Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Brexit process

zikoya.jpg
she's always pushed out on her own as no one else ever wants anything to do with her.
 
Not really. What happened was her speech was "leaked" (i.e. on purpose) well in advance, which led to a drop in sterling, giving the currency a chance to recover a little by the time of her speech, meaning journos could say "look! the currency has gone up after her speech!" when in fact the opposite is true if you look over the past few days.

The pound is now worth less than a Euro in some places:

Moneycorp bureaux de change at Gatwick airport are charging £102.69 for €100 — valuing each pound at just 97.4 euro cents.
 
Not really. What happened was her speech was "leaked" (i.e. on purpose) well in advance, which led to a drop in sterling, giving the currency a chance to recover a little by the time of her speech, meaning journos could say "look! the currency has gone up after her speech!" when in fact the opposite is true if you look over the past few days.

The pound is now worth less than a Euro in some places:
if only brexit meant news was reported after it had happened instead of us being told someone's going to say something, listening to them saying it and then another day wasted being told what they've said.
 
Any lexit opinion on the pros/cons of May's statement?

Does it move forward the lexit proposition?
in the absence of any other answers....

my understanding of the lexit position is that leaving changes the legal framework and limits of the state, so that in the fullness of time trade unions, left parties, and workers in general might better be able to reform the system to our advantage.

when i looked yesterday no2eu are very happy over on Facebook, and another long time anti eu campaigner I know is convinced we have hit peak neoliberalism, and a new dawn beckons. I guess the harder the brexit, the better, from a lexit perspective...

which all seems very long term, which is probably the right way of approaching such big changes.

in the short term though, all the momentum is with the right, both here and abroad, and it's hard to imagine anything other than all decisions going against workers.

When we argued about this ahead of the vote the argument was, We will fight them on the beaches. My feeling was, we're going to get a beating.

I guess so far nothing has happened that is unexpected... In fact if anything it's going through smoother than it might have. So I can't see any reason why any lexit case is in any way undermined.

still so many variables to play out though. We haven't actually left yet. I'm really curious what the Snp are going to do next, and what the mood of the Scottish people is to this.

in terms of rights the immediate casualties are migrants, present and future. But migrants were always the punch bag in brexit, and seemed to be regarded as collateral damage in lexit. So no surprises there.
 
Last edited:
Not really. What happened was her speech was "leaked" (i.e. on purpose) well in advance, which led to a drop in sterling, giving the currency a chance to recover a little by the time of her speech, meaning journos could say "look! the currency has gone up after her speech!" when in fact the opposite is true if you look over the past few days.

The pound is now worth less than a Euro in some places:

I'm starting to get the impression that Theresa May is only in this to make some money on the side through currency speculation.
 
I'm really curious what the Snp are going to do next, and what the mood of the Scottish people is to this.
Me too. The SNP are focussing for the time being on "protecting Scotland's place in the single market", and although they are a minority administration in Holyrood, the Scottish Parliament has voted in support of that general position. So the Scottish Parliament (not just the SNP) is at odds with May on that.

What that means Sturgeon will do next is open to question. Here's her statement about May's speech:



The problem the SNP has is that although a majority of people in Scotland did vote to Remain, that does not translate into a Yes for independence vote. Furthermore there is no general appetite for an indyref2 in the near future.

I suppose if dismay over May's negotiations grows that might change. But honestly, how closely are people following that?
 
I read that theres no chance of SNP going ahead with indyref2 unless all the polling suggests they have a good chance of winning it. If people in Scotland arent following this, and arent yet annoyed about it, then i expect the SNP to go on an immediate campaign footing for the next couple of years and talk down Brexit/talk up Independence with a passion. I do think theres a genuine case to say that Scotland would be particularly hard hit by a hard brexit
 
Last edited:
Speaking from a position of (English) ignorance here :)....it strikes me that a couple of factors that might start to swing opinion in Scotland would be if, to spite May, the EU overcame Spanish objections/fears and started to make more positive overtures towards Scottish accession. And if city finance capital showed signs of flight/interest in an EU/Scottish location?
 
I read that theres no chance of SNP going ahead with indyref2 unless all the polling suggests they have a good chance of winning it. If people in Scotland arent following this, and arent yet annoyed about it, then i expect the SNP to go on an immediate campaign footing for the next couple of years and talk down Brexit/talk up Independence with a passion. I do think theres a genuine case to say that Scotland would be particularly hard hit by a hard brexit
Well, what is there to follow closely? May's speech yesterday didn't tell us anything we couldn't already have guessed, and what it does tell us is extremely limited in scope. The general public are not dweebs like us, weighing up this phrase and that.

How do we judge public opinion now anyway? Have we worked out what it was that pollsters were getting wrong? I don't know (and I read blogs by pollsters!).

I think you're right, though, I think Sturgeon is trying to build a cohesive consensus against the Downing Street negotiating position. Insofar as she's carried the Scottish parliament with her on the single market, she seems to have made some ground on that. However, the Scottish media establishment is extremely Unionist. It has been running hard on talk of indyref2, something I think she didn't want to do. We're not at a stage yet where the Remain majority has turned into a Yes majority. Will we get there? Maybe, but at the moment Sturgeon isn't pushing the point.
 
Speaking from a position of (English) ignorance here :)....it strikes me that a couple of factors that might start to swing opinion in Scotland would be if, to spite May, the EU overcame Spanish objections/fears and started to make more positive overtures towards Scottish accession. And if city finance capital showed signs of flight/interest in an EU/Scottish location?
True, but the signals from EU negotiators so far seem to offer little hope for a differing Scottish settlement.
 
True, but the signals from EU negotiators so far seem to offer little hope for a differing Scottish settlement.
Yep, but if push came to shove, I bet they'd all so subtly hint at it in negotiations with's May's team. Possibly a negotiating position if May cut up nasty about access to the city?
 
Yep, but if push came to shove, I bet they'd all so subtly hint at it in negotiations with's May's team. Possibly a negotiating position if May cut up nasty about access to the city?
Again, I think it's a strong possibility that this has already happened in private. It's a good card in their hand. But then they already have a very strong hand anyway.
 
Scottish independence combined with Scotland staying in the EU could be disastrous for London*. For all the talk of relocating the financial centre of Europe to Paris or Cologne (etc.), there is a basic problem that the British workers in the City of London do not want to live in France or Germany, and it is far from clear that the specialist expertise needed by those companies would be found locally in those economies. British workers, however, would be far more amenable to moving to Edinburgh (in many cases would even welcome it). It would be simplicity itself for a financial institution to simply switch to Scotland to stay in the EU and take all its workforce -- who basically are the company -- with it. If Scotland stays part of the UK, I can see London remaining as a if not the major hub for many financial industries. If it secedes, however, I can see it being gutted.

*Obviously, I don't mean "London" the city or social environment, I strictly mean its economic churn.
 
Scottish independence combined with Scotland staying in the EU could be disastrous for London*. For all the talk of relocating the financial centre of Europe to Paris or Cologne (etc.), there is a basic problem that the British workers in the City of London do not want to live in France or Germany, and it is far from clear that the specialist expertise needed by those companies would be found locally in those economies. British workers, however, would be far more amenable to moving to Edinburgh (in many cases would even welcome it). It would be simplicity itself for a financial institution to simply switch to Scotland to stay in the EU and take all its workforce -- who basically are the company -- with it. If Scotland stays part of the UK, I can see London remaining as a if not the major hub for many financial industries. If it secedes, however, I can see it being gutted.

*Obviously, I don't mean "London" the city or social environment, I strictly mean its economic churn.
But the obvious problem for the nationalists is the order of those events. As per their constitutions, the EU or EFTA require that any applicant entity is a "state".
So any attempt at independence must, by definition, precede accession and represent something of a leap into the unknown...or at least an interregnum indistinguishable from the status of rUK.
 
But the obvious problem for the nationalists is the order of those events. As per their constitutions, the EU or EFTA require that any applicant entity is a "state".
So any attempt at independence must, by definition, precede accession and represent something of a leap into the unknown...or at least an interregnum indistinguishable from the status of rUK.
This is true, so the benefits* to Scotland would not necessarily be immediate. But if Scotland wanted to accede from the UK and join the EU, it seems likely that they could have achieved this in ten years. That's not that long, in the grand scheme of things. In fifteen years, they could transfer the seat of financial power from London to Edinburgh, if they are so minded.

(This is assuming they can't persuade England to do it the other way round, so that it is England that leaves the UK and hence the EU, not Scotland. But that assumption seems pretty safe.)

*Again, assuming that having a large financial sector in your economy is actually a benefit
 
Scottish independence combined with Scotland staying in the EU could be disastrous for London*. For all the talk of relocating the financial centre of Europe to Paris or Cologne (etc.), there is a basic problem that the British workers in the City of London do not want to live in France or Germany, and it is far from clear that the specialist expertise needed by those companies would be found locally in those economies. British workers, however, would be far more amenable to moving to Edinburgh (in many cases would even welcome it). It would be simplicity itself for a financial institution to simply switch to Scotland to stay in the EU and take all its workforce -- who basically are the company -- with it. If Scotland stays part of the UK, I can see London remaining as a if not the major hub for many financial industries. If it secedes, however, I can see it being gutted.

*Obviously, I don't mean "London" the city or social environment, I strictly mean its economic churn.
It seemed to me early on that Sturgeon was signalling to the City (by which I mean the financial institutions of London) that they wouldn't have to move many if any jobs, just brass plaques. That seemed to me her clear early message to Finance. And if so, it seemed a smart one from her point of view.

We don't know the content of the private messages Finance will have been getting from the EU side, but we can be very sure they'll be well appraised.
 
But the obvious problem for the nationalists is the order of those events. As per their constitutions, the EU or EFTA require that any applicant entity is a "state".
So any attempt at independence must, by definition, precede accession and represent something of a leap into the unknown...or at least an interregnum indistinguishable from the status of rUK.
If it came to Scotland staying in the UK and the Single Market (though not necessarily the EU), then there is an argument that Scotland is currently a member (and has not voted to leave). So you're right: the order of events is going to be crucial on how Sturgeon plays her hand.
 
It seemed to me early on that Sturgeon was signalling to the City (by which I mean the financial institutions of London) that they wouldn't have to move many if any jobs, just brass plaques. That seemed to me her clear early message to Finance. And if so, it seemed a smart one from her point of view.

We don't know the content of the private messages Finance will have been getting from the EU side, but we can be very sure they'll be well appraised.

Was just going to post this same sentiment. Hypothetically - if you are City based , You don't necessarily have to decamp the entire workforce wholescale to a newly recognised Scotland EU member to gain the advantages of EU access, Should Scotchland go down that route, I am sure they would be able to streamline the onboarding process for punters.
 
Can someone please explain to me what would happen if parliament were to reject the governments Brexit plans in the vote?
 
Back
Top Bottom