Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, 14stFlyer said:

Ah, but that is the beauty of democracy. Although the 23 year old black woman in the heart of the city may be more intelligent, experienced and worldly wise, her views (and vote) are no more valuable than those of an oldish white man who has lived all his life in the sticks... or indeed a northern lad done good and living the high life in Wonderful Copenhagen. 

That is not true. In the UK some votes are a lot more valuable than others. Our democratic system is broken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 146k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • GrizzlyDave

    9502

  • Confusion of VIs

    7725

  • thehowler

    5908

  • jonb2

    5801

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I do.   https://twitter.com/housepricemania

1409 pages....you guys should have your own forum !!!

Oh OK. Shame that really, but hey it looks like @IMHAL helped us both out. Nice repost though, thanks ! Any thoughts ?  

Posted Images

1 minute ago, dugsbody said:

That is not true. In the UK some votes are a lot more valuable than others. Our democratic system is broken.

I Agree completely. I said in a democracy (and perhaps incorrectly implied the current U.K. situation) 

The U.K. does not currently have an effectively functioning democracy. 
 

Bring on PR. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Are you suggesting that the government should have nationalised the oil industry when Labour came to power and turned off the taps, as that would have been the only way to stop it being produced and sold at $9 a barrel in 1999. Production peaked in 2000. The peak was not expected until 2008.

All governments wanted that oil pumped as quickly as possible and I suspect they still do.

 

3 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Lawson cut the tax massively, which seems a more obvious throwing away of money. Care to comment? 

The drop in revenue quite likely is related to the low oil price at the time.  Lawson maybe cut the tax so that the oil companies would continue to invest and employ people despite the declining price.  Recently the oil companies have been asking for state subsidy to support employment remember.

3 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Ah, so you agree Scotland should get recompense for it funding the building of all the roads from Dover to Scotland. Maybe Scotland should charge tolls? 

If you understood what I was saying you would know I was saying completely the opposite.  Has the UK been credited with infrastructure we have funded in the EU via the cohesion budget?

Road tolls, they pay to use ours and we pay to use theirs.  We pay to use French roads so what is the difference.

3 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Why should fish in waters in Europe be singled out as British. At least oil largely stays in one place, because fish doesn't. 

Sovrinty? 

Whilst we've been in the EU the fish have decidedly not been treated as British.  Neither are we asking for compensation for the fish that have been taken whilst we were in the EU.  Maybe we should have, because that would be the analogous situation to the oil.  Going forward, the fish are in UK waters so they belong to us, just like the remaining oil in Scottish waters would belong to Scotland after independence.  It's exactly the same, there is no logical conflict there at all.

 

3 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

So what about German industry and the EU? Impossible to disentangle, surely? 

The difference is, we are not asking for compensation for contributions whilst we were in the EU.  With this oil argument, Scotland is asking for compensation for oil whilst it was in the UK Again, there is no logical conflict here.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Paying unemployment benefits to the three and half million left unemployed by Thatcher's disastrous flirtation with monetarism, that's where the UK's North Sea oil + gas revenue disappeared. The Norwegians established a trillion quid sovereign wealth fund with their share.

That's true but it is not relevant to the current argument.  We might not agree what Thatcher did was money well spent.  But clearly the majority of the electorate did, because she won three elections.  The right would argue this money was invested in destroying union power, and therefore it was a very good investment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Not necessarily. 

This raises the interesting question of how exactly can Scotland legally leave the UK?  There is no equivalent of Article 50, and the UK parliament expressly has no power to dissolve the union.  So how exactly is this going to proceed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Paying unemployment benefits to the three and half million left unemployed by Thatcher's disastrous flirtation with monetarism, that's where the UK's North Sea oil + gas revenue disappeared. The Norwegians established a trillion quid sovereign wealth fund with their share.

Quite. And they're still at it.

https://www.economist.com/britain/2021/01/10/britains-immediate-economic-prospects-are-grim

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kzb said:

This raises the interesting question of how exactly can Scotland legally leave the UK?  There is no equivalent of Article 50, and the UK parliament expressly has no power to dissolve the union.  So how exactly is this going to proceed?

They knock up a new law...happens all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, kzb said:

That's true but it is not relevant to the current argument.  We might not agree what Thatcher did was money well spent.  But clearly the majority of the electorate did, because she won three elections.  The right would argue this money was invested in destroying union power, and therefore it was a very good investment.

It's hard to say which of the two Thatcher eras did the most lasting damage. The monetarist era of 1979-1984 which threw everyone on the dole, or 1985-1989 easy credit era which let the City of London run rampant. The flag-shagging isolationism really began with her too, the culmination of which is Johnson's calamitous Brexit deal.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, kzb said:

All governments wanted that oil pumped as quickly as possible and I suspect they still do.

So why do you accuse Blair and Brown of wasting it? Creating something like Statoil would have been the only way to do it, realistically. 

36 minutes ago, kzb said:

The drop in revenue quite likely is related to the low oil price at the time.

It fell by 1/3. It doesn't account for it. 

36 minutes ago, kzb said:

Lawson maybe cut the tax so that the oil companies would continue to invest and employ people despite the declining price.  Recently the oil companies have been asking for state subsidy to support employment remember.

"

The Labour government, then proudly socialist, presented the radical suggestion that the country should invest in the new, unearned riches for the benefit of future generations. 

But Lawson knew better. “The idea was sensibly rejected by the Treasury,” he recalled in his memoirs.

“It seemed to me rather more sensible to use North Sea tax revenues to reduce government borrowing, to cut taxes where this could be done on a sustainable basis, and generally to improve the climate for enterprise.”

... 

The decision to let the oil industry reap more of the benefits from the oil bounty was in part a result of lobbying from within the industry itself

 

... 

 

“We had a series of consultation with the Conservatives. The Conservatives listened, and they loosened up the tax regime which unleashed a lot more investment in the North Sea so that fuels which were marginal became attractive to develop.”

Lawson and Howe abolished one tax which alone effectively handed £2.4 billion back to the oil industry. Lawson cut other taxes to the benefit of oil.

The reforms “went considerably further than my officials thought the Treasury would be prepared to contemplate,” Lawson would boast"

 

It was quite ideological. 

36 minutes ago, kzb said:

Has the UK been credited with infrastructure we have funded in the EU via the cohesion budget?

Why would it have been? The UK agreed to fund it  without a claim. Scotland... You could make a reasonable argument that it did not. 

36 minutes ago, kzb said:

Road tolls, they pay to use ours and we pay to use theirs.  We pay to use French roads so what is the difference.

You are being rather inconsistent. 

36 minutes ago, kzb said:

Whilst we've been in the EU the fish have decidedly not been treated as British.

Of course not. Much as the ones in French waters not French. 

36 minutes ago, kzb said:

Neither are we asking for compensation for the fish that have been taken whilst we were in the EU.

No, because the arrangement was part of entry negotiations and do there is no legal standing to do so. 

36 minutes ago, kzb said:

Maybe we should have, because that would be the analogous situation to the oil. 

Then there would have been no entry to the EEC and the UK economy would have suffered. 

36 minutes ago, kzb said:

Going forward, the fish are in UK waters so they belong to us,

Well, not entirely, as there are still international laws in play regarding exploitation, plus an implementation period. Not that we really want the fish. 

36 minutes ago, kzb said:

just like the remaining oil in Scottish waters would belong to Scotland after independence.  It's exactly the same, there is no logical conflict there at all.

There is, you just aren't getting it. 

36 minutes ago, kzb said:

The difference is, we are not asking for compensation for contributions whilst we were in the EU. 

No, because there is no legal basis to do so. 

36 minutes ago, kzb said:

With this oil argument, Scotland is asking for compensation for oil whilst it was in the UK 

And there may be a legal basis to do so. 

36 minutes ago, kzb said:

Again, there is no logical conflict here.

 

17 minutes ago, kzb said:

This raises the interesting question of how exactly can Scotland legally leave the UK?  There is no equivalent of Article 50, and the UK parliament expressly has no power to dissolve the union.  So how exactly is this going to proceed?

Based on the UK having signed UN charters, the UK does have to allow a level of self-determination. Obviously that buts against the issue of the Act (actually it's two, plus a Treaty). This makes it complex. But there is also an argument that if the UK parliament has been shown to have broken the terms of the Act(s) then it automatically become invalid. It's a fairly extreme option. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonb2 said:

Oh well, Scotland will never leave now

Nigel Farage launches new party in Scotland to promote 'positive case for the Union'

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/nigel-farage-party-to-challenge-snp-nicola-sturgeon-6897148

Christ on a bike, I hope they leave. The Brexit people want it too and they usually get what they want.

Well that has filled my irony tank for the next year. If there was rain on my wedding day too then it would overflow. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kzb said:

That's true but it is not relevant to the current argument.  We might not agree what Thatcher did was money well spent.  But clearly the majority of the electorate did, because she won three elections.  The right would argue this money was invested in destroying union power, and therefore it was a very good investment.

Never got 50% of the vote, though, AFAIK. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kzb said:

This raises the interesting question of how exactly can Scotland legally leave the UK?  There is no equivalent of Article 50, and the UK parliament expressly has no power to dissolve the union.  So how exactly is this going to proceed?

According to brexiter logic, that just proves that Scotland should leave a union that doesn't allow them to leave.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dugsbody said:

According to brexiter logic, that just proves that Scotland should leave a union that doesn't allow them to leave.

Ironically, brexit will make it harder. It would mean having a trade border with England.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

The Labour government, then proudly socialist, presented the radical suggestion that the country should invest in the new, unearned riches for the benefit of future generations. 

But Lawson knew better. “The idea was sensibly rejected by the Treasury,” he recalled in his memoirs.

“It seemed to me rather more sensible to use North Sea tax revenues to reduce government borrowing, to cut taxes where this could be done on a sustainable basis, and generally to improve the climate for enterprise.”

This is all very well, but it is only a sidebar.  This does not mean Scotland is entitled to be paid for the oil that was sold whilst it was part of the UK.  If it does mean that, then logically, the UK is entitled to be paid for all the fish taken from UK waters by the EU since 1973.

You can't have it both ways.  Either Scotland is not entitled to past oil money and the UK is not entitled to past fish money.  OR Scotland is entitled to past oil money and the UK is entitled to past fish money.

Which is it?

 

3 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Why would it have been? The UK agreed to fund it  without a claim. Scotland... You could make a reasonable argument that it did not. 

Of course Scotland agreed when it ratified the treaty of union.  Exactly the same as the UK signing up to the EU treaties, and you know it.

 

3 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

There is, you just aren't getting it. 

You're right I'm not.  On what planet would they get it?

 

3 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

No, because there is no legal basis to do so. 

Neither has Scotland got any claim on historic oil revenues.

 

3 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

And there may be a legal basis to do so. 

Please explain.

 

3 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Based on the UK having signed UN charters, the UK does have to allow a level of self-determination. Obviously that buts against the issue of the Act (actually it's two, plus a Treaty). This makes it complex. But there is also an argument that if the UK parliament has been shown to have broken the terms of the Act(s) then it automatically become invalid. It's a fairly extreme option. 

I don't think the UK parliament has broken the treaty though.

I was going to say the only way out of it is both sides renegotiate the treaty and come out with a revised version setting out the terms if one party should leave.

But even that is not possible because there are no longer two separate parties to negotiate.

I'm sure Nicola must be able to tell us how.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Indeed, the Act has been modified, for example salt taxes. 

That's because the act gives the GB parliament jurisdiction over taxes.  It is within the terms of the treaty to revise salt taxes.  But that lawyer you quoted said the GB parliament does NOT have the power to dissolve the union.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, kzb said:

This is all very well, but it is only a sidebar.  This does not mean Scotland is entitled to be paid for the oil that was sold whilst it was part of the UK.  If it does mean that, then logically, the UK is entitled to be paid for all the fish taken from UK waters by the EU since 1973.

The UK agreed to the CFP. The Act of Union is pretty silent about natural resources. It's not comparable. Partly that is because it wasn't considered so important, but that doesn't make it go away. CFP was explicitly a part of joining the EEC. 

16 minutes ago, kzb said:

You can't have it both ways. 

I'm not. 

16 minutes ago, kzb said:

Either Scotland is not entitled to past oil money and the UK is not entitled to past fish money. 

Apples are round fruit but are not oranges. 

16 minutes ago, kzb said:

Of course Scotland agreed when it ratified the treaty of union. 

To changes in salt levies, yes. 

16 minutes ago, kzb said:

I don't think the UK parliament has broken the treaty though.

It's not clear if it has. If that route was taken a court case would be required. But Brexit may be a reason. 

16 minutes ago, kzb said:

I was going to say the only way out of it is both sides renegotiate the treaty and come out with a revised version setting out the terms if one party should leave.

That's not at all a bad option. My point is that it may not be the only legal option available. That one side but not the other may be able to act unilaterally could shift the balance of power. 

16 minutes ago, kzb said:

But even that is not possible because there are no longer two separate parties to negotiate.

That's the point. There is a legal opinion that if the Act has been breached then Scotland instantly emerges, in a legal sense, as a separate party. Then there are two parties. Yes, I understand it's slightly odd. 

16 minutes ago, kzb said:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kzb said:

That's because the act gives the GB parliament jurisdiction over taxes.  It is within the terms of the treaty to revise salt taxes.  But that lawyer you quoted said the GB parliament does NOT have the power to dissolve the union.

Indeed. It cannot dissolve it, but can cause it not to exist too. That is, it cannot pass a law to dissolve it that is legal, but by the act of passing a law that sufficiently violates it, then the Act ceases to be in force. Ironically (and this is my reading), trying to pass a law to dissolve it would make the Act cease to be in force thus, effectively dissolve it. 

My understanding is that as soon as the Act ends the Treaty is then in force. 

It does seem quite odd, but it seems to be how it was written. It was fine for 1707 and a few years thereafter but is anachronistic. 

The UK should probably have modernised its constitutional basis after WW2. 

Edited by NobodyInParticular
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kzb said:

The difference is, we are not asking for compensation for contributions whilst we were in the EU.  With this oil argument, Scotland is asking for compensation for oil whilst it was in the UK Again, there is no logical conflict here.

You seen to be arguing with yourself

As far as I know Scotland is not planning to ask for compensation for historic oil revenues and even if they were there is no legal basis for it, just like there is no legal basis for England asking the Scots to pay off any of the historic national debt.

The EU deal is done, it took into everything into account and any money we handed over was presumably done either because it was legally required or because it was in our interest to do so. 

     

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brexit red tape here ‘for good’, says Barnier, as Government comes under fire over damage to fishing industry

New regulatory frictions causing disruption to trade with the EU are an “obvious and inevitable” consequence of Brexit and can be expected to be permanent.

While some “glitches, problems and breakdowns” caused by the introduction of new paperwork could be expected to be cleared up in the coming weeks and months, other things have “changed for good” as a result of the UK’s decision to leave the EU, said Mr Barnier.

And he indicated that the UK will not be able to rewrite structural changes “This agreement will not be renegotiated, it now needs to be implemented.”

Yahoo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its going so well, only knee deep in dead unicorns, drenched in their scent of project fear.
An upside being as I'm thinking of taking advantage of all those Brexit opportunities,
like starting an export business, if it wasn't for all that new red tape...🤔

image.png.52665f0887118c8c0ab1831b57524a97.png

Anyway, back to it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.