The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Absolutely no idea how anything who works or has worked in the football industry could vote to leave. 

Its dependent on the freedom of movement of people. Lower league clubs wont be able to get permits for any foreign players if EU players are treated the same as non EU are now. 

Good, I'm fed up and sick of Johnny Foreigner coming over here and taking the place of some English lads with no talent, those talentless players deserve to be able to play at the hiughest level in their own country

[bickster]

And if they get their way on Brexit... this will be next.

 

[chrisp65]

Bring it on.

I’ve had enough of england deciding the offside rule.

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Bring it on.

I’ve had enough of england deciding the offside rule.

As long as Wales promised to join the EU I'll be first in the queue to claim my Welsh passport 

[bickster]

In fact take it a step further and the NW England can secede from England too

[a m ole]

London for Londoners

[chrisp65]

Out of curiosity, do you guys in england get to see much news of marches for independence?

The majority being in Scotland where it appears most weekends one city or another will have a rally and tens of thousands will march peacefully. It’s started here too, the third one is coming up in Merthyr soon.

 

[peterms]

30 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Absolutely no idea how anything who works or has worked in the football industry could vote to leave. 

Its dependent on the freedom of movement of people.

Well, the opposite of freedom of movement of people would be serfdom, and I can see how a few people  might think that a good idea.

[NurembergVillan]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

In fact take it a step further and the NW England can secede from England too

People's Republic of Cheshire reporting for service, sir!

In our turbo-charged SUVs.

[Mic09]

A thought that just popped to my head and has not been given a lot of time to sit there yet so I would be interested to hear your take on it, especially from any Scots in here!

The most common argument for Brexit is not primarily based on the economic advantage, but on the basis of independence, sovereignty and ability to stand alone from Brussels making decisions affecting London.

Why is so much of Scotland against Brexit, yet is FOR a similar move in leaving the UK in order to stand independent? Much like in Brexit's case, Edinburgh will not be financially better off should they leave the UK, and if they decide to join the EU while they stand alone they will be giving away much of their decision making power to a foreign powerhouse.

It looks like a logically contradicting move.

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

A thought that just popped to my head and has not been given a lot of time to sit there yet so I would be interested to hear your take on it, especially from any Scots in here!

The most common argument for Brexit is not primarily based on the economic advantage, but on the basis of independence, sovereignty and ability to stand alone from Brussels making decisions affecting London.

Why is so much of Scotland against Brexit, yet is FOR a similar move in leaving the UK in order to stand independent? Much like in Brexit's case, Edinburgh will not be financially better off should they leave the UK, and if they decide to join the EU while they stand alone they will be giving away much of their decision making power to a foreign powerhouse.

It looks like a logically contradicting move.

You cleverly hid the answer in the middle of the question.

[Mic09]

14 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

You cleverly hid the answer in the middle of the question.

I have, unless of course Scotland was to be independent and join the EU. In that case, the answer would be Edinburgh.

While there might be a variety of reasons for Scotland wanting to make that move, "ideologically" it seems like a contradicting one.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Mic09

[LondonLax]

10 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

A thought that just popped to my head and has not been given a lot of time to sit there yet so I would be interested to hear your take on it, especially from any Scots in here!

The most common argument for Brexit is not primarily based on the economic advantage, but on the basis of independence, sovereignty and ability to stand alone from Brussels making decisions affecting London.

Why is so much of Scotland against Brexit, yet is FOR a similar move in leaving the UK in order to stand independent? Much like in Brexit's case, Edinburgh will not be financially better off should they leave the UK, and if they decide to join the EU while they stand alone they will be giving away much of their decision making power to a foreign powerhouse.

It looks like a logically contradicting move.

I think an independent Scotland would actually have more power in the EU than they currently have in the UK. 

They would have full devolution of power for their domestic policies and for foreign policy decisions each EU nation gets the power of a veto for any new laws or decisions and any new agreements need a unanimous vote of support from all members. 

Contrast that with the power they currently have. i.e. partial devolution for domestic policy and very little say in UK national policy.

The Brexit debate itself is a very obvious example. If they had had the power to veto like the EU gives its members the whole thing it could not get off the ground. As it is they are going to be dragged out against the wishes of their electorate.

[Mic09]

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

The Brexit debate itself is a very obvious example. If they had had the power to veto like the EU gives its members the whole thing it could not get off the ground. As it is they are going to be dragged out against the wishes of their electorate.

But then we get into the whole debate of EU law supremacy over UK legislation.

Wouldn't Scotland be better off seeking greater independence from the UK while staying in the Union that clearly benefits them?

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

But then we get into the whole debate of EU law supremacy over UK legislation.

Wouldn't Scotland be better off seeking greater independence from the UK while staying in the Union that clearly benefits them?

You know that England does not subsidise Scotland? The Union that benefits Scotland the most is the EU not the UK. The union that benefits the UK is also the EU too but hey ho, sovereignty. 

Please don’t bring up bendy bananas

[chrisp65]

7 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

But then we get into the whole debate of EU law supremacy over UK legislation.

Wouldn't Scotland be better off seeking greater independence from the UK while staying in the Union that clearly benefits them?

In what way does the Union clearly benefit them?

Are you referring to what they’ve spent 40 years of oil revenue on? Or the billions spent on transport links in London? I think maybe you’re starting from a position of presuming Scotland is a small helpless place, lucky to have England as a neighbour to bail it out.

When perhaps, just perhaps, the UK is geared up to supply resource to somewhere other than Scotland? 

Who knows what decisions they may have made on renewable energy, or the bankers, or Iraq. You can’t presume they’d simply still be reliant on what London gives them, to spend on what London dictates. That’s slightly less the case now, with their parliament beginning to get some worthwhile powers and not just some pocket money.

It’s been that classic trick, don’t allow them their own policies, don’t allow them their own money raising capabilities. Send them some money, limit what they can spend it on. Then point out they are financially dependent on the south. 

Classic gaslighting really.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

9 hours ago, bickster said:

Good, I'm fed up and sick of Johnny Foreigner coming over here and taking the place of some English lads with no talent, those talentless players deserve to be able to play at the hiughest level in their own country

In a 2nd language 

[desensitized43]

9 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

In what way does the Union clearly benefit them?

Are you referring to what they’ve spent 40 years of oil revenue on? Or the billions spent on transport links in London? I think maybe you’re starting from a position of presuming Scotland is a small helpless place, lucky to have England as a neighbour to bail it out.

When perhaps, just perhaps, the UK is geared up to supply resource to somewhere other than Scotland? 

Who knows what decisions they may have made on renewable energy, or the bankers, or Iraq. You can’t presume they’d simply still be reliant on what London gives them, to spend on what London dictates. That’s slightly less the case now, with their parliament beginning to get some worthwhile powers and not just some pocket money.

It’s been that classic trick, don’t allow them their own policies, don’t allow them their own money raising capabilities. Send them some money, limit what they can spend it on. Then point out they are financially dependent on the south. 

Classic gaslighting really.

Full federalisation was/is the way to go but this only works if you have a federation of roughly equal partners.

The only way the system works is if you break England down too along regional lines i.e. Northwest, Northeast, London, Midlands etc. With a proper written consitution defining what is and isn't the responsibilities/powers of the regional administrations and their relationship to the federal government.

I think the ship on this has sailed though. They went down the "home rule" route that worked so well to keep Ireland in the UK more than a century ago when they should have had a full on consitutional convention with the regional assemblies and parliaments and done some proper reform. Westminster is wholely responsible for what's happened because they've been so relucant to cede meaningful powers, only doing so when forced, and failing to see the Scots and Welsh as equals, let alone English people living north of Watford...it's a disgrace tbh. I think the breakup of the UK is more or less inevitable now.

Personally, if there was a referendum on "Independance for Mercia" tomorrow. I'd vote out.

Edited August 22, 2019 by desensitized43
Tidied up

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, desensitized43 said:

Full federalisation was/is the way to go but this only works if you have a federation of roughly equal partners.

The only way the system works is if you break England down too along regional lines i.e. Northwest, Northeast, London, Midlands etc. With a proper written consitution defining what is and isn't the responsibilities/powers of the regional administrations and their relationship to the federal government.

I think the ship on this has sailed though. They went down the "home rule" route that worked so well to keep Ireland in the UK more than a century ago when they should have had a full on consitutional convention with the regional assemblies and parliaments and done some proper reform. Westminster is wholely responsible for what's happened because they've been so relucant to cede meaningful powers, only doing so when forced, and failing to see the Scots and Welsh as equals, let alone English people living north of Watford...it's a disgrace tbh. I think the breakup of the UK is more or less inevitable now.

Personally, if there was a referendum on "Independance for Mercia" tomorrow. I'd vote out.

You can have federalisation if you have unequal partners, you just need to build in appropriate balances. 

Australia, the US, Germany etc have very wealthy and well populated states federated with poorer sparsely populated states. The smaller states usually receive additional fiscal transfers and have a disproportionately high representation in the federal parliament. 

[desensitized43]

1 minute ago, LondonLax said:

You can have federalisation if you have unequal partners, you just need to build in appropriate balances. 

Australia, the US, Germany etc have very wealthy and well populated states federated with poorer sparsely populated states. The smaller states usually receive additional fiscal transfers and have a disproportionately high representation in the federal parliament. 

I'm not saying you can't have unequal partners. It's impractical for every constituant part of a federal union to be of equal population, GDP etc.

It wouldn't work on the current UK model because England (56m) is so enormous in comparison to Scotland (5.5m), Wales (3m) and NI (2m). Even if you gave the other nations of the UK disproportionately high representation, it would have to so grossly disproportionate to give them a meaningful say that it would be a non-starter.

 

*not included GDP as my 2 minute google only displayed UK-wide figures