Why no polls?

[Antlion]

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Far more Snp voters voted Leave than the other parties in Scotland. Was that because they were confused about tactical voting like Granny or do they think that shared power with Brussels is as bad as Westminster?

Sharing power is what the EU is about. Abdicating sovereign power to a national parliament outside the country, in which your nation's representatives don't even constitute enough people to form the opposition, is what the UK is about. If the UK was set up like the EU then the independence question would be far more muted, but the reality is it's not about "sharing" power. It's about giving it all to the UK government and then begging back whatever crumbs its representatives care to let fall.

[eez-eh]

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Far more Snp voters voted Leave than the other parties in Scotland. Was that because they were confused about tactical voting like Granny or do they think that shared power with Brussels is as bad as Westminster?

Largely because there's far more SNP voters in Scotland than any other party.

That really shouldn't be too difficult a concept to grasp.

[welshbairn]

19 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

Largely because there's far more SNP voters in Scotland than any other party.

That really shouldn't be too difficult a concept to grasp.

Neither should be percentages.

[LongTimeLurker]

5 hours ago, Sooky said:

I guess this is the issue for the Yes lot. People value UK membership more than EU membership.

Think a lot of people who voted Yes in 2014 are genuine big N nationalists UKIP in a kilt types that dislike the EU to a greater extent than their distaste for the UK, so just as people have moved from No to Yes (I'd be one as I am very pro-EU as a firm believer in European federalism), others have moved from Yes to No. Give it a couple of years when people will see the reality of Brexit and we will get a clearer picture of where things stand.

[eez-eh]

29 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Neither should be percentages.

Your post never mentioned anything about percentages, merely the amount of voters.

[strichener]

2 hours ago, Antlion said:

Sharing power is what the EU is about. Abdicating sovereign power to a national parliament outside the country, in which your nation's representatives don't even constitute enough people to form the opposition, is what the UK is about. If the UK was set up like the EU then the independence question would be far more muted, but the reality is it's not about "sharing" power. It's about giving it all to the UK government and then begging back whatever crumbs its representatives care to let fall.

If this was the case, then why the need for the EU to become a legal entity and corporate existence.  The EU is currently separate from and superior to it's member states.  It isn't about sharing power, it is about power building.  If the EU was only about sharing power then there would be no need for it to have any say over armed forces, have foreign policy and have a constitution.

[Antlion]

11 hours ago, strichener said:

If this was the case, then why the need for the EU to become a legal entity and corporate existence.  The EU is currently separate from and superior to it's member states.  It isn't about sharing power, it is about power building.  If the EU was only about sharing power then there would be no need for it to have any say over armed forces, have foreign policy and have a constitution.

Sharing power obviously requires being a "legal" entity. Doing so on a non-legal basis would fly in the face of every modern, binding treaty. Modern nation states are legal entities, and they could and should engage with and form confederations legally. Do you suggest instead that the EU should operate as a "nudge nudge, wink wink, we'll all just work informally, mate" basis?

As for the BiB, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I'd oppose any moves to have an EU army. What say does the EU have over nation state's armed forces? As far as I'm aware, member states would have to agree to that. Member states also have their own foreign policies, and the EU isn't exactly sending Scotland to war.

[strichener]

1 hour ago, Antlion said:

Sharing power obviously requires being a "legal" entity. Doing so on a non-legal basis would fly in the face of every modern, binding treaty. Modern nation states are legal entities, and they could and should engage with and form confederations legally. Do you suggest instead that the EU should operate as a "nudge nudge, wink wink, we'll all just work informally, mate" basis?

As for the BiB, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I'd oppose any moves to have an EU army. What say does the EU have over nation state's armed forces? As far as I'm aware, member states would have to agree to that. Member states also have their own foreign policies, and the EU isn't exactly sending Scotland to war.

No it doesn't.  Treaty based organisations have no need to have an identifiable legal persona.  It flies in the face of all reasonable argument that the UK can sign up to the EU treaties without seeking the views of the electorate when you spend post after post on here complaining of that very fact that Westminster commits us to things that you don't approve of.

What you fail to understand is that national governments are, under the current treaties, required to act according to the EU treaties.  This is regardless of the UK's own nationalist interests and is therefore far more of an issue in terms of democratic legitimacy than any UK Government has.

If you want an idea of where the EU is heading in military terms then I would suggest that you take some time to read this.  https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/en/global-strategy-foreign-and-security-policy-european-union

I would also be interested in how you would oppose an EU army.  In what way are you able to oppose individual initiatives within the EU, did you for example oppose EUFOR Althea or EUFOR TChad?  Both of which involved the use of the use of UK troops directly reportable to a separate military structure controlled by the EU.

[John Lambies Doos]

Selfish auld c***s

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

No it doesn't.  Treaty based organisations have no need to have an identifiable legal persona.  It flies in the face of all reasonable argument that the UK can sign up to the EU treaties without seeking the views of the electorate when you spend post after post on here complaining of that very fact that Westminster commits us to things that you don't approve of.

What you fail to understand is that national governments are, under the current treaties, required to act according to the EU treaties.  This is regardless of the UK's own nationalist interests and is therefore far more of an issue in terms of democratic legitimacy than any UK Government has.[/quote]

Perhaps you can point out where the UK's national interests have been thwarted by EU treaties.

If you want an idea of where the EU is heading in military terms then I would suggest that you take some time to read this. 

https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/en/global-strategy-foreign-and-security-policy-european-union

I would also be interested in how you would oppose an EU army.  In what way are you able to oppose individual initiatives within the EU, did you for example oppose EUFOR Althea or EUFOR TChad?  Both of which involved the use of the use of UK troops directly reportable to a separate military structure controlled by the EU.

A single EU army incorporating British troops, would require the assent of the UK government. Changing the goalposts to "individual initiatives within the EU" is disingenuous. There can be no European Army comprising the former British Army without the consent of the UK government. 

 

[Cream Cheese]

12 minutes ago, The Chlamydia Kid said:

How would Scotland be an "equal partner" in the EU? It's population would make it far from "equal" with Germany, France, Italy, Spain etc etc
It would be a minor region

You're happy enough for Scotland to be a minor region when it suits your own political agenda though.

[DublinMagyar]

How would Scotland be an "equal partner" in the EU? It's population would make it far from "equal" with Germany, France, Italy, Spain etc etc
It would be a minor region

It would have the same veto as the other 27 members would it not?

[DublinMagyar]

How would Scotland be an "equal partner" in the EU? It's population would make it far from "equal" with Germany, France, Italy, Spain etc etc

It would be a minor region

Same as within the U.K. then? 5m v 50m

[Antlion]

53 minutes ago, The Chlamydia Kid said:

How would Scotland be an "equal partner" in the EU? It's population would make it far from "equal" with Germany, France, Italy, Spain etc etc
It would be a minor region

As an independent nation state, Scotland would have the same rights as other independent nation states (including whether to remain within or leave the EU). The EU is not a state, and therefore countries within it are not regions. That said, I'm not sure why a regionalist like yourself, who seemingly approves of Scotland having regional status rather than statehood, would be concerned about the EU "pulling a UK" (which it isn't). Would you support (or have supported) the UK's EU membership if it incorporated Britain into a United States of Europe, and turned Westminster into a "powerhouse" devolved parliament? After all, you think that system of national self-government is adequate for Scotland, so you would presumably welcome it for the UK.

[John Lambies Doos]

Imagine being booted out of the EU against our will and more nuclear WMD coming to alba cause it's not safe in England. ...plus tory govs for the foreseeable and polls stay static

what a servile grovelling lot the no voters are. .. especially the labour (who are utterly finished ) ones

[capybara]

Well I'm 57 and I'm yes is that old? I guess it us. Fek. Now where is my Coco. ?

[strichener]

8 hours ago, Antlion said:

Perhaps you can point out where the UK's national interests have been thwarted by EU treaties.

Perhaps you can point out where I stated this, your initial post stated that the EU was all about sharing powers.  It quite clearly is not as I have already shown you in previous posts, if you are not able to determine the legal consequences of the treaties then perhaps you should stick to posting your "do you not know the difference between an incorporating union...".  Just to be clear here, the EU is the absolute legal authority on all matters over which it has competence.  Did you vote for that?

 

8 hours ago, Antlion said:

A single EU army incorporating British troops, would require the assent of the UK government. Changing the goalposts to "individual initiatives within the EU" is disingenuous. There can be no European Army comprising the former British Army without the consent of the UK government. 

No the goalposts were set when you stated that the EU is about sharing powers.  In what way does the undertaking of military action, or article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty, constitute sharing powers?

 

[Antlion]

2 hours ago, strichener said:

Perhaps you can point out where I stated this, your initial post stated that the EU was all about sharing powers.  It quite clearly is not as I have already shown you in previous posts, if you are not able to determine the legal consequences of the treaties then perhaps you should stick to posting your "do you not know the difference between an incorporating union...".  Just to be clear here, the EU is the absolute legal authority on all matters over which it has competence.  Did you vote for that?

 

No the goalposts were set when you stated that the EU is about sharing powers.  In what way does the undertaking of military action, or article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty, constitute sharing powers?

 

I'll take that as a "no, I can't actually point out any examples, but you should be afraid of it happening anyway". Unsurprising. You have form in not actually being able to substantiate any of your fears about the EU. I'm quite happy with the EU having legal authority on matters which member states have agreed for it to have competence over. Those matters generally don't affect me or damage member states' abilities to self govern. That's why member states are still independent, internationally-recognised states.

Best not to answer a question with a question. British forces engaging with other nations under the aegis of the EU is the definition of sharing power. Can you explain how an EU army is being formed without the permission of member states? Your threats about an EU army happening is akin to saying that the invasion of Iraq and the "special relationship" constituted a merging of British and American forces into a unified Anglomerican army. It's absolute nonsense.

[welshbairn]

2 hours ago, strichener said:

No the goalposts were set when you stated that the EU is about sharing powers.  In what way does the undertaking of military action, or article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty, constitute sharing powers?

Any military action taken by the EU collectively would require the agreement of every member (Article 42, Paragraph 2.). So it's meaningless. 

[strichener]

On 31/07/2016 at 23:43, Antlion said:

I'll take that as a "no, I can't actually point out any examples, but you should be afraid of it happening anyway". Unsurprising. You have form in not actually being able to substantiate any of your fears about the EU. I'm quite happy with the EU having legal authority on matters which member states have agreed for it to have competence over. Those matters generally don't affect me or damage member states' abilities to self govern. That's why member states are still independent, internationally-recognised states.

Best not to answer a question with a question. British forces engaging with other nations under the aegis of the EU is the definition of sharing power. Can you explain how an EU army is being formed without the permission of member states? Your threats about an EU army happening is akin to saying that the invasion of Iraq and the "special relationship" constituted a merging of British and American forces into a unified Anglomerican army. It's absolute nonsense.

I am not really sure what your first paragraph actually relates to but I don't have any fears about the EU. You are asking me to give examples for a position that you have ascribed to me and not one that I have.  I have an understanding of the direction the organisation is taking and I am glad that we will not be part of it.  Given your posting on this subject so far, and your absolute dearth of knowledge ('Sharing power obviously requires being a "legal" entity.'), then I will leave you to your clearly skewed vision.

 

On 31/07/2016 at 23:54, welshbairn said:

On the bit in bold - Whilst you have a problem with the same being said about Westminster.  Less than 2 years after the majority of the electorate voted to remain part of the UK.  Very hypocritical.