Scotland wants to veto UK exit from EU if vote goes that way.

[kylemore]

Referendums for Scotland breakaway are authorised by the UK parliament, not the Scottish Executive.

What's the "Scottish Executive"?

Referendums on Independence are a matter for the Scottish People through elections to the Scottish Parliament based on the principle that the Scottish People are "Sovereign", not a monarch, not a parliament but the people.

Admittedly this principle has not been seriously tested recently but bring it on!

 

[ainsworth74]

As far as I'm aware in order for a referendum to be binding it has to be authorised by Westminster? Nothing stopping Scotland holding one but it won't be binding on Westminster (similar to the recent referendum in Catalonia which voted overwhelmingly for independence but was not binding on Madrid hence there isn't an independent Catalan) therefore Westminster would be under no obligation to do anything.

Now they probably would respond in some manner but only a referendum authorised by Westminster guarantees independence in the event of a 'Yes' vote.

 

[muz379]

I can't see the EU making the changes that the UK want, just for one country. But rather than being full EU members, the UK could enter into agreements with the EU such as the European Economic Area (like Norway), the Free-trade agreement (such as Switzerland.)

This would allow free trade to continue, as well as free movement of capital, services and people. As the UK isn't within Schengen anyway there would be virtually no difference to today, except that many EU laws would not have to be enshrined into UK law, which seems to be the major gripe everyone has.

We could of course leave the EU and then reach a number of bilateral agreements with the EU in order to facilitate trade with them not to mention goods and services we export would have to comply with eu regulations guaranteeing quality and safety . However one of the massive criticism eurosceptics levy at our relationship with the EU is how undemocratic it is . In my view it seems common sense to suggest that leaving the eu but then having to submit to bilateral agreements negotiated without being members and comply with regulations without our MEP's input is more undemocratic . So for that reason the only democratic solution to the EU problem is to leave the EU and not trade with it . Seeing as this would ruin our country I guess the second preference would be to remain a member .

Whats more many of the things that are pedalled as negatives by eurosceptics we would have to comply with as parts of other treaty oblications we have entered into as a country on our own anyway . For example many people lost their collective minds when it was announced that powerful vacuum cleaners could no longer be sold . I remember a particularly angry UKIP man lecturing me on the travesty that is the non availability of the traditional filament lightbulb . The fact remains that whilst this was brought in by an eu directive our obligation to cut our carbon emissions was made under the kyoto protocol which we freely signed as a nation in our own right . The only difference if we weren't EU members would be that it would be a civil servant in the UK that would draw up the rules not one in Brussels . When it comes to aims that are global in nature it makes more sense to have civil servants draw up directives that apply in a larger area . What would the cost increase be for the UK government if it had to provide hundreds more civil servants and what would the cost increases be for the end user if Dyson had to make a model of vaccum cleaner that specifically was tested for and complied with UK only rules .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As far as I'm aware in order for a referendum to be binding it has to be authorised by Westminster? Nothing stopping Scotland holding one but it won't be binding on Westminster (similar to the recent referendum in Catalonia which voted overwhelmingly for independence but was not binding on Madrid hence there isn't an independent Catalan) therefore Westminster would be under no obligation to do anything.

Now they probably would respond in some manner but only a referendum authorised by Westminster guarantees independence in the event of a 'Yes' vote.

Indeed , and to me it would seem silly to hold another referendum so close to the GE and not this long after the last referendum . I cant see another independence referendum now until after the Eu referendum personally .

I would also be careful of assimilating an increase in votes with the SNP with a unified argument for independence . I know someone who lives north of the border who voted SNP but does not want independence . Their reasoning being a tactical one .

If the Scots did decide to hold an unofficial one the government in Westminster would just claim the question was asked wrong or something like that .

 

[chorleyjeff]

I was only trying to inject a bit of levity into the discussion

Oh. Thanks for winding me up
I need to lighten up on this Scottish stuff.
Cheers

 

[AM9]

What's the "Scottish Executive"?

The 'Scottish Executive' is the name given to the legislative assembly led by the first minister as declared in the Scotland Act 1998. scottish 'parliament'/'government' soubriquets were invented by the SNP when they got a majority vote in 2007, but the official name hasn't changed from that stated in the Scotland Act.

 

[Dave1987]

One fantastic thing that is coming out of the future EU referendum is companies and individuals coming out and explaining what the EU means to us. A lot of people have just seen the EU as a load of bureaucrats in Brussels making ridiculous laws by which have to comply with. People see the European Court of Human Rights as a place that the likes of Abu Khatarda can go to to force the UK tax payer to provide him and his family with a six bedroom mansion. There have been many other examples where people who hate this country have used the ECHR as a way of forcing the Govt to not extradite them and provide them with housing etc etc.

There are clearly some compelling reasons to stay in the EU but it has to reform. Like I said before I believe the EU needs us more than we need them, therefore they should be prepared to make concessions for our continued membership.

 

[chorleyjeff]

One fantastic thing that is coming out of the future EU referendum is companies and individuals coming out and explaining what the EU means to us. A lot of people have just seen the EU as a load of bureaucrats in Brussels making ridiculous laws by which have to comply with. People see the European Court of Human Rights as a place that the likes of Abu Khatarda can go to to force the UK tax payer to provide him and his family with a six bedroom mansion. There have been many other examples where people who hate this country have used the ECHR as a way of forcing the Govt to not extradite them and provide them with housing etc etc.

There are clearly some compelling reasons to stay in the EU but it has to reform. Like I said before I believe the EU needs us more than we need them, therefore they should be prepared to make concessions for our continued membership.

What is the connection between the EU and European Court of Human Rights?

 

[muz379]

One fantastic thing that is coming out of the future EU referendum is companies and individuals coming out and explaining what the EU means to us. A lot of people have just seen the EU as a load of bureaucrats in Brussels making ridiculous laws by which have to comply with. People see the European Court of Human Rights as a place that the likes of Abu Khatarda can go to to force the UK tax payer to provide him and his family with a six bedroom mansion. There have been many other examples where people who hate this country have used the ECHR as a way of forcing the Govt to not extradite them and provide them with housing etc etc.

There are clearly some compelling reasons to stay in the EU but it has to reform. Like I said before I believe the EU needs us more than we need them, therefore they should be prepared to make concessions for our continued membership.

you do realize that the EU and the European Court of Human Rights are two distinct separate entities dont you ?...

 

[Dave1987]

I was under the impression membership of the ECHRs was a must as a member of the EU.

 

[ainsworth74]

And more to the point the ECHR was heavily influenced by the UK in line with principles we felt important...

When did that change?

 

[muz379]

I was under the impression membership of the ECHRs was a must as a member of the EU.

I believe you are thinking of the council of europe which is also a seperate entity ,

In any event the referendum wording is to only ask the question about EU membership and so will not effect our relationship with the European Court of Human rights and our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights . Given that the Government today also shelved plans to scrap the Human Rights Act it seems clear to me that the ECHR is here to stay for the foreseeable future regardless of the outcome in the referendum.

 

[Bevan Price]

If the EU was just about free trade between nations, I think we would be best remaining inside. However, I think we need to stop EU and its bureaucrats from meddling in affairs that should be the sole responsibility of UK and its government, e.g. civil & criminal law, social policy, rights to benefits, internal transport policy, etc.

 

[AM9]

I believe you are thinking of the council of europe which is also a seperate entity ,

In any event the referendum wording is to only ask the question about EU membership and so will not effect our relationship with the European Court of Human rights and our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights . Given that the Government today also shelved plans to scrap the Human Rights Act it seems clear to me that the ECHR is here to stay for the foreseeable future regardless of the outcome in the referendum.

Interesting that the Conservative Government see fit to hold a referendum over whether the UK stays in the EU, but are quite happy to make a sweeping change to our justice system without any mandate. Today's news of delaying the plans to scrap the HR law is also compounded by putting Gove in charge of it. He will be safely removed before he can do too much damage to the party before the term completes, so our Human Rights will be saved by default.

 

[HilversumNS]

Interesting that the Conservative Government see fit to hold a referendum over whether the UK stays in the EU, but are quite happy to make a sweeping change to our justice system without any mandate.

They do have a mandate to do this, they got it via the elections on Thursday 7 May 2015.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I am in the middle ground on the EU, neither for it or against it. But I hear all the time from the pro EU people that "millions of jobs rely on our EU membership" but none of them explain why this is. Its not as if if we leave the EU we will suddenly stop trading with the EU. I'm almost getting to the stage where I think the EU needs us more than we need it. Policies like the common agricultural policy need scrapping now.

If the UK leaves the EU the Toyota, Nissan, Honda and BMW car plants will close and production will be moved to Europe. Its much easier to trade with Europe if you're in the EU and those car plants were built for the European market.

On the contrary Dave we need the EU way more than it needs us. Even those groups who would like us to leave the EU have admitted that hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are clearly some compelling reasons to stay in the EU but it has to reform. Like I said before I believe the EU needs us more than we need them, therefore they should be prepared to make concessions for our continued membership.

On what basis do you say this Dave? Why do you think the EU needs us more than we need them?

 

[HilversumNS]

I believe the EU needs us more than we need them, therefore they should be prepared to make concessions for our continued membership.

The UK has a population of 60m while the whole EU is over 500m. Although the UK economy is not 60/500 of the total, the EU can do without the UK much easier than the UK can do without the UK.

The UK export over 50% of its exports to the UK, leaving the UK would add tariffs to most exports which in turn would cause most investors to invest in the EU rather than the UK.

Your statement is similar to Scotland leaving the UK. Unfortunately, the UK government sees some value in conceding more power to Scotland to keep it sweet. The EU will not be so kind should the UK threaten to leave.

 

[AM9]

They do have a mandate to do this, they got it via the elections on Thursday 7 May 2015.

In theory yes, but in practice, I doubt that the majority of those voting for them would agree. UKIP voters probably agree with it though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the EU was just about free trade between nations, I think we would be best remaining inside. However, I think we need to stop EU and its bureaucrats from meddling in affairs that should be the sole responsibility of UK and its government, e.g. civil & criminal law, social policy, rights to benefits, internal transport policy, etc.

Free trade means freedom of goods, money, services and labour. Free trade also required a level playing field in terms of the rights of workers, public health services provided, equitable extradiction rules and legal processes. It's a lot more than selling things to each other.

 

[HilversumNS]

In theory yes, but in practice, I doubt that the majority of those voting for them would agree. UKIP voters probably agree with it though.

Not theory, it's FACT. Nothing more, nothing less.

If there is an issue with the voting system, campaign to get it changed. Claiming that the government have no mandate is ridiculous.

 

[AM9]

Not theory, it's FACT. Nothing more, nothing less.

If there is an issue with the voting system, campaign to get it changed. Claiming that the government have no mandate is ridiculous.

Let's see what happens on the human rights one over the next 5 years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Let's see what happens on the human rights one over the next 5 years.

That is of no relevance to whether the Government have a mandate or not. Like it or not (and I don't, as I didn't vote for them), under the rules of FPTP they do. And they would have had a Coalition based mandate with any common PR system as well.

To me respect for the system of democracy is more important than whether I happen to like their policies or not.

There may be merit in a change to the electoral system - I would like to see a proper PR system of some kind, such as STV perhaps (AV is not a PR system and is in many ways flawed). But that should be considered completely blind of policy, IMO, otherwise you get into very dangerous territory indeed.

 

[AM9]

Not theory, it's FACT. Nothing more, nothing less.

If there is an issue with the voting system, campaign to get it changed. Claiming that the government have no mandate is ridiculous.

Let's see what happens on the human rights issue over the next 5 years. It won't happen however the right-wing insist they have a mandate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Let's see what happens on the human rights issue over the next 5 years. It won't happen however the right-wing insist they have a mandate.

They as a matter of simple electoral fact do have a mandate to Govern, whether I or you happen to like it or not.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Not theory, it's FACT. Nothing more, nothing less.

If there is an issue with the voting system, campaign to get it changed. Claiming that the government have no mandate is ridiculous.

Constitutional mandates in Britain are highly complex due to the fact we don't have a written constitution, but one based on precedent and (what amount to) a load of bye-laws. Talking about mandates as though they're fact ignores this - in fact, precedent states that traditionally voting reform has come through on the back of the perceived lack of fairness in older voting systems.

So yes, you're correct that we need voting reform, but talking about mandates only works insofar as they're perceived as mandates.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So yes, you're correct that we need voting reform, but talking about mandates only works insofar as they're perceived as mandates.

I disagree. A majority using the current voting system clearly gives a mandate in terms of that voting system - that much is a fact, not a perception.

Anything beyond that is just opinion.

 

[Dave1987]

Firstly, the Tories do have a mandate to implement what is in their manifesto. They are the largest party so were able to form a government. The big issue they have is that they have a very slim majority and that their are many peers in the Lords that shouldn't really be in there anymore. But seeing as the House of Lords aren't voted for by the electorate then there is sod all we can do about that.

On the EU I am surprised at how many of you believe the EU is such a vital club to be part of that we should just roll over and let them dictate numerous laws to us. I mean the Common Agricultural Policy is an abomination. I am leaning towards wanting to stay in the EU because of how many businesses have come out saying they rely on the being in the EU. But I do not like how the EU operates.

As far as the ECHR is concerned, what are peoples opinions on the fact that it made the UK govt house Abu Khatarda's family in a six bed mansion in London before he was extradited even though he hated this country?

 

[HilversumNS]

On the EU I am surprised at how many of you believe the EU is such a vital club to be part of that we should just roll over and let them dictate numerous laws to us. I mean the Common Agricultural Policy is an abomination. I am leaning towards wanting to stay in the EU because of how many businesses have come out saying they rely on the being in the EU. But I do not like how the EU operates.

I agree that a lot of what comes from Brussels is less than perfect but the cost of leaving the EU is higher than the cost of staying in.

Renegotiation is the way to go, however, the EU is unlikely to bow to the UKs wishes.

 

[Yew]

Not theory, it's FACT. Nothing more, nothing less.

If there is an issue with the voting system, campaign to get it changed. Claiming that the government have no mandate is ridiculous.

They have a mandate, from exactly 24.4% of the electorate...

 

[HilversumNS]

Let's see what happens on the human rights issue over the next 5 years. It won't happen however the right-wing insist they have a mandate.

What has "the human rights issue" got to do with the government having a mandate?

The government will implement most of their election manifesto, a few things will be dropped. This has happened over many many years and is nothing new. Part of the reason for this, is the slim majority. You could draw some parallels from the previous election where the Tories had to give some concessions to the Liberals in order to get acts passed.

The GOVERNMENT, by definition, HAVE A MANDATE. The people voted, in the current system, and they WON. If the current system is right/fair/appropriate is a totally different issue.

Do you plan to ignore any new legislation, and claim that it was passed by an invalid government? HMRC will love that when it you use last years tax bands for your income tax returns.

When the government organise the EU referendum, will you boycott it as it was implemented by a non mandated body?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They have a mandate, from exactly 24.4% of the electorate...

Blame the system, campaign to get it changed. It doesn't mean that the government doesn't have a mandate.

 

[Dave1987]

They have a mandate, from exactly 24.4% of the electorate...

I believe the average turnout was somewhere in the region of 70%. The press reported that some of the Tory victories were by as little as a few hundred votes. So if that 30% of people who were eligible to vote had been bothered to do so the outcome might have been very different. They have to most MP's, they are able to command a majority in the commons so can form a Government, so they have a clear mandate to govern! Maybe the left wing should get their voters to stop complaining that "what's the point in voting if nothing ever changes" and get off their arses and VOTE! Then you might have seen a different outcome. What would have been even more controversial is if the Tories had been the largest party but Labour formed a govt with a "confidence and supply" agreement from the SNP. That would have been far more controversial than this govt is.

 

[sheeldz]

The 'Scottish Executive' is the name given to the legislative assembly led by the first minister as declared in the Scotland Act 1998. scottish 'parliament'/'government' soubriquets were invented by the SNP when they got a majority vote in 2007, but the official name hasn't changed from that stated in the Scotland Act.

This is plainly wrong. The assembly was re-branded in 2007, but the name was formally changed in law as part of the Scotland Act (2012). This was changed not by the Scottish Government, but it was enacted in law by Westminster. The official name has changed and has been changed in law since 2012.