We can read it 749r; we can even think we know what it says, but what really matters is what the Law Lords think it says and means.
I read books too 749, I also know if the snp are promising their people will be supported by what is in U.K. legal waters from minute one then I'm reading history books and you are reading the beano. It will be tied up in legal disputes and courts for years and in the meantime the funds will still go to the legal and existing owner till many years in court changes anything. That leaves a massive whole in the snp and Scotlands future economic projections and claims till anything is resolved. Tell me, from your beano, what will fill that gap, if anything? As to the Shetland issue there has long been mumblings from Shetlanders that if Scotland can have its independence from from the U.K. then why can't Shetland have it's freedom from both the U.K. and Scotland. and yes, the oil is closer to them than the Scottish mainland, but as we are still talking all theory then that would be a matter for the Shetlanders. Just more on the timescale, If the snp are to follow what advice they keep trying to tell the U.K. government to take, then after a vote for indi, it would take probably 3-4 years of negotiations with the U.K and then they would have to have a second vote with the deals on show as well as remain again within that mix. I know this because the snp has said it should be done on brexit, even if you try and run parallel negotiations with the eu, they are not likely to talk too much till they know what you have got on the table from the U.K. So you are looking at 3-5 years where you will have left the U.K. and not yet joined the eu. I'd be interested in your opinions, given this is all theoretical of course, what Scotland is suggesting for those 3-5 years where negotiations leave you in no mans land?
Hmmm...there is an old saying my friend,,"live in hope but not expectation". Or something like that. I've not seen a single independent poll that indicates what you claim,but an awful lot of Facebook polls,(even those on Remain pages),seem to show the opposite,ie that the Leave opinion has grown. A Remoaner calling Leavers,"swivel-eyed loons",does not mean they are,"swivel-eyed loons",it's just a Remoaners insulting opinion...that's what happens when people have no facts to support their opinion,they reach for insult and abuse. I don't count chickens,because I believe in democracy. And because I believe in democracy,I accepted the result of the,(meaningless and illegal),1976? referendum even though I didn't necessarily agree with the consequences of it. I didn't go out demonstrating,or cavorting about outside parliament,I didn't hurl abuse at those who believe in the EC/EU project,didn't accuse them of stupidity or not understanding. As a democrat,I accepted the result and have lived with it for the last 40+ years. I also accept the result of the referendum in 2016,and would have done so had the result gone the other way. That's what democrats do. You appear NOT to accept the result of the 2016 referendum? Perhaps because the majority didn't vote the way you wanted them to? And you now appear to want another referendum,would that be correct? Soo ...lets say you get your wish,and remain won the second referendum. What is the difference between YOU if you don't accept the result of the first,and OTHERS who wouldn't accept the result of the second?.
Do you mean 'why not' to is it true ? or to BBC etc covering it ? In my personal experience, the BBC / SKY in particular report mainly negative news regarding brexit. It may be that they wouldn't report something like the alleged meeting unless they were certain it was true ? Just my opinion but there are a lot of negative headlines, which, when reading the article turn out to be not as bad as the headline suggests.
* Coastal States have sovereign rights over the continental shelf (the national area of the seabed) for exploring and exploiting it; the shelf can extend at least 200 nautical miles from the shore, and more under specified circumstances; http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
I accept the result of the 2016 referendum ... I just think that it probably won’t be implemented without “a people’s vote”
I wonder why Facebook is taking it down? Could it be that they are now accused of disseminating fake news and the article is a load of tosh? No one took a photo of the documents. No names or sources are cited and the article is not on a website with any kind of journalistic credentials. It’s pure fiction. I could have written that. What is interesting is that those who’d like to believe its veracity are far more likely to imagine that’s its suppression is some form of nefarious plot than that FB is trying to do us a favour by eliminating fake news. It was probably penned in St Petersburg.
yip, the double wammy its pretty much fifty fifty with trade with the rUK and overseas now. but consider this, much of our trade with rUK goes to bussness that then exports on to the EU. much of what we build goes in to final products that get exported to the EU. if may blows it, scottish trade with rUK will reduce by quite some margin
Fin, two things, On that^^ can you show me what it says when the situation involves another country that already has a legal and active established claim on those same waters? cheers Second point On the gfa and irish situation, we know only the U.K. and republics governments are the two signatories to the gfa, not the eu. We know both those countries have said no hard border and the U.K. for it's part will abide by that. We know the eu see's the eu agreements above the gfa and will insist the republic install a hard border on its side Now, given the eu has established when bordering a non eu country needs a hard border, why hasn't a single snp or scottish politician mentioned the hard border between Scotland and the rest of the U.K. should Scotland leave? There certianly has been no impact anylasis from the scots gov should there be a hard border, it seems to be a problem they refuse to comment on, what do you think?
that contry (group of nations) seases to exist. save yer time on this kind of pish, its been covered extensivly and thoroughly debunked at the time. i think exege would call it "project fear". oh how i laugh when he comes out with that.
It always seemed to me entirely logical that at the end of the negotiation process the deal was submitted to the people for ratification. After all, the government handed the people the hot potato of deciding the UK’s membership of the EU because there wasn’t enough consensus in Parliament. (Actually not strictly true. It was really because the Tories were haemorrhaging votes to UKIP.) So once the decision process was to be decided outside Parliament it is entirely reasonable that the country gets to vote on the final deal. I can’t see the problem: 1. Want In or Out? If Out, here are all the goodies and money you’ll get. If In, you already know the score. 2. OK, here are all the goodies and money you will actually get. Sorry about that. 3. So, what do think? Still want to leave? Fine, let’s do this, the EU way or the kick ‘em in the bollocks way. You decide. Not so sure now? Well, we don’t have to leave if you don’t want to. It would appear that May and her advisors either can’t see the simple logic of this process or that they are playing a game of great subtlety to ensure that Brexit doesn’t take place. I just don’t see May as that subtle and scheming a person but I could be wrong.
The BBC Sky ITV C4 and the entire world media would love a story which shows colusion between May & Merkle to stop Brexit. So would Labour, Merkels opponents in Germany. Farage & Banks would have no reason to contain the story either. Of course it is strange that some guy no one has ever really heard of has all these details, when no one else in the world does.
No project fear, I simply asked from the link you provided, what is that bodies rules on disputed claims? As to that^^ I'm minded to ask, what would the frenchies do? I am of the understanding that brits living in the eu will have to do the exact same thing as register to stay, yes?
The referendum was in or out, no mention of a further vote on the deal, so that's done and dusted. 1. We have already voted out, if in , we don't know the score as it's forever changing and becoming more integrated. 2. We have already voted to get out. 3. We voted to leave, we were told leave means leave, not half in and half out, some sort of deal will be done ether before we leave or after.
Was it not people who voted in 2016 then? If not,who voted? £9 million public money spent on a pamphlet,millions more on remain organisations who colluded,the Tories cheating Farage out of a seat,endless anti-Brexit media,biased BoE governor,you-name-it,but Leave STILL prevailed!. The behaviour of all the above hasn’t changed since 2016,if anything it has been worse,so do you honestly think the result would be different? Plus remain have another hurdle:the attitude of the EU,who now openly display their contempt for the referendum result...they seem to think we are their enemy,not a neighbouring nation who took the democratic decision to leave what is ,as stated by Junker and Macron,a dictatorship where democracy has no place.
