This is what the UK will be missing trade agreements:

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149622.pdf

zulumoose wrote:How is it a logical position that the seller gets to dictate what the buyer will accept and pay for?

Sorry for not being clear: "Brexit: Britain says it should still be able to influence EU regulations after leaving EU" is logical position.

Working at home and listening to talk radio all day (LBC), and listening to the public 'debate' on Brexit is like trying to get a opinion of my cat. We really are a country where half the population is barely sentient

I suspect its pretty much the same everywhere.

mrjonno wrote:Working at home and listening to talk radio all day (LBC), and listening to the public 'debate' on Brexit is like trying to get a opinion of my cat. We really are a country where half the population is barely sentient

Well when you see the crap on BBC News it is no wonder. Nothing is explained from the EU stand point. It comes over as if May is in control of the talks. I dont how ITV or Sky reports it as I dont have or want to have access to them.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

mrjonno wrote:Working at home and listening to talk radio all day (LBC), and listening to the public 'debate' on Brexit is like trying to get a opinion of my cat. We really are a country where half the population is barely sentient

Well when you see the crap on BBC News it is no wonder. Nothing is explained from the EU stand point. It comes over as if May is in control of the talks. I dont how ITV or Sky reports it as I dont have or want to have access to them.

Not talking about the BBC it has to balance stupid people and intelligent people, talking about the general public phoning in to talk radio. The more I listen to them the less I think universal healthcare is a good idea. They are a 1000 times more of a threat than ISIS will ever be

Tracer Tong wrote:

Byron wrote:
And ultimately, Scotland can simply dissolve the union at will.

No, it can't.

Even Thatcher accepted that Scotland can dissolve the union if her people choose that path. Scottish popular sovereignty, accepted across the board since the Claim of Right, certainty implies it. You can, of course, assert otherwise.

Seeing those stairs in Edinburgh again on that thread it makes you wonder how the people of Edinburgh get so obese.

Byron wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Byron wrote:
And ultimately, Scotland can simply dissolve the union at will.

No, it can't.

Even Thatcher accepted that Scotland can dissolve the union if her people choose that path. Scottish popular sovereignty, accepted across the board since the Claim of Right, certainty implies it. You can, of course, assert otherwise.

I'm not sure why it matters what Thatcher thought, but I don't even see a claim there that could amount to "Scotland can simply dissolve the union at will". Chest-thumping about "popular sovereignty" in relation to the Claim of Right doesn't do anything to establish that position, either. There's a path to Scottish independence, but it's a narrow and difficult one. Wishing it into existence won't work, I'm afraid.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Byron wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Byron wrote:
And ultimately, Scotland can simply dissolve the union at will.

No, it can't.

Even Thatcher accepted that Scotland can dissolve the union if her people choose that path. Scottish popular sovereignty, accepted across the board since the Claim of Right, certainty implies it. You can, of course, assert otherwise.

I'm not sure why it matters what Thatcher thought, but I don't even see a claim there that could amount to "Scotland can simply dissolve the union at will". Chest-thumping about "popular sovereignty" in relation to the Claim of Right doesn't do anything to establish that position, either. There's a path to Scottish independence, but it's a narrow and difficult one. Wishing it into existence won't work, I'm afraid.

Well, there's multiple paths to Scottish independence, with a referendum being the widely accepted most likely route now, following on from the 2014 one. I personally think it's possible that given time we might just end up going a more New Zealand route of continued gradual change until everyone agrees we're basically independent already!

I guess the point about popular sovereignty is the distinction between not opposing any popular will for change, ie UK govt in 2011-2014, and opposing any popular will for change as illegal and unconstitutional, as the Spanish Govt have tried to do. I don't think that would ever happen in UK, and so although legally it's certainly arguable that Scotland doesn't have the right to decide, in practical terms it really does.

Corbyn doesn't understand the UK, apparently.

'Impossible' to have separate Brexit plans, says Corbyn

It would be "very, very difficult if not impossible" to have separate Brexit arrangements for different parts of the UK, Jeremy Corbyn has said.

The UK Labour leader said it would be very complicated to separate things out because some companies operate across the whole of the country, and that a UK-wide agreement is needed.

He also said that the idea of separate economic and legal systems in different parts of the UK becomes "difficult and very problematic".

Um. We ... do have different legal systems in different parts of UK.

That's not proven, Ron.

Surely Corbyn must know that. Labour's Brexit policy is all oner the place. You just cant take it seriously.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Surely Corbyn must know that. Labour's Brexit policy is all oner the place. You just cant take it seriously.

The British public are all over the place and you can't take them seriously, who would want to be a politician in the UK?

Tracer Tong wrote:

Byron wrote:Even Thatcher accepted that Scotland can dissolve the union if her people choose that path. Scottish popular sovereignty, accepted across the board since the Claim of Right, certainty implies it. You can, of course, assert otherwise.

I'm not sure why it matters what Thatcher thought, but I don't even see a claim there that could amount to "Scotland can simply dissolve the union at will". Chest-thumping about "popular sovereignty" in relation to the Claim of Right doesn't do anything to establish that position, either. There's a path to Scottish independence, but it's a narrow and difficult one. Wishing it into existence won't work, I'm afraid.

It matters 'cause, without a law or court ruling on dissolving the treaties of union, you're left with convention; when even a unionist as devoted as Thatcher thought that Scotland could dissolve the union at will*, it shows just how strong the convention is.

As for popular sovereignty, you could pound your breast like Tarzan if it takes your fancy, but more effective is the universal acceptance of popular sovereignty in Scotland, including rulings by Scottish courts that the English concept of parliamentary sovereignty doesn't exist in Scots law. Power exists where people believe it exists.

Since the person who agrees with your interpretation can presumably make a compelling case of their own, please, don't be shy.

* An "undoubted right to national self-determination" is unequivocal: if she'd meant that the union could only be dissolved with England's consent, she wouldn't have used language of rights.

And heading back to Brexit ...

mrjonno wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Surely Corbyn must know that. Labour's Brexit policy is all oner the place. You just cant take it seriously.

The British public are all over the place and you can't take them seriously, who would want to be a politician in the UK?

Is it any surprise that the British public are all over the place when they were promised the best of all worlds by the Leave campaign?

At least Labour's shift to the EEA's a promising sign that Corbyn's not gonna make Lexit his last battlefield. He's still banging on about tariffs and free trade deals, but whatever; what matters isn't his understanding of the issue, but his willingness to submit to the balance of power within the party.

Byron wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Byron wrote:Even Thatcher accepted that Scotland can dissolve the union if her people choose that path. Scottish popular sovereignty, accepted across the board since the Claim of Right, certainty implies it. You can, of course, assert otherwise.

I'm not sure why it matters what Thatcher thought, but I don't even see a claim there that could amount to "Scotland can simply dissolve the union at will". Chest-thumping about "popular sovereignty" in relation to the Claim of Right doesn't do anything to establish that position, either. There's a path to Scottish independence, but it's a narrow and difficult one. Wishing it into existence won't work, I'm afraid.

It matters 'cause, without a law or court ruling on dissolving the treaties of union, you're left with convention; when even a unionist as devoted as Thatcher thought that Scotland could dissolve the union at will*, it shows just how strong the convention is.

I'm still not sure why it matters what Thatcher thought: her fervent unionism is scant reason to think that her views on the matter are reliable, even had she said that "Scotland could dissolve the union at will", which she didn't, at least in the material quoted. Her bland statement that Scotland has an "undoubted right to national self-determination" is, fairly obviously, not the same thing.

Byron wrote:
As for popular sovereignty, you could pound your breast like Tarzan if it takes your fancy, but more effective is the universal acceptance of popular sovereignty in Scotland, including rulings by Scottish courts that the English concept of parliamentary sovereignty doesn't exist in Scots law. Power exists where people believe it exists.

An interesting case, and an engaging aphorism, but we're no closer to the chimerical "Scotland could dissolve the union at will", and never will be.

I think that, wherever one stands on the issue, it's important to take the matter of Scottish independence seriously. Part of that is making realistic assessments of the conditions under which it could leave. As things stand, there's one feasible, albeit difficult, route to independence, which is by a referendum endorsed by the Scottish Parliament with the permission of Westminster. But even that's unlikely to happen for awhile, and the popularity of independence among Scots is currently around 40%.

Is it any surprise that the British public are all over the place when they were promised the best of all worlds by the Leave campaign?

I'm not that generous , if someone is so easily manipulated they should not be voting. Any form of running a country can not be based on the completely unrealistic expectation that the electorate will be educated