Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[Antlion]

33 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

So you are such a big supporter of Scottish independence. You must then recognise the need to gain that independence, prior to Scotland having its own conversation about the EU.

In the same way that Mary Whitehouse was a big supporter of public nudity and live televised sex.

[git-intae-thum]

8 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

There was such a conversation before the independence referendum in 2014.

The SNP lied in the White Paper about Scotland being allowed to join, without going through the application process, on independence day.

It continued to repeat those even after the EU Vice-President refuted them, in a letter to the Scottish Parliament's Chair of the European Committee, in March 2014.

It's difficult to have a conversation on EU membership when your Government has lied repeatedly about the EU's Treaties.

Right. I have a pdf of the white paper opened up.

Please be very specific with your claims.

[McSpreader]

3 hours ago, WILLIEA said:

 

 

Ha ha.... I only say these things as a deliction for your bewilderment!

[Bishop Briggs]

17 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

Right. I have a pdf of the white paper opened up.

Please be very specific with your claims.

Read pages 220 to 222.

SNP Convener writes to EU Vice-President seeking clarification on White Paper's claims, especially page 221 which is key to the whole section. Read the last two paragraphs.

http://www.parliament.scot/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/20140310_Convener_to_Vivianne_Reding_European_Commission.pdf

The EU Vice-President then refutes the claims in the White Paper. Again, read the last two paragraphs.

http://www.parliament.scot/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Letter_from_Viviane_Reding_Vice_President_of_the_European_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf

So when did the SNP admit that it got it wrong?

Edited February 2, 2017 by Bishop Briggs

[WaffenThinMint]

2 hours ago, Bishop Briggs said:

That only confirms that the SNP, under Sturgeon's leadership, considers that EU Membership is more important than independence.

Independence is matter of principle, national self-government, not a bargaining chip on EU Membership.

I have to admit that I am concerned that Nicola seems hell bent on looking for excuses for a second referendum as soon as possible having convinced herself she'd manage to do what Daddy Salmond couldn't.

The loss of EU membership is a useful bargain chip from extracting fresh concessions from a Whitehall that took a bookies gamble on a Brexit referendum & lost the lot, but that's it. Rushing to another referendum for reasons that appear to have more to do with her own ego (being the one that took Scotland to independence) than tactical wisdom could be a disaster that fatally damages all the hard work & years of setbacks Scottish nationalism has faced to get to where no one thought this generation would ever live to see.

Time is now on the SNP's side. Prove the astuteness of a further empowered Holyrood whilst Westminster staggers from blunder to blunder, scandal to scandal, await another generation entering the electoral registers who grew up in the remaining Labourite/Tory/Flip Flop households where their parents saw their favourites let them down time & time again, & ten years from now they will be in an unassailable position with a nation no longer afraid to run itself entirely.

Edited February 2, 2017 by WaffenThinMint

[WILLIEA]

26 minutes ago, McSpreader said:

Ha ha.... I only say these things as a deliction for your bewilderment!

I can assure you, I am never bewildered.

Occasionally nonplussed perhaps?

[Bishop Briggs]

13 minutes ago, WaffenThinMint said:

I have to admit that I am concerned that Nicola seems hell bent on looking for excuses for a second referendum as soon as possible having convinced herself she'd manage to do what Daddy Salmond couldn't.

The loss of EU membership is a useful bargain chip from extracting fresh concessions from a Whitehall that took a bookies gamble on a Brexit referendum & lost the lot, but that's it. Rushing to another referendum for reasons that appear to have more to do with her own ego (being the one that took Scotland to independence) than tactical wisdom could be a disaster that fatally damages all the hard work & years of setbacks Scottish nationalism has faced to get to where no one thought this generation would ever live to see.

Time is now on the SNP's side. Prove the astuteness of a further empowered Holyrood whilst Westminster staggers from blunder to blunder, scandal to scandal, await another generation entering the electoral registers who grew up in the remaining Labourite/Tory/Flip Flop households where their parents saw their favourites let them down time & time again, & ten years from now they will be in an unassailable position with a nation no longer afraid to run itself entirely.

The irony is, confirmed by the correspondence above, that Scotland would have been required to leave the EU on Independence Day after a Yes vote in 2016. The EU Vice-President's letter said, in effect, that the section on the EU in the White Paper (especially pages 200-22) was total nonsense.

Scotland, as an independent country, would have had to go through formal application process under Article 49, i.e. demonstrate compliance with all the chapters of the acquis. That's exactly the same process that an independent Scotland would have to go through after Brexit. 

In summary, Brexit changes nothing for an independent Scotland. The only way Scotland can stay in the EU without going through the application process is to remain part of the UK if Brexit is halted.

Edited February 2, 2017 by Bishop Briggs

[DublinMagyar]

The irony is, confirmed by the correspondence above, that Scotland would have been required to leave the EU on Independence Day after a Yes vote in 2016. The EU Vice-President's letter said, in effect, that the section on the EU in the White Paper (especially pages 200-22) was total nonsense.
Scotland, as an independent country, would have had to go through formal application process under Article 49, i.e. demonstrate compliance with all the chapters of the acquis. That's exactly the same process that an independent Scotland would have to go through after Brexit. 
In summary, Brexit changes nothing for an independent Scotland. The only way Scotland can stay in the EU without going through the application process is to remain part of the UK if Brexit is halted.

Please just stop. Heard it from you a million times now.

[McSpreader]

11 minutes ago, WILLIEA said:

I can assure you, I am never bewildered.

Occasionally nonplussed perhaps?

Keeps you on yer toes!

[Bishop Briggs]

3 minutes ago, DublinMagyar said:

Please just stop. Heard it from you a million times now.

I was challenged and responded.

[Bishop Briggs]

To add to my earlier point

"In summary, Brexit changes nothing for an independent Scotland. The only way Scotland can stay in the EU without going through the application process is to remain part of the UK if Brexit is halted."

By opposing the Article 50 Bill last night, that's what the SNP MPs really voted for - to be part of the UK and in the EU. Just like the Labour rebels and Lib Dems!

[git-intae-thum]

16 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

Read pages 220 to 222.

SNP Convener writes to EU Vice-President seeking clarification on White Paper's claims, especially page 221 which is key to the whole section. Read the last two paragraphs.

http://www.parliament.scot/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/20140310_Convener_to_Vivianne_Reding_European_Commission.pdf

The EU Vice-President then refutes the claims in the White Paper. Again, read the last two paragraphs.

http://www.parliament.scot/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Letter_from_Viviane_Reding_Vice_President_of_the_European_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf

So when did the SNP admit that it got it wrong?

The SNP on this occassion  have nothing wrong to admit too.

I asked you to be very specific in where the white paper lied. You have failed. Unlucky.

The relevent parts are on page 220 and 221 of Scotlands future.

The white paper states " (article 49).... is not the starting position from which the Scottish govt will be pursuing independent memebrship."

You did not for some reason refer to the document you accused of being lies. Instead you reger to a copy of a letter sent by a govt minister and the reply received by the then EU citizenship convener.

The reply intimated that Scotland would most likely have to apply via article 49.

This was the personal opinon of the individual (Viviane Reding) who held that EU post at the time.

It is not set in stone. There has been no precedent and there is a host of conflicting legal opinion. The white paper was expressing a legal starting point. Not a fuckin ruling you dimwitted simpleton.

Even if correct and Scotland was to traverse an article 49 application

The white paper propesed an "18 month period between referendum and independence......for all the necessary processes completed.

This timescale was backed by leading legal constitutional experts such as sir David Edwards and Graham Avery.

No lies then, just a solid base from which to begin a legal discussion.

If this is your basis for rejecting independence then you are a mug. Or you are really just a britnat who wont admit it.

Thanks for trying. You must hope some of that shite you throw will eventually stick.

 

[NotThePars]

The SNP know they won't win an independence referendum unless there's a seismic shift in the economic climate which Brexit will bring. That's why they're obvs tying the independence wagon to Brexit. Yet more dishonesty from BB trying to act like the SNP (who've chased independence from the UK for over half a century) suddenly view membership of the EU as more important than self determination.

[git-intae-thum]

Just now, NotThePars said:

The SNP know they won't win an independence referendum unless there's a seismic shift in the economic climate which Brexit will bring. That's why they're obvs tying the independence wagon to Brexit. Yet more dishonesty from BB trying to act like the SNP (who've chased independence from the UK for over half a century) suddenly view membership of the EU as more important than self determination.

He actually thinks he has scored a point with his 3 year old Vivienne Reding letter. The fact is her opinion is a complete irrelevance.

Especially now that muppets like him have ensured we will go through an article 49 application.

Utter knuckle biting cringeworthy stupidity.

[NotThePars]

He actually thinks he has scored a point with his 3 year old Vivienne Reding letter. The fact is her opinion is a complete irrelevance.
Especially now that muppets like him have ensured we will go through an article 49 application.
Utter knuckle biting cringeworthy stupidity.

I don't believe it's stupidity. I think he knows what he's on about he's just put all his proverbial eggs in the Brexit basket on here and will be disingenuous as heck to back up that position.

[Bishop Briggs]

18 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

The SNP on this occassion  have nothing wrong to admit too.

I asked you to be very specific in where the white paper lied. You have failed. Unlucky.

The relevent parts are on page 220 and 221 of Scotlands future.

The white paper states " (article 49).... is not the starting position from which the Scottish govt will be pursuing independent memebrship."

You did not for some reason refer to the document you accused of being lies. Instead you reger to a copy of a letter sent by a govt minister and the reply received by the then EU citizenship convener.

The reply intimated that Scotland would most likely have to apply via article 49.

This was the personal opinon of the individual (Viviane Reding) who held that EU post at the time.

It is not set in stone. There has been no precedent and there is a host of conflicting legal opinion. The white paper was expressing a legal starting point. Not a fuckin ruling you dimwitted simpleton.

Even if correct and Scotland was to traverse an article 49 application

The white paper propesed an "18 month period between referendum and independence......for all the necessary processes completed.

This timescale was backed by leading legal constitutional experts such as sir David Edwards and Graham Avery.

No lies then, just a solid base from which to begin a legal discussion.

If this is your basis for rejecting independence then you are a mug. Or you are really just a britnat who wont admit it.

Thanks for trying. You must hope some of that shite you throw will eventually stick.

 

It was not the personal opinion of Viviane Reding. It was an official letter, in response to an official letter from McKelvie. It that would have been checked by the Commission's lawyers and approved by President Barroso. 

Those constitutional experts that you have no authority or power. They are always trotted out by SNP supporters that refuse to accept that the EU Commission, on behalf of the Council, set out the official position in that letter. Barroso confirmed it publicly too. Yet we are supposed to accept that those experts are right and the President and Vice-President were wrong!

Like it or not, the EU Treaties are set in stone and they are enforced by the European Court of Justice. If they are not, why bother with Article 50 at all? 

Btw, the requirement to leave the EU was one of the main reasons that I supported independence in 2014. 

[AUFC90]

1 hour ago, Bishop Briggs said:

There was such a conversation before the independence referendum in 2014.

The SNP lied in the White Paper about Scotland being allowed to join, without going through the application process, on independence day.

It continued to repeat those even after the EU Vice-President refuted them, in a letter to the Scottish Parliament's Chair of the European Committee, in March 2014.

It's difficult to have a conversation on EU membership when your Government has lied repeatedly about the EU's Treaties.

Well if they were gonny struggle to get in to the EU then win win for you then.........but we know you're all about the union no matter how hard you try to convince us otherwise.

[git-intae-thum]

3 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

It was not the personal opinion of Viviane Reding. It was an official letter, in response to an official letter from McKelvie. It that would have been checked by the Commission's lawyers and approved by President Barroso. 

Those constitutional experts that you have no authority or power. They are always trotted out by SNP supporters that refuse to accept that the EU Commission, on behalf of the Council, set out the official position in that letter. Barroso confirmed it publicly too. Yet we are supposed to accept that those experts are right and the President and Vice-President were wrong!

Like it or not, the EU Treaties are set in stone and they are enforced by the European Court of Justice. If they are not, why bother with Article 50 at all? 

Btw, the requirement to leave the EU was one of the main reasons that I supported independence in 2014. 

You still cannot evidence your claim of lies.

The key is in differentiating between legal position and lies.

The white paper proposed a preferred route.

Barroso, Reding and ithers were expressing their no doubt complicated and spun views.

This would have been disputed and ultimately decided by court ruling.

Paradoxically and ofcourse in a hypothetical sense brexit being triggered could allow an iScotland to retain the UK's member status as proposed by these 2 Dutch European law experts.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/03/14/a-brexit-could-make-it-easier-for-scotland-to-join-the-eu-as-an-independent-state/

Unlikely ofcourse, but the point being, no one was lying. European law is a complicated minefield  where little precedent has been established. It was always about gaining starting ground.

To make bold claims of "lies" is just a wee bit dim.

No hard feelings eh.

 

[AUFC90]

18 hours ago, Bishop Briggs said:

It was not the personal opinion of Viviane Reding. It was an official letter, in response to an official letter from McKelvie. It that would have been checked by the Commission's lawyers and approved by President Barroso. 

Those constitutional experts that you have no authority or power. They are always trotted out by SNP supporters that refuse to accept that the EU Commission, on behalf of the Council, set out the official position in that letter. Barroso confirmed it publicly too. Yet we are supposed to accept that those experts are right and the President and Vice-President were wrong!

Like it or not, the EU Treaties are set in stone and they are enforced by the European Court of Justice. If they are not, why bother with Article 50 at all? 

Btw, the requirement to leave the EU was one of the main reasons that I supported independence in 2014. 

The EU never gave an official answer to the independence question because only the member state could officially ask. The UK never did ask.....I wonder why.

You're spouting shite as usual,

Edited February 3, 2017 by AUFC90

[git-intae-thum]

2 minutes ago, AUFC90 said:

The EU never gave an official answer to the independence answer because only the member state could officially ask. The UK never did ask.....I wonder why.

You're spouting shite as usualy.

Forgot about that. Have another greenie