SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is seeking another vote on Scottish independence, coming possibly as soon as late 2018:
In a bombshell announcement Monday, Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon told reporters in Edinburgh that she will seek the authority to hold a second independence referendum for Scotland. Citing a "brick wall of intransigence" from British Prime Minister Theresa May, Sturgeon asserted that the only way to preserve Scottish interests in the midst of the U.K. exit from the European Union is to put matters directly in the hands of Scottish voters.
"What Scotland deserves, in the light of the material change of circumstances brought about by the Brexit vote, is the chance to decide our future in a fair, free and democratic way — and at a time when we are equipped with the facts we need," the Scottish first minister and head of the Scottish National Party said in prepared remarks. "Whatever path we take, it should be one decided by us, not for us."
Next week, she will seek a section 30 order from the Scottish Parliament to begin the referendum process — which the U.K. Parliament in Westminster ultimately must approve. If all goes as planned, Sturgeon expects that a vote would be held in the fall of 2018 or spring of 2019, after terms of a Brexit deal worked out by the U.K. and the EU become clear.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Tuesday March 14 2017, @11:16AM (12 children)
The last time they lost because the Scottish where told they would not be able to stay in the EU if they voted for independence. That promise is now broken as well. I don't blame them for using it as an excuse to try again.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Tuesday March 14 2017, @03:34PM (10 children)
> The last time they lost because the Scottish where told they would not be able to stay in the EU if they voted for independence. That promise is now broken as well. I don't blame them for using it as an excuse to try again.
But they have been just told again by the EU that they don't automatically stay an EU member if they split from the UK. They will have to apply to join the club like any other "new" country would.
If the UK leaves, Scotland is leaving as well, no matter whether they vote again (and which side wins). What this referendum should be about, is whether Scotland should leave the UK and reapply to the EU as an independent state, along with the entire process of joining the club.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @05:42PM (9 children)
Brussels may be eager to keep Scotland as a giant FU to England, and to show other separatist areas that the EU is still attractive.
"If the Scots are ready to break their link with England to stay with us, why would you leave?"
Given the political trends in the Netherlands and France, plus Catalonia, Pais Basco, Corsica... the EU will take a symbolic win for integration.
England might even (quietly) push for it as a gateway to the EU markets, since there will be retaliation for leaving.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:21PM (8 children)
Which I believe is an abhorrent way for anyone to behave in a group of democratic nations, and reflects badly on those who would retaliate. The decision to leave the EU was made democratically, why do other nations think that the UK should be punished for being a democracy?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @06:32PM (7 children)
The childish answer is because people are pissed at the Brits always bitching about the EU while enjoying the benefits.
The real answer was in my previous line: to dissuade a long list of others from leaving, and protect the integration which, for all its faults, has been beneficial overall.
Right after the vote, lots of Brits were hoping they could keep the single-market benefits while dropping the obligations by leaving. While May has got the message that it won't happen, being too nice to England would open the door to more people making short-sighted populist decisions.
There is no question that the EU has lots of room to improve, and should listen to the people raging against both overbearing regulation and excessive liberalism (in the Euro sense).
But the EU does allow secession without civil wars, so it has to convince people they are better in than out, especially when the most vocal of those who want out are right-wing extremists.
We're leaving a repeat of the 1930s, remember?.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:04PM (3 children)
The majority didn't seem to value the 'benefits' that you seem to think are so good. We are paying in far more than we get back, although the pro-Brexiteers claims were simply ridiculous and didn't bear close scrutiny.
To follow on from the remainder of your comment (thank you, by the way), if the EU has to resort to threats and intimidation to keep other nations as members then perhaps it is not a group one should consider being a member of? Surely, if being a member of the EU is so good then other nations wouldn't even dream of wanting to leave, but we both know that that is not the case. And if you cannot get change by negotiation (because that offends the bigger nations who currently rule the EU roost), then the only option remaining is to leave.
The EEC (European Economic Community) was a good idea, particularly for trade; the EU's dream of a federal Europe with a handful of nations controlling the currency and economics of the union is less attractive to many members. The one's who are desperate to remain members (other than the relative few who currently have the most control) are those that are receiving far more in aid that they contribute to the EU. The reason the EU would like the UK to remain is because we are paying for it!
The UK will negotiate to maintain cooperation between police and security forces, to allow those migrants that have settled in the UK and elsewhere to remain where they are, and would like to cooperate on trade in the way that the EEC once promised. How much of that will be acceptable to the EU remains to be seen.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:59PM (1 child)
While there is no question that the richest countries pay more than they get back (same for US states), they do pay their access to the biggest market in the world.
The middle-class gets shafted as their jobs move to Poland/Romania/Bulgaria ([Mexico]), but the companies do pocket most of the profits. Then the middle-class gets double-shafted as the companies actually avoid paying taxes through non-uniform taxation rules, depriving their government of the means to attract more jobs home, or pay for unemployment and other services.
So when the big boys can make the City into the most expensive real estate and go to their country club, they're not opposed to the EU.
The midlands accumulate resentment and voted on what they could. They were not asked whether tax heavens should exist inside the EU, or whether someone should be able to work in a Western country with a much cheaper contract from an Eastern country. They were not asked whether being offered a relocation to Poland should be illegal when your plant closes, or whether their own politicians should stop brown-nosing City asses. They weren't asked whether they agree with Angela's refugee policies or Calais's jungle bulldozing.
"Should the UK leave the EU? Heck yes, what's it done for me? Politicos have told me for 30 years that it's the single reason for every bad decision they don't want to own up to." Citizens have been setting record abstention for EU elections, even as it's been the scapegoat for all the ills of accelerated world trade...
But it's still better to stick together and fix the EU, leverage its massive market to fight price-dumping and protect jobs, than to throw the towel and get crushed.
The EU is in a bad place now, with enough build to be blamed (for the US crisis, the Crimean impotence, and the Chinese prices), but not enough integration to weigh in and be more than the playtoy of market-minded conglomerates. Keeping it together is critical, because the alternative is nasty.
Asking angry people a black-or-white question is never a good idea.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday March 15 2017, @08:40AM
They pay more than they get back directly, but it is hard to measure the benefits of bringing other countries up to the level where they can afford you high end goods and services.
Look at Ireland. Massively benefited from EU membership. Wages and living standards came up. The UK benefited too because now it has another developed market on its doorstep that speaks the same language.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:18PM
> if the EU has to resort to threats and intimidation
If put that way, it sounds pretty bad. But the same thing could be put as "if you start a book club and you sell the books to non-members for 1 EUR, but to members for 2 EUR, you will not have many members" it's just common sense.
The other part why people think the UK will no manage to get a good deal is because it doesn't look good on the negotiation front.
I think all too many people in the UK cannot fathom the EU as an idealistic project, and they will have a hard time negotiating with those people that do.
Things like the government basically saying "we absolutely need to hold the fate of EU nationals in the UK as negotiation chips" really doesn't leave much space for goodwill. Unless that is quickly resolved, there is a risk of that alone generating a front of people who just won't be interested in a deal, even if it has a financial cost.
Honesty, kindness and interest in the common good are also assets you bring to the negotiation table, and the UK (in shape of its government, the people are a completely different topic) since quite a while hasn't shown much ability for any of these.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 14 2017, @08:04PM (1 child)
If they have to punish countries for leaving to prevent others from doing the same, isn't that already a sign things aren't great? Shouldn't it be better IN the EU so countries won't WANT to leave? If you have to directly make things hard on a country to "set an example" that signals to me that it isn't so rosy and you're worried other people will realize that.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday March 14 2017, @09:06PM
As I already replied above, people are angry for many reasons, some homegrown, some EU-based, some totally foreign, and leaving is he easiest knee-jerk reaction but not the wisest.
The extent of "punishments" for someone leaving is limited to treating them no better than Somalia on trade/customs/immigration matters.
It's the country leaving the Union who is asking to retain a preferential status (leave the club, but keep a key), and the worst punishment is to slam the door on their ass (with the consequence of losing trade with them). WTO rules pretty much prevent going very far beyond that.
The EU has a vested interest in people understanding that tantrums don't get rewarded, and the "leave" energy should be directed at fixing the EU problems instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 15 2017, @01:55AM
all i know is what i saw in brexit: the movie but...i think it's ridiculous to act like some massive unelected bureaucracy is beneficial to the people in any overall way. We need to be decentralizing politically, not turning over all control to supranational opportunists. What a foolish way to throw away all the hard fought gains of freedom.
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Tuesday March 14 2017, @10:57PM
What broken promise?
"Not being an EU member after independence" does not imply that "not having independence guarantees remaining an EU member". Both the independence referendum and the EU referendum were a long time in coming. While not finalised by the time of the independence referendum, the EU referendum was clearly a likely possibility by that time, and it's not like the EU has ever been hugely popular; even amongst remain voters there's a large amount who dislike but tolerate it. The way things have played out was not a certainty, but it was a very plausible one which I would have thought most informed voters would have considered.