Scotland could veto Brexit laws to protect its interests - Sturgeon
Scotland and Northern Ireland voted Remain in significant majority and can veto Brexit. Now Cameron is a lame duck for months, Corbyn of Labor was a weak leader, he's in trouble also. Gibraltar and I'm sure the Falkland's futures are uncertain (Argentina does not need this distraction right now with its hawks going 'squirrel!'). Its too much chaos.
The politics in the Northern Ireland has always been tribal (as opposed to partisan) and they can go straight back to sectarianism with a bullet. Fun fact, Northern Ireland has the highest ownership of baseball bats per-capita outside the US, but no baseball teams (they are great for rolling pastry and for knee-capping punishments).
"Scotland's parliament would consider blocking legislation on Britain's exit from the European Union if that were necessary to protect Scottish interests, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said.
Scotland, a nation of five million people, voted to stay in the EU by 62% to 38% in a referendum on Thursday, putting it at odds with the United Kingdom as a whole, which voted 52% to 48% in favour of an exit from the bloc, or Brexit.
Under the United Kingdom's complex arrangements to devolve some powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, legislation generated in London to give effect to the vote to leave the EU would have to gain consent from the three devolved parliaments.
Asked on BBC television whether she would consider asking the Scottish parliament to block a motion of legislative consent, Ms Sturgeon said: "Of course."
This is exactly many assessed with Boris Johnson, he wanted to be seen to run a good campaign, get seen & ready to challenge for leader in next conservative leadership challenge. Winning was not planned for.
Agreed but I think by implication this is talking about the trading opportunities as the projections of the pound dropping by as much as 20% are looking possible. Remember its more sensitive for people who are actually getting hurt here.
The following 2 users say Thank You to Rory for this post:
When I first saw the BBC and other MSM outlets continuously pushing this petition mentioning it at every opportunity, I smelt a rat. The faintest little scratch beneath the surface shows that it isn't what it claims to be.
But that doesn't negate the inevitable attempts to block/overturn the referendum decision in parliament or the regional assemblies as several have mentioned. The variety and depth of vested interests involved in Remain is humungous and those against the decision will continue to fight it, manyl using any means necessary.
I thought there was a certain amount of irony seeing a few hundred militant leftists and so-called anarchists demonstrating against the decision in London, basically supporting the line of the establishment and big banks to Remain, calling for the decision to be overturned immediately and threatening violence to those who resist. So they don't like or respect the democratic decision of the people and they're going to beat up people who disagree, including those who put their lives on the line so they could have the right to protest. Hmmm - smells of fascism...
Another perhaps even greater irony was during a round table discussion on BBC World News - a writer claiming to represent the "disenfranchised" younger generation quoted a newspaper headline saying "Oh gran, what have you done!" and suggested that because older people won't have to live with the consequences of this for long and younger people will, that there should be another referendum. To which an older historian replied does that mean you're suggesting that under 30s vote should count double? Or perhaps that over 65s should be banned from voting? Its amazing how quickly stupidity can rise to the surface when people's positions feel threatened.
Given that there's no real political leadership in the two main parties now, this will drag on for some time...
The following 2 users say Thank You to bebop for this post:
I want to point this out because the BBC too wrongly characterized it as
That's very uncommon for the BBC not to report the facts but to distort them, which would give credence to the theory of the BBC pushing the IN political agenda, should I find more of this evidence.
Politicians are usually very careful with their words (that's their job anyway), so she would have not said "I will block it". Saying "Of course I will consider blocking it" is another matter entirely and always gives her the wiggle room to do what she wants later.
If I flip a coin 1,000,000 times, what are the odds of me wasting my time?
The following 3 users say Thank You to xplorer for this post:
Your view is slightly distorted: You came into Europe by airplane (I assume). Therefore the controls are not necessarily
within the airport at arrival. Open entry doors without passport control within the airport does not mean anything.
Controls from country to country within 30km away from the border are highly probable any time at any place.
All countries in the center of Europe (EU or not) are blocking refugees coming from the south wanting to wander north.
This means Switzerland, Austria, Hungaria and others are very vigilant to halt paperless or visaless people crossing
One example: Take the night train from Milan (Italy) to Brig (Switzerland) which heads to France some hours later you
can face a stop of the train before entering Switzerland. Even worse - the Swiss border controls on board are very tough while the train is moving. If the border control sees too many refugees without any papers they stop the train finally before entering Switzerland.
This means ALL people are sent back with the same train to Milan again. No person gets a possibility to pass border of Switzerland at that very moment.
The same is seen in all the other Schengen countries especially in Austria at the Brenner.
Just don't think to travel easily over borders in Europe these days - that is just no longer true.
The following 4 users say Thank You to GFIs1 for this post:
Everyone has a different experience, & I used to believe the BBC was quite balanced in its reporting, but in recent years I've encountered almost endIess examples of deliberate distortion of the facts.
One of the most blatant for me, in the sense that I could clearly see they were lying, was when I got a phone call from my friend on holiday in Greece with some Greek friends who told me to look at BBC News 24 - they were running "live" pictures of a violent protest/ riot in a square in Greece, while I was talking to my friends by Skype sitting relaxing in a cafe in the same square. The BBC report & presenters were clearly implying that this was occurring live, not a recording from a year or 2 earlier. It was blatant.
Some friends worked at the BBC during the David Kelly inquiry & the Blair false WMD investigations when the govt whitewash forced the BBC to disassociate from & fire Robinson the reporter who broke the Kelly story, the DG & chairman resigned & the org was forced to apologise to the government. It really became spineless since then in a journalistic sense.
Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk
The following user says Thank You to bebop for this post: