EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBi-KXc0CRk

Stolen from memes thread...

Jesus wept. Is that for real?

Well, that's all the arguments summed up in one handy video. I assume it'll appeal to home counties pensioners and northern bigots but as a vote swinger, I'm not so sure!

Fortunately the YouTube description lists it as a spoof. Terrifyingly, I could still imagine it being real.

I have no issue with politicians advocating for their constituents. However, given that Boris's job is Mayor of London, you would think that he would push to stay in the EU (given how much it will cost all his finance chums to leave, and also given that London is largely populated by educated liberal-leaning people). I guess he no longer gives a shit now that he's on his way out.

As much as I dislike IDS and Gove, at least they are consistent and have been pushing for a Brexit for years - unlike Johnson who just sees it as a jolly good PR opportunity.

Also, anyone who would intentionally wipe value off the currency of the country he is clearly pushing to run at some point, (for his own personal gain) can get fucked as far as I'm concerned.

The youtube description describes it as "A parody song to support the Leave campaign."

It's a parody for copyright reasons...

--edit--
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/23/ukip-leave-eu-song-brexit-music-video-three-lions-baddiel-and-skinner_n_9296564.html

Quoting Justice Secretary Michael 'So I Married a Daily Mail Columnist' Gove on the subject,

"I believe that the decisions which govern all our lives ... and the taxes we must all pay should be decided by people we choose and who we can throw out if we want change. Are we really too small, too weak and too powerless to make a success of self-rule?"

That's broadly what I voted for in September last year, due to an overwhelming - and long-rooted - sense of disaffection for the cadre of shitehawks in charge. Odd that Gove thought so little of his country of birth that he couldn't extend the same courtesy to us. But then, Tory, natch.

Same here, despite the risks leaving the UK posed I voted for independence. At least it would have been our thundercunts in charge and we could vote them out if required.

For pro indy Scots who support staying in EU, why doesn't the same rationale apply? Are you happy with The Juncker Commission and the EPP? As far as I can see, they are just as centre right as the Conservatives.

You're comparing the political power held by the EU vs Westminster. Westminster is the seat of sovereignty in the UK (with some powers devolved to Scotland). Brussels is not the seat of sovereignty for member states (though it does have some powers transferred to it).

I guess the way I see it is being tied to the UK makes conservative government massively more likely despite the vast majority of Scots voting against them.

I see the EU as being important for international relations (I.E. prevention of wars between EU countries) and for trade.

That said I can agree that being part of the UK provides Scotland with a safety net of sorts but that's probably more of a emotional attachment than a rational one.

Is that true? I don't claim to be an expert by any means, but as I understand it:

• The European Commission can propose and draft legislation (regulations and directives) for approval by the European Parliament and Council.
  
• If approved, the legislation then comes into effect, and all members states are bound by such legislation.
  
• Compliance with the legislation by member states is interpreted by the European Court of Justice, who have the power to fine member states who don't comply.
  
  

So how is the UK sovereign? It is subject to EU law.

My only point is that the EU is just as right wing as the UK. What is better about being subject to a right wing government in Brussels than a right wing government in London?

I really don't know how to compare the relative political leanings of the UK government and the EU but I see the EU as important for stability as I said.

So how is the UK sovereign? It is subject to EU law.

Only because it says that it is.

Currently, is defers some of its sovereignty, in return for everything being part of a powerful trade bloc, and other advantages (and some disadvantages) provided by being a member of the EU.

It can easily say that it isn't, and there's nothing that Europe can do to prevent them (other than take away the UK's EU-provided toys).

I assume this was directed to me.

1) It (the EU) has been given the right to enact these laws by the member state. The source of the power remains attached to the member state. 2) The bodies which do this include officials either elected by the public of the member state (Parliament) or appointed by the elected officials of the member nation (Commission). 3) The member state can revoke these powers (see: Brexit).

It is an international treaty at the end of the day, not a federal government. If a member state does not want to comply with a law, it doesn't have to. There is no power which can enforce decisions made by the EU.

Having said that, there is certainly a democratic deficit with the EU.

One of the arguments that I hate on this is the 'oh euro-political-types aren't elected by us, therefore we don't have a say mumble mumble'

Well, yes, but I don't get any more of a say in who's in the House of Commons than I do in the Euro-parliament. I don't get to vote in all of the constituencies in the UK, only the one that I'm in. That's how democracy in generally taken as working.

See http://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-voting-statistics.html#/#6/0/2014-07-01/2016-08-01// for who has voted what % of times.
Sadly there's not a comparable table for expenses that I could find.

Which is exactly the position that Scotland is in, vis-a-vis the UK. The point I was querying was post #161. I fully agree the UK could achieve absolute sovereignty by means of an in out referendum from the EU, just as Scotland could have from the UK in 2014.

Nothing in what you said persuades me there is a material difference that invalidates the parallel I draw between Scotland's position in the UK and the UK's position in Europe.

Which is exactly the position that Scotland is in, vis-a-vis the UK.

Scotland is (part of) the UK. You mean vis-a-vis Westminster, I suspect.

And no, it is not "exactly the position that Scotland is in."

Scotland is not an independent state by most definitions. It does not have representation (in most cases) with international bodies (Breton Woods, UN). It does not have bilateral representation as an equal state with foreign governments. It is not recognized as an independent state by foreign governments.

It is a part of the UK. It's right to independence, although perhaps morally unquestionable, is not legally straight forward (as is the case if a member state wants to leave the EU). It would require Westminster to acknowledge Scotland's independence (as horrible as that sounds). If it tried to unilaterally break off you could, in theory, see civil war break out (think the Basque region).

I don't have to persuade you. Scotland's existence as a part of the UK is not the same as the UKs existence as part of the EU. If you want to pretend they are, that's fine with me, but you're wrong.

The UK can pull out of the EU. It would not even need a referendum. There is nothing that the EU could do about it. The UK defers some sovereignty to the EU, but can take it back.

Westminster could remove Scotland's devolved powers. There would be nothing that Scotland could do about it. The UK devolves some sovereignty to Scotland, but can take it back.

Scotland cannot leave the UK without Westminster's say-so.

^^ I think this was a slightly unfair response. I take this to be your question:

Why are pro-independent Scotland peeps okay with any powers being given to the EU if they are not happy with any powers being given to Westminster.

I'm not Scottish, so it's a bit presumptive of me to claim to speak for 49% of voters, but I'm going to anyway.

To answer this question one has to accept that the relationships are different (that is, the relationship between Scotland and Westminster, and the UK and Brussels). This is a statement of fact, rather than opinion. Accepting that:

It seems to me that what independence supporting Scots wanted was the right to self-determination. What they then did with these rights was not necessarily the key concern for many. They may have immediately entered into new treaties/international agreements with the UK in which continued much of the status quo. This was, in fact, part of the SNP plan and an expectation of many had the vote gone "yes." What mattered is that Scotland would have the right to decide on these relationships, rather than being, de facto, a part of them (or worse, imposed).

The two, therefore, are very different decisions. One is about continued membership to an international agreement. The other was about the right to express sovereignty/independence, which includes the right to make exactly these types of international agreements.

In.

Because I live in Finland and am freelance, so will be fucked if we leave.

Also having my savings in the UK this whole shebang has been fucking me hard. It was 1.43 euros to the pound in October, now it's 1.28.