UK Referendum 23 June 2016 - Will it be an EU BREXIT or Not?

originally posted by: bigyin
a reply to: crazyewok

Clearly you don't know how the EU works.

Each member state in EU is an independent country.

The only countries in EU that are not independent are Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

These four countries are combined into the UK which is treated for EU purposes as a single entity. The UK is not a country it is a unions of four countries. I think I've been over this before.

Yup. The UK is a mini-EU that is far less democratic than the EU itself. The right thing for the UK to do would be to evolve into a federal state (like Germany, Sweden etc) where local governments have a great deal of say over matters, including taxation.

Right now the UK is still stuck in Magna-Carta land, which was a great achievement in the days (e.g. devolving more power from the King to the Barons, while maintaining a feudal system leaving 99.9% of the people with no say whatsoever), but we simply haven't kept up with times.

For one thing - we don't live in a feudal system anymore (only a semi-feudal one).

a reply to: Freeborn

We had that from Brussels - we, the British people saw through that.

The 'British people' only exists as a concept if there is unanimity among the peoples of the countries that make up the British union - what is known as the UK.

In this case there isn't any. There isn't even unanimity among the regions of England.

The correct phrase would therefore be:

"we, the English people aside from those (traitors) in London, Cambridge, Oxford, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Brighton etc not to mention those (traitors) in Cardiff, Aberystwyth etc saw through that".

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Boris Johnson is a knobhead and its a disgrace that he's been appointed Foreign Secretary.

He's duplicitous, self-serving and opinionated.
In addition I would have thought diplomacy would be a key attribute for the Foreign Secretary yet it doesn't really appear to be one of stronger points.

What I will say is that despite my personal dislike for May I don't envy her job.
She has inherited a nation that is riddled with divisions.
Never has the UK been so divided - an absolutely horrendous legacy for Cameron to leave anyone.

I beg to differ. Boris Johnson is a proper British politician, exhibiting all the right traits and disdain for the rest of the world worthy of a British national of a cabinet tasked with returning the UK to the 1950s and, if possible, far earlier than that.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: bigyin
Out of interest here is a map showing the countries that have gained independence from Westminster

Not one of them has ever asked to be ruled from London again.

Apart from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Bahamas they are all third world # holes

Good luck Scotland! May the odds be ever in your favour!

Oh Brutus... you don't fancy places such as Malta, Cyprus, Singapore and Hong Kong, do you?

originally posted by: moniker

originally posted by: bigyin
a reply to: crazyewok

Clearly you don't know how the EU works.

Each member state in EU is an independent country.

The only countries in EU that are not independent are Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

These four countries are combined into the UK which is treated for EU purposes as a single entity. The UK is not a country it is a unions of four countries. I think I've been over this before.

Yup. The UK is a mini-EU that is far less democratic than the EU itself. The right thing for the UK to do would be to evolve into a federal state (like Germany, Sweden etc) where local governments have a great deal of say over matters, including taxation.

Right now the UK is still stuck in Magna-Carta land, which was a great achievement in the days (e.g. devolving more power from the King to the Barons, while maintaining a feudal system leaving 99.9% of the people with no say whatsoever), but we simply haven't kept up with times.

For one thing - we don't live in a feudal system anymore (only a semi-feudal one).

Agree on the point about democracy and the fact that we wont have it until there is PR in the UK and this is and has been the UK's problem for a very long time! And when it is applied as with the EU BREXIT vote, guess what the greedy and self centered pro elites lose!!!

When and only when (if ever) PR is firmly established in the UK will the home of so called democracy be the true home of democracy. Meanwhile "TPTB have it", "TPTB have it".

The lion has awoken from its long slumber, the question is will be remain awake!!

Sturgeon: I can block UK exit from Europe

www.msn.com...

I don't the British people will appreciate this following their choice already made. Wait the reaction...

This may well lead to protests on an unprecedented scale in the UK and what that might entail.

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Sturgeon: I can block UK exit from Europe

I don't the British people will appreciate this following their choice already made. Wait the reaction...

M/s Sturgeon has an inflated perspective of her own importance .... **Airs of

grandeur** comes to mind!

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Sturgeon: I can block UK exit from Europe

I don't the British people will appreciate this following their choice already made. Wait the reaction...

M/s Sturgeon has an inflated perspective of her own importance .... **Airs of

grandeur** comes to mind!

Couldn't agree more! A rotty who wants an ivory tower.

a reply to: eletheia

Wrong as usual.

Thats not what Sturgeon said. Even the piece you cited does not say that.

It was Theresa May who said she wouldn't trigger brexit until everyone was agreed.

originally posted by: bigyin
a reply to: eletheia

Wrong as usual.

Thats not what Sturgeon said. Even the piece you cited does not say that.

It was Theresa May who said she wouldn't trigger brexit until everyone was agreed.

Note that does not mean that everyone needs to be agreed that we exit the EU - that decision is already made. May wants to negotiate with all UK member countries to make sure they are comfortable. At some point though (by the end of the year I would suggest) article 50 will be triggered even if Sturgeon is still whining about UK's decision to leave the EU.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: bigyin
a reply to: eletheia

Wrong as usual.

Thats not what Sturgeon said. Even the piece you cited does not say that.

It was Theresa May who said she wouldn't trigger brexit until everyone was agreed.

Note that does not mean that everyone needs to be agreed that we exit the EU - that decision is already made. May wants to negotiate with all UK member countries to make sure they are comfortable. At some point though (by the end of the year I would suggest) article 50 will be triggered even if Sturgeon is still whining about UK's decision to leave the EU.

Agree. Otherwise there will be a public backlash! We are already a month gone by the British people wont wait until xmas to express their discontent if it isn't triggered before xmas.

On top of this the EU wants us out quickly because they want it done and dusted fast because a delayed exit may encourage further revolt other unhappy EU members.

Trident is being debated tonight in HoC.

Trident is based in Scotland.

Scotland does not want Trident in Scotland.

And yet when it comes time for the Scottish section of MP's to speak the rest of the UK MP's leave the chamber.

Is this the cherished Scotland May speaks of ? Totally ignored

originally posted by: bigyin
Wrong as usual.

Wrong???

That was *My* personal *opinion*, shared by many others too I

would think!

It is only *wrong* in *your opinion*

Thats not what Sturgeon said. Even the piece you cited does not say that.

I neither cited nor linked in my post ...However another member posted

a link which included

Nicola Sturgeon has suggested she has

a veto over 'when' Britain leaves the EU.

And that again is only her opinion


In your dreams Nicola, you are Scotland's first minister NOT the

Prime Minister of the UK

originally posted by: bigyin

Trident is based in Scotland.
Scotland does not want Trident in Scotland.

Lol!!

I thought of you the other night when i saw some Scots being interviewed

on some programme I was half watching on TV, about that very subject

They didn't want the Trident ..... they didn't want the loss of jobs either.

Typical....

a reply to: eletheia

There wouldn't be a loss of jobs. Nobody is talking about closing the naval base. The SNP argue that the money saved from Trident could be used to build and service surface fleet ships. There would be a higher number of fishery protection vessels, border control vessels, ships to protect north sea platforms or stop and search ships for drugs or weapons and illegal immigrants. We currently have very few of these types of ships.

In an independent Scotland the Faslane base would still be used for the Scottish navy and we can allow other navies such as England and other NATO countries to use it if they wish.

The actual numbers employed at Faslane on Trident is quite small, less than a thousand. There are many other people employed on Trident but these are elsewhere not at Faslane.

To make a decision on whether to keep Trident based on the number of jobs it provides is ridiculous in any case. If you did away with Trident you could give each of the Faslane Trident workers a million pounds each and it would still be a lot cheaper than keeping it there. So it's a nonsense argument.

The reasons I don't want Trident in Scotland are because I believe it makes us a target. In the event of a nuclear war Central Scotland would be blown to bits simply because the weapons are here. I also believe the weapons are immoral, out of date, the whole system does not work as it used to as the boats can now be tracked by enemies. The UK government have admitted already that the system is obsolete. The whole point is the boat is undetectable to enemies but that isn't the case any longer so a first strike would take it out rendering it useless.

There is no scenario that I can think of where it would actually be used in any case. Tell me one if you have.

It's a complete waste of money, immoral, unusable, obsolete, and not wanted in Scotland by the majority of Scots.

So why is it still here ?

Because it doesn't matter what Scots want they are over ruled and ignored at Westminster.

Which is why we need independence.

Would you be happy if Brussels decided to install something radioactive or toxic near your house ?


Oh and another important point ... the UK government have already admitted that exploration and development of oil reserves on the west coast of Scotland were not allowed because it might interfere with the nuclear submarines. So without the subs these other industries could get going creating thousands more jobs all over the west coast. No you won't hear about that on BBC

originally posted by: bigyin
There wouldn't be a loss of jobs. Nobody is talking about closing the naval base.

In this instance i bow to your superior knowledge. However i was referring to a

TV programme and what the Scot's (not English) were saying.

I would assume that ANY place of employment and its subsidaries which

closes/shuts down has got to lead to job losses.

In an independent Scotland the Faslane base would still be used for the Scottish navy and we can allow other navies such as England and other NATO countries to use it if they wish.

The Scottish Navy?.... I wasn't aware there was one!


www.royalnavy.mod.uk...


HMNB CLYDE - HER MAJESTY's NAVAL BASE (and that is NOT a reference

to Nicola Sturgeon)
It is the key element of the UK's *Royal Navy's* main presence in Scotland.

The reasons I don't want Trident in Scotland are because I believe it makes us a target. In the event of a nuclear war Central Scotland would be blown to bits simply because the weapons are here. I also believe the weapons are immoral, out of date, the whole system does not work as it used to as the boats can now be tracked by enemies. The UK government have admitted already that the system is obsolete.

Precisely!! And that is why it is being up dated. It is a deterrent an insurance if you

like - The same reason i have a burgler alarm on my house, I feel safer and the

burglers look else where to ply their trade.

It's a complete waste of money, immoral, unusable, obsolete, and not wanted in Scotland by the majority of Scots.
So why is it still here ?

Because Scotland is part of the UK .... Scotland had a referendum resulting in

a *majority* voting to remain in the Union.

Because it doesn't matter what Scots want they are over ruled and ignored at Westminster.
Which is why we need independence.

It may surprise you to know that there are many English who feel that Westminster

ignores them too, but that's democracy the majority are catered for. There's never

going to be 100% getting satisfaction and what they want.

Would you be happy if Brussels decided to install something radioactive or toxic near your house ?

EXACTLY !! and that is why i voted OUT of the EU they weren't doing democracy

they were doing diktats.

Oh and another important point ... the UK government have already admitted that exploration and development of oil reserves on the west coast of Scotland were not allowed because it might interfere with the nuclear submarines. So without the subs these other industries could get going creating thousands more jobs all over the west coast. No you won't hear about that on BBC

The *UK Government* is democractictly elected to do what is in the best interest

of the whole UK and not just part of the UK?

Scotland and Wales have a regional assembly, with devolved power and a leader,

Being the leader of a regional assembly is not in the same league as Prime Minister.

a reply to: eletheia

The Scottish government wants to get rid of Trident. It also wants to take what it believes is Scotland's share of the conventional armed forces and create the Scottish Defence Force. The White Paper, produced by the Holyrood administration, says it would have an annual defence budget of £2.5bn and at the point of independence it would have a land force of 3,500 troops and 1,200 reservists. As well as artillery, engineering and medical capabilities, it would also include an aviation unit with six helicopters. The maritime forces would include two frigates from the Royal Navy's current fleet, four mine counter measure vessels and two offshore patrol vessels. It would also have other patrol boats and support ships and it would need 2,000 personnel and 200 reservists. For the air force, it would have a quick reaction alert squadron of 12 Typhoon jets; a tactical transport squadron of six Hercules aircraft and a helicopter squadron. That section of the defence set up would need 2,000 personnel and 300 reservists. The aim would be to have a total force of 15,000 personnel with 5,000 reservists across the three services after 10 years of independence.

Scottish Defence Force after Independence

You don't know very much about this do you ?

a reply to: eletheia

Trident as a burglar alarm ?

It's more like placing your home and yourself in a huge pool of petrol, then vowing to catch the burglar out by sparking matches and throwing them at him.

You're right, though. The Scots voted No to independence. But many have since changed their mind following the Brexit vote, broken promises etc. That's the dilemma. And how to resolve that ? A second independence referendum. Sure for some it's a stinker but I can't see any way out unless the UK Government opts for some kind of major constitutional change, federal solution of 4 nations etc.

And yes, there really did use to be a Royal Scottish Navy, way back, The Great Michael and not much else lol.

originally posted by: bigyin
a reply to: eletheia

The Scottish government wants to get rid of Trident. It also wants to take what it believes is Scotland's share of the conventional armed forces and create the Scottish Defence Force. The White Paper, produced by the Holyrood administration, says it would have an annual defence budget of £2.5bn and at the point of independence it would have a land force of 3,500 troops and 1,200 reservists. As well as artillery, engineering and medical capabilities, it would also include an aviation unit with six helicopters. The maritime forces would include two frigates from the Royal Navy's current fleet, four mine counter measure vessels and two offshore patrol vessels. It would also have other patrol boats and support ships and it would need 2,000 personnel and 200 reservists. For the air force, it would have a quick reaction alert squadron of 12 Typhoon jets; a tactical transport squadron of six Hercules aircraft and a helicopter squadron. That section of the defence set up would need 2,000 personnel and 300 reservists. The aim would be to have a total force of 15,000 personnel with 5,000 reservists across the three services after 10 years of independence.

Scottish Defence Force after Independence

You don't know very much about this do you ?

After independence, England could invade Scotland and take all the countries resources. You guys could live in the highlands somewhere - so long as we didn't have to see you.

/joking/

a reply to: UKTruth

You're going to send English troops to invade Glasgow ?

I think that'll be your Stalingrad lol