Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread III

1…216217219221222…333

Comments

  • #6542
    embraer170
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,438 ✭✭✭embraer170


    demfad wrote: »
    Re: The media

    It is worth noting that two Panorama programs on Cambridge Analytica were cancelled and a court order stopped a Channel 4 expose earlier this week.

    What Channel 4 expose was stopped?


  • #6543
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,162 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Really Interested wrote: »
    What the 2015 Act said.

    “1)A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union”

    From my reading of the Act there is no use of the word advisory. While it is according to the constitution of the UK that Parliament is supreme and the SC recently said so. The issue for the UK is that without a written constitution the constitution is what ever it is judged to be.

    I cited, and linked to, the 'advisory' bit in one of the earlier incarnations of this thread. The 'advisory' wording was from the then cabinet's own official statements regards holding a referendum, all freely viewable online.

    In any case, unless otherwise explicitly stated & agreed upon, all referenda held in the UK are 'advisory' due to that old adage "Parliament is God".


  • #6544
    gooch2k9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,647 ✭✭✭gooch2k9


    The DUP are actually aware of what is going on. I thought they were too busy being more British than everyone else in the UK. Although this is up there with Mrs. Dodds.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43576457

    From a personal point of view, I hope this transition is essentially a done deal as it's very likely I'll need to go to the UK to further the old career for a year or two.


  • #6545
    ambro25
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,985 ✭✭✭ambro25


    Really Interested wrote: »
    Gerry T wrote: »
    It might have been named advisory but there were commitments given that the outcome or "will of the people" would be delivered.

    Where in the 2015 Act was the word advisory used?
    Good enough summary of the issue here.

    Legally speaking, in the UK the 'test' is reversed: unless the outcome of a referendum is made binding in relevant provisions of the corresponding Act (and in that respect, see the earlier AV vote referendum Act, the outcome of which was made binding), it is non-binding and, as such, merely advisory.

    Parliament should consider, but is entirely free in law to disregard, the referendum result, and that is what 'advisory' means in context.

    The moral and political dimensions of the issue are different, of course.


  • #6546
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    Lemming wrote: »
    I cited, and linked to, the 'advisory' bit in one of the earlier incarnations of this thread. The 'advisory' wording was from the then cabinet's own official statements regards holding a referendum, all freely viewable online.

    In any case, unless otherwise explicitly stated & agreed upon, all referenda held in the UK are 'advisory' due to that old adage "Parliament is God".

    An adage under attack. According to you principle Parliament is supreme which then is higher an Act of Parliament or a official statement of the government?

    I do not see either major party following the advisory idea!


  • Advertisement
  • #6547
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    ambro25 wrote: »
    Good enough summary of the issue here.

    Legally speaking, in the UK the 'test' is reversed: unless the outcome of a referendum is made binding in relevant provisions of the corresponding Act (and in that respect, see the earlier AV vote referendum Act, the outcome of which was made binding), it is non-binding and, as such, merely advisory.

    Parliament should consider, but is entirely free in law to disregard, the referendum result, and that is what 'advisory' means in context.

    The moral and political dimensions of the issue are different, of course.

    While the link says it is advisory it ignores a very important point 1 it is not been treated as advisory and 2 not having a codified constitution the constitution is what it becomes. Remember that same constitution once said the king was supreme there was a civil war about that.


  • #6548
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,162 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Really Interested wrote: »
    An adage under attack. According to you principle Parliament is supreme which then is higher an Act of Parliament or a official statement of the government?

    Not according to me; according to the fact that it is Parliament that is the final arbiter on any legislation proposed for enactment within the UK that has been put forward for consideration. And in the case of referenda, quite literally, Parliament can do what it likes irrespective of the outcome, unless the referendum is - as I have already stated and you seem to have blithely ignored - agreed upon as being binding.

    Your subsequent question is laughable and answered already; "Parliament is God".


  • #6549
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    All the points raised are insightful, but irrelevant. There is no way that the ref will be re-run or that Brexit will be halted.

    The polls continue to show that the public have not shifted their positions either way too much, and certainly there is enough MP's driving it. Including a majority of the cabinet.

    In a normal democracy, the opposition would be standing up for the other side, but in the UK that is not the case and it is left down to a few mavericks for both parties to try to put a stick in the wheel.


  • #6550
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    Lemming wrote: »
    Not according to me; according to the fact that it is Parliament that is the final arbiter on any legislation proposed for enactment within the UK that has been put forward for consideration. And in the case of referenda, quite literally, Parliament can do what it likes irrespective of the outcome, unless the referendum is - as I have already stated and you seem to have blithely ignored - agreed upon as being binding.

    Your subsequent question is laughable and answered already; "Parliament is God".

    Has the Goverenment treated the referendum as advisory. The Goverement fought a court case to try and show parliament was not supreme and recently in the House of Lords a Tory stayed “the people are supreme”


    Anyone who does not see the Goverenment is trying to relegate parliament to second or third place is ignoring facts.


  • #6551
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,162 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Really Interested wrote: »
    Has the Goverenment treated the referendum as advisory. The Goverement fought a court case to try and show parliament was not supreme and recently in the House of Lords a Tory stayed “the people are supreme”

    The less said about the current cabinet the better. As for the above mentioned court case, remind me how that one went again? AH yes, they withdrew their assertion that they could do whatever they liked over Parliament, knowing that they were facing defeat in the courts over the matter.
    Anyone who does not see the Goverenment is trying to relegate parliament to second or third place is ignoring facts.

    I never said they weren't. What they have tried to do is deliver Brexit as a fait accomplit rendering any decision by Parliament on the final outcome irrelevant. This is being facilitated by the main party of the opposition abdicating all responsibility for holding the government to account.


  • Advertisement
  • #6552
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    Lemming wrote: »
    The less said about the current cabinet the better. As for the above mentioned court case, remind me how that one went again? AH yes, they withdrew their assertion that they could do whatever they liked over Parliament, knowing that they were facing defeat in the courts over the matter.



    I never said they weren't. What they have tried to do is deliver Brexit as a fait accomplit rendering any decision by Parliament on the final outcome irrelevant. This is being facilitated by the main party of the opposition abdicating all responsibility for holding the government to account.

    My only points are as the UK does not have a codified constitution the concept of a supreme parliament is currently under attack. I can not say how that will finally play out but TM and JC are very happy to try and make Goverenment supreme.


  • #6553
    Rain Ascending
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 172 ✭✭Rain Ascending


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    In a normal democracy, the opposition would be standing up for the other side, but in the UK that is not the case and it is left down to a few mavericks for both parties to try to put a stick in the wheel.

    And this is part of the reason why the Cambridge Analytica/AIQ/Vote Leave story is not getting the level attention that many here on this forum feels it deserves.

    I agree that the issue is important - democracy is endangered by this type of shenanigans.

    I agree that the media are not giving it enough airtime/column inches at the moment.

    However, I don't believe that the reason is a desire not to rock the boat. The problem lies more with the nature of the story and the news cycle. At the heart of the latest revelations is the probable illegal coordination of multiple leave campaigns. From a news perspective, this is a story about regulations. So, the big surprise is that this story got so much traction. However, two things helped here, namely the Channel 4 sting on Nix (graphcially showing up the underlying nasty modus operandi of Cambridge Analytica) and the misuse of Facebook user data (making the whole thing more personal to viewers).

    The story has since died off because there are no further developments ... yet. Normally one have expected the opposition to take the revelations and put the government under pressure, but as Leroy points out that's not happening in the UK. It was very notable that at Prime Ministers Questions today Corbyn didn't touch the topic at all. The only people to raise it were the SNP and the Greens -- and from what I can make out, they don't have the speaking time to interrogate May the way Corbyn could.

    However, the game isn't over yet. At the very least, the committee that has Wylie's documentation could elect to publish some of it. There are a number of other possible angles clearly signposted by Wylie at his testimony.


  • #6554
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 95,415 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    May doing a whistle stop tour to fly the flag or give two fingers to us and the EU or something
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43576456
    The PM will also vow to protect the "integrity" of the UK, saying that means ensuring there are "no new barriers" within the UK's domestic market.

    ...
    In her own statement, Mrs May said she was determined that the UK's future will be "bright" after it leaves the EU.

    "Having regained control of our laws, our borders and our money, and seized the opportunities provided by Brexit, the UK will thrive as a strong and united country that works for everyone, no matter whether you voted Leave or Remain."



    Seriously , can anyone post any good economic news for the UK (apart from gains caused solely by the one-off fall in sterling) since Brexit ??


  • #6555
    embraer170
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,438 ✭✭✭embraer170


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped

    A good summary of broken Brexit promises published by the Guardian.


  • #6556
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,681 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Really Interested wrote: »
    What the 2015 Act said.

    “1)A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union”

    From my reading of the Act there is no use of the word advisory. While it is according to the constitution of the UK that Parliament is supreme and the SC recently said so. The issue for the UK is that without a written constitution the constitution is what ever it is judged to be.
    The word "advisory" does not appear in the Referendum Act. Nevertheless, the Referendum was indeed advisory, because there was nothing in the Referendum Act to alter, abolish or remove the powers of Parliament in relation to EU membership (or anything else).
    Gerry T wrote: »
    It might have been named advisory but there were commitments given that the outcome or "will of the people" would be delivered.
    This. The Tory Party fought and won the 2015 General Election on a manifesto commitment not only to hold a referendum but to "respect" the result. Thus they had a political mandate, but not a legal obligation, to give effect to the referendum result. This they did by serving Art. 50 notice in March 2017.

    Immediately after that they fought another election, seeking a mandate for a particular model of Brexit - no single market, no customs union, no ECJ jurisdicastion, yadda, yadda, yadda. Inconveniently for them, they failed to get a mandate for that model of Brexit, which also meant that they failed to get a majority which would enable them to face down the ultra-Brexiters and push through a version of Brexit more calculated to win broad support in the community. So they reinvented the particular model of Brexit for which they failed to get a mandate as something inherent in the referendum result, and have pushed ahead regardless, to the extent that their manifest ineptitude and incompetence has permitted.
    Really Interested wrote: »
    Lawyers in 50 years may talk about this time as the point when parliament was no longer supreme.
    Possibly. But they won't see it as the point where the supremacy of Parliament giving way to the supremacy of the people; they'll talk about the supremacy of Parliament giving way to the supremacy of altogether more shadowy forces.


  • #6557
    Thomas__.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Thomas__.


    Really Interested wrote: »
    My only points are as the UK does not have a codified constitution the concept of a supreme parliament is currently under attack. I can not say how that will finally play out but TM and JC are very happy to try and make Goverenment supreme.

    Straight to the point and just to add something recently, no scandal no matter what and no matter how much cheating was involved to manipulate the people by fake informations, lies and overspending on the side of the leave camp, they are all that strongheaded to 'deliver' Brexit (just as May said again in the Commons yesterday), which means that they are heading for a hard Brexit. The 'UK Brexit Tour' she's starting today in NI is just some waste of time to ensure the hardline Brexiteers (more so on the DUP voters) and in one year to go, the road for disaster is already chosen and nothing will change the course.

    Corbyn wouldn't make any difference at all, even a 'soft Brexit' bears more disadvantages than to remain in the EU with a full membership. He's no real opposition leader, his just another closet anti-EU politician to the bone.

    I look forward to see the Scots having their IndyRef2 in due course. In the face of what is to be anticipated by the prospect of a hard Brexit (which means a no-deal Brexit) and what will come from a post-Brexit time, the Scottish govt will not let go of a IndyRef2. Hopefully they'll vote in favour for Independence by a majority and finally break from the Union. That will leave the fecking DUPers at the hard place when the money from Westminster stops coming in cos the English will have to see for themselves how to minimise the decline in their living standards after 2020.

    This whole Brexit thing has brought the negative sides of the Brits by the Brexiteers to the fore once again and not just that, their strongheadness and stupidity in that matter as well.


  • #6558
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Thomas__. wrote: »
    Corbyn wouldn't make any difference at all, even a 'soft Brexit' bears more disadvantages than to remain in the EU with a full membership.

    Of course, but less disadvantages than Hard Brexit, so better for everyone.

    In practice, I think Corbyn would make little difference because hard brexit is impossible. May & co. will dance around it for a few years and eventually agree some softer deal, while being "very clear" (i.e. bullsh!tting the British public).


  • #6559
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The word "advisory" does not appear in the Referendum Act. Nevertheless, the Referendum was indeed advisory, because there was nothing in the Referendum Act to alter, abolish or remove the powers of Parliament in relation to EU membership (or anything else).


    This. The Tory Party fought and won the 2015 General Election on a manifesto commitment not only to hold a referendum but to "respect" the result. Thus they had a political mandate, but not a legal obligation, to give effect to the referendum result. This they did by serving Art. 50 notice in March 2017.

    Immediately after that they fought another election, seeking a mandate for a particular model of Brexit - no single market, no customs union, no ECJ jurisdicastion, yadda, yadda, yadda. Inconveniently for them, they failed to get a mandate for that model of Brexit, which also meant that they failed to get a majority which would enable them to face down the ultra-Brexiters and push through a version of Brexit more calculated to win broad support in the community. So they reinvented the particular model of Brexit for which they failed to get a mandate as something inherent in the referendum result, and have pushed ahead regardless, to the extent that their manifest ineptitude and incompetence has permitted.


    Possibly. But they won't see it as the point where the supremacy of Parliament giving way to the supremacy of the people; they'll talk about the supremacy of Parliament giving way to the supremacy of altogether more shadowy forces.

    To clarify one of my points I do not think that Parliament is under attack from the people but the Goverenment led by TM.


  • #6560
    trellheim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,187 ✭✭✭trellheim


    What ? A Corbyn Labour Govt would continue the exit


  • #6561
    Thomas__.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Thomas__.


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Thomas__. wrote: »
    Corbyn wouldn't make any difference at all, even a 'soft Brexit' bears more disadvantages than to remain in the EU with a full membership.

    Of course, but less disadvantages than Hard Brexit, so better for everyone.

    In practice, I think Corbyn would make little difference because hard brexit is impossible. May & co. will dance around it for a few years and eventually agree some softer deal, while being "very clear" (i.e. bullsh!tting the British public).
    The time is running out for them and I am sure that by continuing with this silly 'dance around it' - as you have very well put it - will leave them to Exit from the EU without a deal because it is not just time that is running out for the damn stupid Brexiteers, it is patience which is running out too, by the EU and the Scottish govt as well.

    I have never witnessed nor read about any other Brit govt that is that incoherent, incapable, foolish and utter disorganised than this present one. Some days I can't fathom it, some days I just get fed up with this silly Brexit show and some days I just say to myself, well, if they want to have it that way, just let them go and don't give a fiddlers what comes for them afterwards. Afterall, they started like the ancient Romans, they reached their peak of might and power like them, they got on the decline and lost their Empire like them, now they are going to face their own downfall, just like them. For some anti-Brits this might give them some satisfaction, for me it is just some tragic farce which they have brought onto themselves by the sheer arrogance of a few bringing suffering to the many.


  • Advertisement
  • #6562
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,681 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    trellheim wrote: »
    What ? A Corbyn Labour Govt would continue the exit
    Their policy is to remain in a customs union, though, which would limit some of the damage and make it a bit easier to solve the Irish border problem. And, though they haven't said anything very intelligent on the subject, I have a sense that Labour would be slightly more highly motivated to solve the Irish border problem by keeping the border open than the Tories are.


  • #6563
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,162 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Thomas__. wrote: »
    I look forward to see the Scots having their IndyRef2 in due course. In the face of what is to be anticipated by the prospect of a hard Brexit (which means a no-deal Brexit) and what will come from a post-Brexit time, the Scottish govt will not let go of a IndyRef2.

    Many of the arguments that were given to remain in the union will no longer hold true, giving any future independence referendum a far higher probability of seeing Scotland cede from the union. The manner in which the current government have behaved towards Scottish concerns combined with some of the press treatment of Scotland's first minister will have done nothing but provide further cause for grievance and a display of how much Scotland is "valued" by the English.


  • #6564
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,276 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Of course, but less disadvantages than Hard Brexit, so better for everyone.

    In practice, I think Corbyn would make little difference because hard brexit is impossible. May & co. will dance around it for a few years and eventually agree some softer deal, while being "very clear" (i.e. bullsh!tting the British public).

    A few years? They dont have a few years. They have untill October, if that.


  • #6565
    Thomas__.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Thomas__.


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    trellheim wrote: »
    What  ?  A Corbyn Labour Govt would continue the exit
    Their policy is to remain in a customs union, though, which would limit some of the damage and make it a bit easier to solve the Irish border problem.  And, though they haven't said anything very intelligent on the subject, I have a sense that Labour would be slightly more highly motivated to solve the Irish border problem by keeping the border open than the Tories are.
    'A custom union' and he wasn't that clear about what he means by that, presumably something different to the existing EU custom union and that would be rubbish because there won't be a different one. Silly talk and suggestions to make the people drowsy. Corbyn is just another blinder to me, nothing else.


  • #6566
    Thomas__.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Thomas__.


    Lemming wrote: »
    Thomas__. wrote: »
    I look forward to see the Scots having their IndyRef2 in due course. In the face of what is to be anticipated by the prospect of a hard Brexit (which means a no-deal Brexit) and what will come from a post-Brexit time, the Scottish govt will not let go of a IndyRef2.

    Many of the arguments that were given to remain in the union will no longer hold true, giving any future independence referendum a far higher probability of seeing Scotland cede from the union. The manner in which the current government have behaved towards Scottish concerns combined with some of the press treatment of Scotland's first minister will have done nothing but provide further cause for grievance and a display of how much Scotland is "valued" by the English.

    Quite so.


  • #6567
    Lemming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,162 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Thomas__. wrote: »
    Quite so.

    I don't think it's a slam-dunk by any means though, as circumstances would now - if the current Brexit trajectory continues unchecked - mean facing into a vote that would also wave goodbye (on account of no ability to fudge matters) to things such as GBP and the Monarchy, which matter on some level to more than enough voters to mean that the independence campaign will need to have done its homework and done it well.


  • #6568
    demfad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Rain Ascending wrote: »
    And this is part of the reason why the Cambridge Analytica/AIQ/Vote Leave story is not getting the level attention that many here on this forum feels it deserves.

    I agree that the issue is important - democracy is endangered by this type of shenanigans.

    I agree that the media are not giving it enough airtime/column inches at the moment.

    However, I don't believe that the reason is a desire not to rock the boat. The problem lies more with the nature of the story and the news cycle. At the heart of the latest revelations is the probable illegal coordination of multiple leave campaigns. From a news perspective, this is a story about regulations. So, the big surprise is that this story got so much traction. However, two things helped here, namely the Channel 4 sting on Nix (graphcially showing up the underlying nasty modus operandi of Cambridge Analytica) and the misuse of Facebook user data (making the whole thing more personal to viewers).

    The story has since died off because there are no further developments ... yet. Normally one have expected the opposition to take the revelations and put the government under pressure, but as Leroy points out that's not happening in the UK. It was very notable that at Prime Ministers Questions today Corbyn didn't touch the topic at all. The only people to raise it were the SNP and the Greens -- and from what I can make out, they don't have the speaking time to interrogate May the way Corbyn could.

    However, the game isn't over yet. At the very least, the committee that has Wylie's documentation could elect to publish some of it. There are a number of other possible angles clearly signposted by Wylie at his testimony.

    The story is about breaking the law in regards to coordination of campaigns which is illegal. The story is also about the official vote leave campaign laundering money through other campaigns in order to gain an unfair advantage in the election. This is a criminal conspiracy involving directors of Vote Leave who are now aides to Theresa May. The conspiracy might also involve Ministers in the UK Govt including Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.

    Now lets look at who the money was paid to. 40% of TOTAL vote Leave monies and 100% of beLeave monies as well as £100,000 from Veterans for Britian and £32,000 from the DUP were speant on AggregateIQ. THis is an SCL company just like Cambridge Analaytica. Facebooks association with Cambridge Analytica wiped $79 billion off Facebook's stock as of yesterday. AggregateIQ wrote the applications for CAs databases. AIQ had access to the stolen Facebook data.

    So Vote Leave may have engaged in illegal coordination and a criminal conspiracy involving people in the highest levels of Govt with a company who use stolen data, kompromat, dirty tricks, civil unrest and fake news to win elections.

    And this does not make the BBC news?

    Something smells.


  • #6569
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    J Mysterio wrote: »
    A few years? They dont have a few years. They have untill October, if that.

    Oh come on, the EU are past masters at kicking the can down the road. Officially, Sweden have been required to join the Euro since 1994 - how is that coming along, 24 years later?

    This will be the same - the "exit deal" in October will include a transition period during which nothing changes. At the end of the transition period, there will be a few things left to do, and it will be extended.

    In 24 years time, when the Department of Defense is absorbed by the Department of Moon Colonisation, the Department for Exiting the EU will become the oldest surviving UK Government Department.


  • #6570
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,100 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Fox gave an interview on R4 this morning, saying that of the 70 other countries they currently have deals with as part of the EU, they have already spoken to most of them who say they want to continue as is and the he hopes to have 40 of them signed by the end of the transition period.

    1st off, what is the impact of the loss of the other 30? Nobody seem to ask him
    2nd, it would appear that the UK have already accepted the transition period and are working on that basis? Surely with that known, the EU can push very hard for everything they want. The effects of no deal, and no transition, means that no agreements would be ready.

    It appears, and I fully accept that this is simply my opinion and welcome other far better informed input, that the EU is being too quick to agree a transition.


  • Advertisement
  • #6571
    Thomas__.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 152 ✭✭Thomas__.


    Lemming wrote: »
    Thomas__. wrote: »
    Quite so.

    I don't think it's a slam-dunk by any means though, as circumstances would now - if the current Brexit trajectory continues unchecked - mean facing into a vote that would also wave goodbye (on account of no ability to fudge matters) to things such as GBP and the Monarchy, which matter on some level to more than enough voters to mean that the independence campaign will need to have done its homework and done it well.

    I'd rather think that they will do their homework well and be prepared for it when the time for IndyRef2 arrives. I always thought that the SNP would have no problem with Scotland becoming a Republic. Well, there are the Royal residencies in Scotland which is some matter and maybe a reason to keep the Queen as Head of State like in Australia and NZ.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement