AntonyP
-
Posts
21 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by AntonyP
-
-
30 minutes ago, jakedee said:
Just go down the Chinese route
Spontaneously combusting 'hover' boards anyone? Although you can get a similar experience by buying Vauxhall cars these days
0 -
44 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:
Uh, won't this point also apply to any UK company that wishes to export goods to the EU after Brexit?
For example, if I was a toy manufacturer, my toys would have to comply with the current EU Toy Safety requirements across the UK and the rest of the EU. After Brexit, I'll have to comply with the new (watered down?) UK specific version of BS:EN 71 in the UK, but still comply with EU requirements elsewhere in the EU.. Why won't this "accommodation and extra admisistrative burden" be a problem in our new isolationist UK?
Of course it will. I always laughed in the face of people when they claimed we would no longer have to abide by EU regulations. Most products are made to a standard that can be sold throughout many territories, companies aren't suddenly going to change their product or make two different versions one for home use and one for export.
We'll still be using the standards even though they no longer apply to us. This is just one of the complete fantasies that the Brexiteers have made up.
I hope they enjoy their chinese cars or are willing to pay a premium for most of the popular selling cars since the majority of them are imported from the EU.
0 -
49 minutes ago, AUFC90 said:
Anyway, no point going round in circles and it's getting late. You think the world will cave in after a yes vote and i don't.
QuoteThe commission wouldn't even be in the room. it's the member states that decide, some were all for it such as Denmark, other like Spain weren't quite as keen. It's most certainly a special case and i've no doubt would be treated as such.
The Commission was just stating what the rules dictate, which would have an effect regardless of what the member states think. The member states do not have the power to over rule the rules of EU entry. Why would they agree to letting Scotland bypass the entry process? It is not in their interests to do so. Many of them have had to go through the process themselves so why would they let Scotland?
Scotland is not a special case, it is not an EU Member state, it is just part of a state that has never held membership and would have nothing stopping it from entering into the formal entry process. Wanting to be in the EU is not a special case.
QuoteIn your opinion.....
In many people's opinions... The only people that seem to think it was a credible time frame are independence supporters, and even some of them have not accepted it was unrealistic.
QuoteIf every country had to fulfill all entry criteria the EU would literally be about half the size.
I assume you are referring to existing members. They only had to fulfill the criteria at the time of joining. New entrants like Scotland would have to fulfill the criteria at the time of the attempted entry.
QuoteI'm sure we could set up a central bank ffs
You could, and then you would have to wait for it to prove itself to be stable. Which would then delay how long it will take for Scotland to become a Member of the EU.
QuoteI just love how everyone that voted no is so sure what would happen based on statements from lying polticians during a referendum.
It isn't from Politicians, it is from the research I conducted into the issue. Perhaps you should try doing the same then maybe you wouldn't keep repeating the total nonsens that the SNP had fed you.
QuoteFact is an area that has been part of the EU for 40 years has never succeeded from a member state before. You make it out like we are Turkey or some semi corrupt eastern european country that would have to jump through hoops for 10 years to get in. Not going to happen, half a million EU nationals live here, we have been contributing and benefitting from EU membership for longer than 65% of the countries in the EU. the member states would get round the table and compromises would be made. It will be even easier the next time seen as the UK will be out.
That is because I have read what International Law and the EU have said on the matter. The document I posted states the EU's position, your the one ignoring that instead choosing to believe the SNP's claims.
This is further complicated by the fact that the UK will have left the EU entirely before Sturgeon and Co brainwash enough people into leaving the UK.
What happens in regards to the EU nationals currently in the UK is unknown, they certainly aren't a bargaining chip towards Scotland being handed membership status without doing the work for it. In all honesty they will likely be granted permission to stay here following the UK's withdrawal from the UK.
But then this debate has been happening since 2013, if you haven't taken on board the reality in these 3 years, I don't expect you to now either.
0 -
Just now, AUFC90 said:
Yeah yeah, I believe ALL politicians tell the truth and I blindly follow the SNP, except my support for independence has absolutely nothing to do with political parties or what they say or do. You sound like one these mouth breathers that voted against independence because Alex Salmond would be king of Scotland forever. I'm just completely mental about opinion i formwhereas you have all the facts spoonfed by the establishment which completely means you're right about a future that absolutely no one knows what will happen for sure but......FACTS and that.
Started with the insults I see. The universal sign of an argument being lost.
It is funny seeing you call me a mouth breather when it is abundantly clear that I have a better understanding of the situation than you do.
I would not have voted for Independence because the incompetent SNP never put together a credible plan to achieve a better Scotland. They just shouted freedom, everything will be better, nothing bad will happen and everyone will do as we tell them to. I live in the real world and can see that the whole thing was doomed to fail because no one had a plan, just like will happen with the Brexit shitshow.
0 -
8 minutes ago, NotThePars said:
Aye but on the surface this strategy is win/ win for the SNP. If WM agrees then, as renton says, the gradualist approach to indy is immeasurably strengthened. If, as most people expect, WM vetoes it then it gives the SNP tons of ammunition to portray WM as ignoring the strong Remain majority here.It is not something that Westminster can agree to. It could agree to devolve almost all powers to Scotland (which would be counterproductive as it will spiral costs by having to replicate multiple services where as one exists now to cover the entire UK), but that would have no effect on the EU or the Single Market, both of which would require Scotland to actually be Independent to join them.
0 -
7 minutes ago, AUFC90 said:
^^^^Needs to find out what the word 'impossible' means.
^^^^ Needs to find out what 'gullible' means...
Political parties love people like you who will blindly believe everything they say without questioning the validity.
0 -
9 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:
You're wrong, the mandate is to keep Scotland and it's people in the EU as per the referendum.
A meaningless mandate since they are powerless to do anything about it. It is quite funny seeing them claiming they have a mandate to keep Scotland in the EU since Scotland would not be in the EU if the people had voted for their ultimate goal, Independence.
The mandate was loaded anyway, since Scotland never had 'a will' in the first place. It was just an excuse to ignore the wishes of the majority and keep pushing for Independence.
0 -
9 hours ago, renton said:
You are being unfair. Certainly on the White paper, the demand for a currency union was a hostage to fortune, and a bad mistake, even if it made sense economically in the short term, but here any plan to keep Scotland in both the UK and the EU is massively dependent on Westminster compliance and given it's the ScotGov originating the plan, then it follows that it's them who are asking to be accommodated.
No such plan is possible. The idea can be filed in the Fiction section just like the White Paper. Scotland will have to leave the UK to be in the EU if the UK leaves. Without leaving Scotland is not eligible to be in the EU.
It is the SNP doing their usual thing of making things up and then declaring them not only possible but what will happen.
0 -
22 minutes ago, AUFC90 said:
Scotland has a better trade deficit than the UK and actually props up it's current account with food and drink exports and oil exports, this improves credit ratings as well as produces tax. I never believed the likes of standard life anyway, preaching( not for the first time) that they would f**k off down south whilst building a 700m shiny new HQ. It would be hilarious watching the mental gymnastics of the likes of Standard Life and co if the UK is out the single market and Scotland is having a referendum which will keep them in it. Now that would be funny.
They wouldn't have to move all operations, they would just need to move their registered address and the important parts of the business that needs protecting from a potentially volatile economy. Companies are going to do what it best for them, which involves ensuring their continued existence. If this means moving from one country to another that is what will happen.
When the UK actually exits the EU, a few companies will move to mainland Europe for their own protections.
0 -
37 minutes ago, AUFC90 said:
We can only see if ROI will be bound by EU trade agreements then. I suspect you'll be surprised.
Sticking by the "grass is greener" theory usually fails because the grass is usually never greener on the other side.
Good luck trying to convince people to vote for Independence when you can't bring yourself to face reality.
0 -
21 minutes ago, AUFC90 said:
Who made it clear ? Politicians during a referendum campaign ? Means absolutely noting. If you read my comment I said by this time Dec 2016 Scotland would have been independent for roughly 9 months and i firmly believe that in that timescale( Sept 2014 to now) we would have joined the EU with relative ease.So you genuinely believe that a western european country which is relatively rich and is larger than about 10 EU members would literally not be able to gain entry to the EU because it had a democratic vote to leave an EU member, with permission by said member ? Bearing in mind that Scotland has been paying into the Eu, as part of the UK for much longer than the majority of it's members. We aint Turkey and we aint on the fringes of Europe. How many countries have satisfied ALL criteria that have joined in the last 20 years ?
Who made it clear? The European Commission did in 2014, in reply to a letter sent by the Scottish Parliament.
The time frame published in the White Paper was complete nonsense, like many things contained in that book. The reality of Scotland becoming Independent would have taken a lot longer, it massively underestimated the work required to actually make it happen. If the public had voted for Independence in 2014, I don't believe Scotland would even be Independent yet.
I didn't say Scotland would not be able to join the EU, I'm just saying it will not be as straight forward as Independence supporters like to claim it will be, who for some reason seem to think that the backdoor would just be left open for Scotland to easily enter. All I am saying is that Scotland would have to fulfill the entry criteria like every other country that wanted/want to join.
Scotland currently meets the criteria thanks to being part of the UK, to join the EU as in Independent country it would need to satisfy all of the criteria all on it's own, which will include criteria it currently does meet, but also criteria it did not need to as it was not a member state itself, such as having a central bank.
0 -
4 minutes ago, AUFC90 said:
We'll see if ROI have open trade with the UK then. UK government representatives over there discussing it all the time points to a common sense approach.
Probably not. As an EU Member it would be bound by the trade agreements the EU had put in place with the UK.
0 -
3 minutes ago, AUFC90 said:
Another one with a crystal ball. Has another country ever succeeded from an EU member ? If the answer is no then how on earth do you know what way the politics would be played. I reckon there would have been common sense everywhere and a smooth transition to EU membership but I don't know and neither do you.
Another one that just ignores everything he doesn't like or agree with...
It was made more than clear back in 2014 that Scotland would be outside of the EU if it left the UK as it would become a totally new Country. No amount of bluff and bluster from the SNP can change this. Continuing to bury their heads in the sand and offering the public things they cannot deliver is not going to win over the public to vote for Independence.
The common sense approach is what will happen. Scotland will leave the UK, become a new country and will then become eligible apply to join the EU, once it has satisfied the criteria to join it will become a full member. This is the standard entry process that is required of all Countries wishing to join the EU, and there is little reason for Scotland to be granted exception from this.
0 -
1 hour ago, AUFC90 said:
Theresa May was saying it again today. If we are independent we won't get into to the EU. Oh and the absolute best one of the day was that we wouldn't get access to the 'UK single market'. Anyone that seriously believes that Scotland and England wont have tariff free trade with each other is off their heads or thick or a combination of the two.
Tariff free trade would only exist whilst Scotland remained in the UK and out of the EU, or Scotland left the UK but was not in the EU. If Scotland was in the EU and the UK wasn't, Scotland would be bound by the trade rules and tariffs put in place during the UK's exit of the EU.
-1 -
1 hour ago, Mr Heliums said:
But (a) the Scottish electorate is being ignored – we voted against exit; and (b) the manifesto clearly stated what might happen if Scotland was removed from the EU against its will.
You can argue whether we were voting as the UK or not – but we certainly didn't vote for the sort of hard brexit that's now being proposed and what the First Minister proposed today is perfectly reasonable. It's hardly bluff and bluster – that description falls to the nonsense we were told during the Independence referendum about safeguarding our EU membership.
So the 1.6 million votes for Remain and the 1 million votes for Leave that were cast in Scotland were not counted were they? That is the only way that you would be being ignored.
You were given the equal chance to vote on it just like everyone else was, your vote was worth just as much as everyone else's. Scotland doesn't have a will, neither does England, Wales or Northern Ireland, all of us as the UK has a will, and the will of the majority is for the UK to leave the EU, even if it will cause a lot of damage to the Country.
No one, and I repeat, NO ONE, voted for what type of Brexit we should have. Everyone was asked to vote on whether they wanted the UK to remain in the EU or to leave the EU, we were not asked exactly how we wanted it happen, whether that be a 'hard', 'soft' or a 'red, blue and white brexit.
As for your Indyref and the safeguarding of the EU Membership, it did. There was no promise of guaranteed EU Membership, just a warning that leaving the UK would mean you leave the EU. If you had voted for Independence, Scotland would be out of the EU right now according to the SNP's White Paper, which penned the date on Independence as March 2016, and as of day 1 of being an independent Country, Scotland would not have been in the EU.
-1
When will indyref2 happen?
in The Politics Forum
Posted · Edited by AntonyP
A tip for you Baxter Parp, if you are going to use images to claim there has been a manipulation, at least check the pictures are actually the same. You clearly didn't notice that neither his shirt or tie are the same in those pictures, unless someone has invented pattern shifting material I don't know about
If it is a manipulation, it is one that was not done recently, as it was used in 2015 also: http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/13792030.RBS_boss_signals_cost_cutting_drive_will_continue/
The pictures posted by Peter A Bell on Twitter are certainly doctored. As someone else noted you can see the bleeding of the yellow colour;
in his hair
on his shoulder
and there is even a bit that the creator forget to turn blue
If the yellow background was indeed manipulated as some claim, who ever did it did a great job, considering even the spaces around his hair are also yellow...
There is even shadowing behind the RBS logo, which wouldn't be there is the colour had been changed.
(Slow work day, can you tell?)