / 49% not that strong concessions / 37% no concessions at all / 4% don't know

51% believe the EU is benefitial for Germany while only 10% believe the disantvages are bigger than the advantages (the rest says they equal each other out).
The EU has never been more popular in Germany.

http://www.heute.de/nach-dem-brexit...gen-terroranschlaegen-geaendert-44298798.html

Translation: Germany won't go easy in the negotiations.

 

[accel]

The members of the EEA aren't going to give the UK a special arrangement because a bunch of xenophobes want it.

It's not a special arrangement, article 112 is part of the agreement and it has been invoked several times, including by the EU themselves.

 

[anonymous_abc]

New German polls:

About the UK deciding to leave the EU:
70% Not good / 12% Good / 16% Don't care

About possible concessions the EU should make in negotiations with the UK:
10% EU should make very strong or strong concessions / 49% not that strong concessions / 37% no concessions at all / 4% don't know

51% believe the EU is benefitial for Germany while only 10% believe the disantvages are bigger than the advantages (the rest says they equal each other out).
The postitivity towards the EU has never been higher in Germany.

http://www.heute.de/nach-dem-brexit...gen-terroranschlaegen-geaendert-44298798.html

Translation: Germany won't go easy in the negotiations.

But we were told the Germans would be the next to Dexit the EU!

Spoiler

[/s]