When will indyref2 happen?

[Tibbermoresaint]

Just now, strichener said:

So you are in agreement that Scotland is not currently a member?

We've been in the EU for 46 years.

[tirso]

9 minutes ago, strichener said:

The companies Act would certainly require far more than a day or two.  The Social security act would need to be written with the agreement of the EU otherwise it may actually become a barrier to entry.  If you could point me to any legislation, of substantial scope, that the devolved parliament has passed in a day or two then I would be surprised.

What would the EU add in to the current legislation which would be an issue?  

I'm genuinely interested what would be a problem with a single act of parliament substituting status quo.  I can't see what the stumbling block would be.

[strichener]

Just now, Tibbermoresaint said:

A week then?

I struggle to see why there would be any issues given there would be no differences to current legislation. 

This is either wishful thinking or complete ignorance.  There will be numerous changes required to the existing legislation as it makes reference to numerous other UK Acts and SIs and also spawns significant numbers of subsidiary legislation. It really isn't just a find and replace exercise.

For comparison the significantly more simple "UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill" took 3 weeks to make it through the three parliamentary stages.   This for a relatively short 31 page act, whilst the Companies Act is over 700 pages.

 

 

[strichener]

28 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

No country has joined the EU on Independence Day having been a member for the previous 46 years. 

 

13 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

We've been in the EU for 46 years.

I detect a shift in position.  Let's be clear here once and for all - Is Scotland a member of the EU?

[Tibbermoresaint]

2 minutes ago, strichener said:

This is either wishful thinking or complete ignorance.  There will be numerous changes required to the existing legislation as it makes reference to numerous other UK Acts and SIs and also spawns significant numbers of subsidiary legislation. It really isn't just a find and replace exercise.

For comparison the significantly more simple "UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill" took 3 weeks to make it through the three parliamentary stages.   This for a relatively short 31 page act, whilst the Companies Act is over 700 pages.

 

 

So some hard work for the Parliamentary draftsmen, but no reason to believe the Parliamentary process would be time-consuming.

[Tibbermoresaint]

2 minutes ago, strichener said:

 

I detect a shift in position.  Let's be clear here once and for all - Is Scotland a member of the EU?

We've been in the EU for 46 years. 

[strichener]

4 minutes ago, tirso said:

What would the EU add in to the current legislation which would be an issue?  

I'm genuinely interested what would be a problem with a single act of parliament substituting status quo.  I can't see what the stumbling block would be.

It isn't really a case of what they would add, more making sure that it was compliant with their requirements.  As an example, the White Paper in the run-up to 2014 stated:

Quote

However, mitigation is not enough. Independence will allow the Scottish Parliament to: make decisions on welfare; reverse the most damaging of the Westminster changes; and ensure that we have a social security system for the future that meets our needs and objectives.

Which would indicate that we would not just me porting the existing legislation into our law.

[Tibbermoresaint]

9 minutes ago, strichener said:

It isn't really a case of what they would add, more making sure that it was compliant with their requirements.  As an example, the White Paper in the run-up to 2014 stated:

Which would indicate that we would not just me porting the existing legislation into our law.

Any changes to UK law have to be compliant with EU law. I suspect it isn't beyond the wit of man for someone in the Scottish Government to ensure any proposed changes to Scottish law are compliant with EU law.

Any other fantasy obstacles you want to invent?

Edited June 10, 2019 by Tibbermoresaint
Missing word

[tirso]

Which would indicate that we would not just me porting the existing legislation into our law.

Is your take there that the Scots independent government would make changes to the current legislation before porting ? I think that's a leap if I'm honest.

 

[tirso]

Wouldn't we just make sure it meets the req then? That's why I'm asking what specifically are these reqs that would cause an issue. I'm trying to be fair here to see what the problem is going to be but apart from physical drafting I'm not seeing it.

[strichener]

1 hour ago, tirso said:

Is your take there that the Scots independent government would make changes to the current legislation before porting ? I think that's a leap if I'm honest.

 

They would have to make changes otherwise each current institution in England would have to be mirrored with an equivalent in Scotland.  There are also current UK opt-outs that we will not be able to keep should we join the EU after independence.  These will either have to be incorporated into existing laws or new laws created for these to take affect and apply to areas such as justice and security.

If we are serious about having a new start and making the country work for the people then I am not sure that I can be persuaded that following the existing UK model is conducive to this aim.

On a much more complicated matter - Schengen, the agreement reached between the UK and Scotland will need to underpin this otherwise we hit the same issue as is currently facing the UK over Ireland.  In this situation, Scotland would be faced with the decision of whether to erect a hard border or not.  All of this requires legislation that currently does not exist for the UK.

There are loads of other issues that will have to be addressed such as a written constitution, central bank etc.  I also do not think we would be granted membership until an agreement with the rUK had been achieved.  This is just a personal opinion based on how the EU has treated other countries wanting membership who are involved in disputes with neighbours.

[Tibbermoresaint]

17 minutes ago, strichener said:

They would have to make changes otherwise each current institution in England would have to be mirrored with an equivalent in Scotland.  There are also current UK opt-outs that we will not be able to keep should we join the EU after independence.  These will either have to be incorporated into existing laws or new laws created for these to take affect and apply to areas such as justice and security.

If we are serious about having a new start and making the country work for the people then I am not sure that I can be persuaded that following the existing UK model is conducive to this aim.

On a much more complicated matter - Schengen, the agreement reached between the UK and Scotland will need to underpin this otherwise we hit the same issue as is currently facing the UK over Ireland.  In this situation, Scotland would be faced with the decision of whether to erect a hard border or not.  All of this requires legislation that currently does not exist for the UK.

There are loads of other issues that will have to be addressed such as a written constitution, central bank etc.  I also do not think we would be granted membership until an agreement with the rUK had been achieved.  This is just a personal opinion based on how the EU has treated other countries wanting membership who are involved in disputes with neighbours.

Standard Project Fear guff.

What you and your fellow-travellers never grasp is that the EU27 want Scotland to be in the EU. Having Scotland in the EU benefits them in terms of their export markets and in terms of the EU's prestige. There is no reason why there should be any obstacles from their side to the continuation of our membership. The uncomfortable reality for yoons is that both Scotland and the EU27 have an interest in ensuring Scotland is in the EU on Independence Day and that is what will happen.

[strichener]

3 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

Standard Project Fear guff.

What you and your fellow-travellers never grasp is that the EU27 want Scotland to be in the EU. Having Scotland in the EU benefits them in terms of their export markets and in terms of the EU's prestige. There is no reason why there should be any obstacles from their side to the continuation of our membership. The uncomfortable reality for yoons is that both Scotland and the EU27 have an interest in ensuring Scotland is in the EU on Independence Day and that is what will happen.

Not sure what "fellow-travellers" is referring to but as has already been demonstrated to you, Scotland is not an EU member and there is no shortcut process to membership.  I'll leave you to see how long accession normally takes but I can assure you it is far longer than the 18 months that the SNP used as a timeline for independence.

[Tibbermoresaint]

3 minutes ago, strichener said:

Not sure what "fellow-travellers" is referring to but as has already been demonstrated to you, Scotland is not an EU member and there is no shortcut process to membership.  I'll leave you to see how long accession normally takes but I can assure you it is far longer than the 18 months that the SNP used as a timeline for independence.

We've been in the EU for 46 years. We meet all membership requirements. There is nothing to be gained by either party if we're not in the EU. Realpolitik wins every time.

[tirso]

36 minutes ago, strichener said:

They would have to make changes otherwise each current institution in England would have to be mirrored with an equivalent in Scotland.  There are also current UK opt-outs that we will not be able to keep should we join the EU after independence.  These will either have to be incorporated into existing laws or new laws created for these to take affect and apply to areas such as justice and security.

On the narrow point of the legislation, i'm not being convinced there's an issue there.  The laws are already competent from a EU perspective so it's simply a case of porting to the "new jurisdiction".  We're not amending non-EU competent law.  It's not the same as Croatia, for example.

Would there be potentially deviations because of UK opt outs?  Possibly, I've no idea.  That's what i'm interested in but noones put forward any specifics.

We need to set up non-devolved areas.  How difficult that would be is another thing.  But the law aspect of it?  Nah.

 

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, tirso said:

On the narrow point of the legislation, i'm not being convinced there's an issue there.  The laws are already competent from a EU perspective so it's simply a case of porting to the "new jurisdiction".  We're not amending non-EU competent law.  It's not the same as Croatia, for example.

Would there be potentially deviations because of UK opt outs?  Possibly, I've no idea.  That's what i'm interested in but noones put forward any specifics.

We need to set up non-devolved areas.  How difficult that would be is another thing.  But the law aspect of it?  Nah.

 

I think people are mixing up the complexity of divorce from the UK with rejoining the EU. If we get an orderly financial system and settlement with London sorted out, the only thing left to negotiate with the EU would be our contribution and any opt outs we'd like to retain. The potential border problems are unknowable at the moment as nobody knows what's going to happen with Brexit, but the Brexiteers keep assuring us that there will be no need for a hard border in Ireland so I'm sure we can sort something out.

[ICTJohnboy]

Don't think anyone's suggesting leaving the Union would be a piece of cake, but given the fucking mayhem prevailing down south regarding the election of a new Tory leader/PM -  just watching Sky News this morning and listening to some of these c***s setting out their strategies for leaving the EU and restoring good old fashioned Tory values such as tax cuts for the wealthy, etc, These glory hunting c***s are exposing and revealing themselves to be exactly what they are -  power grabbing, self obsessed cretins.

Why should we in Scotland take any more of Tory Westminster rule - or even Labour Westminster rule, which isn't much better?

We have a different sense of values here - we know that being in the EU has been good for us and that is where we should remain. I don't care how difficult it proves to be, but breaking from the Union and remaining in the EU just has to be our ultimate aim.  We've put with this for long enough.

Now is the time.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by ICTJohnboy

[strichener]

37 minutes ago, tirso said:

On the narrow point of the legislation, i'm not being convinced there's an issue there.  The laws are already competent from a EU perspective so it's simply a case of porting to the "new jurisdiction".  We're not amending non-EU competent law.  It's not the same as Croatia, for example.

Would there be potentially deviations because of UK opt outs?  Possibly, I've no idea.  That's what i'm interested in but noones put forward any specifics.

We need to set up non-devolved areas.  How difficult that would be is another thing.  But the law aspect of it?  Nah.

 

You are (mostly) correct that we are not amending non-EU competent law however I disagree that it will be "simply a case of porting" as you have put it.  If you take the IPA 2016 as a more recent example, this specifically refers to the Police Act 1997, Northern Ireland Act 1998, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2016, Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Social Security Fraud Act 2001, Social Security Fraud Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000, Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Police Reform Act 2002, Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, Audit and Accountability (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004, Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, Serious Crime Act 2007, Legal Services Act 2007, Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 and at least a dozen more. 

Hardly any Acts that are passed exist in their own bubble and many repeal or re-word previous acts.  Moreover, the actual implementation of the Acts is frequently by secondary legislation such as SIs.  There will be no copying and pasting with a dose of Ctrl-H in Microsoft Word.  There is also a difference between passing laws and passing competent laws and I for one would rather the latter.  @Ad Lib has noted before some of the shit legislation that the country has passed (and this is not explicitly a Scottish or UK trait rather both have history in trying to do so)

I have no doubt that Scotland would, in the event of a Yes vote, be able to setup the necessary legal framework to allow membership of the EU.  It just won't be on the timescales previously mentioned for independence.

BTW. the aforementioned IPA 2016 was found to be incomaptible with EU Law (specifically GDPR) hence why I used the (mostly) qualifier at the beginning of the post.

[strichener]

1 hour ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

We've been in the EU for 46 years. We meet all membership requirements. There is nothing to be gained by either party if we're not in the EU. Realpolitik wins every time.

Agreed on the sentiment, disagree that we will walk in on Independence Day.

[Tibbermoresaint]

Just now, strichener said:

Agreed on the sentiment, disagree that we will walk in on Independence Day.

Realpolitik wins every time. The EU is nothing if not pragmatic.