Brexit: UK to leave single market, says Theresa May

[Thanas]

How is it pretending when people like Valéry Giscard d'Estaing flat out admitted what the Lisbon Treaty was intended to be from the start?

Because a politician does not like to admit when he was defeated. In any case, the legal situation is the same, it is not and never was the same as a constitution. It is a subsidiary law. You can insist the opposite until you are blue in the face but it does not make it any truer.

B) regardless of whether or not they were Constitutional documents the Maastricht Treaty and Lisbon Treaty were at least a big a game changer as the EEC (if not more so), particularly when it came to sovereignty issues

How so? Also, now you are moving the goalposts and including maastricht as well? Nice one.

D) Ireland is a clear case which demonstrates that ensuring democratic legitimacy via holding proper consultations with the public, getting the public's input and trying to accommodate the public's concerns can lead to much higher level of support for things like the Lisbon Treaty and the EU than ramming it through parliament.

I am sure the EU saving Ireland from bankruptcy has nothing to do whatsoever with that support being that high. No, must all be the referendum.

I am talking about the European coal and steal association and the structure of the federal republic, as well as the first beginning of the European community.

What do you think early 1950s Germany would have preferred?

Probably not to lose control of their steal and coal industry, not to erect another obstacle of reunification and not to give France access to the Ruhr valley. That being said, in hindsight it was a net positive, but the same can be said about the EU. So again, sometimes the benefit outweigh the lack of legitimacy in such cases.

Erm, the signing of the Lisbon Treaty was done by the UK in 2007 and it was enacted in 2009, with the Labour Party under PM Gordon Brown in charge with a majority government.

Yes, you are correct on that. Nevertheless the point still stands. The last British politician who could legitimately be called a European has been Blair and we all know where he ended up.

My point is that a lot of that hostility would likely have been avoided if the UK government had done something along the lines of Ireland rather than do a complete 180 and ram the Lisbon treaty through Parliament.

Do you really think that the Lisbon treaty is the main reason why guys voted for Brexit and not the completely baseless propaganda with lies about the EU? Like how the Brits had no say in it, how they were paying more than they were getting out, how laws were made without consent of the British government, how the entirety of Eastern Europe was coming to steal their jobs and how Britain would suddenly be able to pull 350 million more into the NHS if it just got rid of that bloated, inefficient EU? You really think the Lisbon party played a huge role into that? I think not. The fanatics and racists and Murdochite press would just invent other stuff. The Lisbon treaty being passed did not play a huge role in the debates I watched. What debates did you watch where it was a huge concern?

Besides, parliament was the absolute right place to hold that vote in. Referendums are not binding in the UK nor should they be without a 66% majority.

[Tribble]

Because a politician does not like to admit when he was defeated.

Then YMMV because I take that statement as a rare moment of honesty.

In any case, the legal situation is the same, it is not and never was the same as a constitution. It is a subsidiary law. You can insist the opposite until you are blue in the face but it does not make it any truer.

And that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Are you seriously suggesting that because the EU Treaties are not technically constitutional, they don't have any impact on people, don't have any impact on the countries that sign them, don't have any impact on national sovereignty and therefore people do not need to have a say on them? Please.

How so? Also, now you are moving the goalposts and including maastricht as well? Nice one.

Actually the Maastricht Treaty is arguably bigger than the Lisbon Treaty in terms of importance since it was the foundational treaty of the EU. And yes, given the UK's EEC referendum one would have expected there to have been a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty as well. The failure to do so did raise controversy at the time, though nowhere near as much as the Lisbon Treaty.

I am sure the EU saving Ireland from bankruptcy has nothing to do whatsoever with that support being that high. No, must all be the referendum.

Ignoring the fact that the Eurozone itself was likely a major cause of Ireland's near bankruptcy... you're actually working against yourself there. Your argument implies that that the EU more or less forced the 2nd referendum on Ireland and demanded a "yes" as conditions for the bailout. If so... well that's just proves my earlier concerns about the total lack of democratic legitimacy in the EU. I would like to think that there was more to it than just that, and Ireland's moves in educating the public about the Lisbon Treaty and getting some amendments to it passed was what really sealed the deal, so to speak.

Probably not to lose control of their steal and coal industry, not to erect another obstacle of reunification and not to give France access to the Ruhr valley. That being said, in hindsight it was a net positive, but the same can be said about the EU. So again, sometimes the benefit outweigh the lack of legitimacy in such cases.

Did the German government ever promise a referendum on the issue then proceed to ignore it?

Yes, you are correct on that. Nevertheless the point still stands. The last British politician who could legitimately be called a European has been Blair and we all know where he ended up.

Yes, what a surprise that a man who lied to the public about several things like the Iraq War and promising a referendum before a major treaty change ends up getting tossed in the end. If only the British had been more continental like and kept him anyways

Do you really think that the Lisbon treaty is the main reason why guys voted for Brexit and not the completely baseless propaganda with lies about the EU? Like how the Brits had no say in it, how they were paying more than they were getting out, how laws were made without consent of the British government, how the entirety of Eastern Europe was coming to steal their jobs and how Britain would suddenly be able to pull 350 million more into the NHS if it just got rid of that bloated, inefficient EU? You really think the Lisbon party played a huge role into that? I think not. The fanatics and racists and Murdochite press would just invent other stuff. The Lisbon treaty being passed did not play a huge role in the debates I watched. What debates did you watch where it was a huge concern?

Please read my previous post, where I specifically stated that the Labour Government's refusal to hold a referendum on a major treaty change despite being specifically being elected to do, despite all other parties running on the same platform in that regard and despite the public pressure to hold one is what ultimately triggered the in/out referendum. Namely because public pressure would continue to mount until a government was eventually forced to hold one whether they liked it or not. And in addition, due to the total lack of democratic legitimacy in the Labour Government's decision the public would blame the EU for everything that went wrong whether it was warranted or not. Again, anyone who has a remote understanding of British culture should have seen an in/out referendum coming from a mile away. I did not state that the signing of the Lisbon Treaty was what directly caused the "Yes" vote to win.

Besides, parliament was the absolute right place to hold that vote in. Referendums are not binding in the UK nor should they be without a 66% majority.

Parliament is also supposed to serve at the will of the governed. In the 2005 elections all major parties made campaign pledges to hold a referendum on a major treaty change like the European Constitution. In effect virtually 100% of the population voted to have a referendum on the European Constitution. Are you seriously naïve enough to believe that "Lisbon Treaty technically doesn't count, therefore no soup for you!" was going to be considered acceptable, and that there wouldn't be any backlash because of it?

And as for the 66% majority for all referendums, I would agree to that when it comes to maintaining an existing status quo (such as the in/out referendum). Do you really think it would have been acceptable if there had been a referendum and say, 65% had voted against the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, then the government completely ignored that result and went ahead anyways? I don't think so.

[jwl]

Do you really think that the Lisbon treaty is the main reason why guys voted for Brexit and not the completely baseless propaganda with lies about the EU? Like how the Brits had no say in it, how they were paying more than they were getting out, how laws were made without consent of the British government, how the entirety of Eastern Europe was coming to steal their jobs and how Britain would suddenly be able to pull 350 million more into the NHS if it just got rid of that bloated, inefficient EU? You really think the Lisbon party played a huge role into that? I think not. The fanatics and racists and Murdochite press would just invent other stuff. The Lisbon treaty being passed did not play a huge role in the debates I watched. What debates did you watch where it was a huge concern?

Besides, parliament was the absolute right place to hold that vote in. Referendums are not binding in the UK nor should they be without a 66% majority.

It didn't play a huge role in most of the debates, but I remember it coming up in farage vs clegg quite prominently.

[Thanas]

Then YMMV because I take that statement as a rare moment of honesty.

Whatever you may imagine, fact is that you are sorely mistaken about it being on the same level as a constitution.

And that's entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I love how you try to squirm out of the fact that you had no idea how EU law works.

Are you seriously suggesting that because the EU Treaties are not technically constitutional, they don't have any impact on people, don't have any impact on the countries that sign them, don't have any impact on national sovereignty and therefore people do not need to have a say on them? Please.

Nice strawman. No I don't. What I am saying that as they are not impacting the constitutional law and precedents of the UK they are not as important as a constitution. In a representative democracy the people do not get to hold referendums typically on other matters than constitutional amendments, they certainly do not get a referendum on international treaties. The people get a say via the election, they can perfectly elect representatives that will cancel certain treaties.

Actually the Maastricht Treaty is arguably bigger than the Lisbon Treaty in terms of importance since it was the foundational treaty of the EU. And yes, given the UK's EEC referendum one would have expected there to have been a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty as well. The failure to do so did raise controversy at the time, though nowhere near as much as the Lisbon Treaty.

Oh please. The populations of Europe were just fine with joining Maastricht without a referendum. Because at that time there wasn't a mountain of anti-EU propaganda. And because only the constitution of Ireland requires referenda for such treaties. No other nation in Europe does.

I am sure the EU saving Ireland from bankruptcy has nothing to do whatsoever with that support being that high. No, must all be the referendum.

Ignoring the fact that the Eurozone itself was likely a major cause of Ireland's near bankruptcy... you're actually working against yourself there. Your argument implies that that the EU more or less forced the 2nd referendum on Ireland and demanded a "yes" as conditions for the bailout.

Are you high or did you just transform into cosmicalstorm? What I said was that the popular support in Ireland for the EU is more likely the result of the EU helping with saving Ireland's economy than from any referendum. Nothing less, nothing more.

Did the German government ever promise a referendum on the issue then proceed to ignore it?

How does that matter with regards to your larger argument of "people should be asked"? Or do you now say people should only be asked if the government promised it? If so, how does that jive with your argument about legitimacy?

Yes, what a surprise that a man who lied to the public about several things like the Iraq War and promising a referendum before a major treaty change ends up getting tossed in the end. If only the British had been more continental like and kept him anyways

Thread very carefully here, because continental-like is not something that is usually associated with keeping liars in office. Heck, nations like France and Germany actually prosecute heads of states when they appear to have profited from something like lying but I don't remember Blair facing a british jury.....

Please read my previous post, where I specifically stated that the Labour Government's refusal to hold a referendum on a major treaty change despite being specifically being elected to do, despite all other parties running on the same platform in that regard and despite the public pressure to hold one is what ultimately triggered the in/out referendum. Namely because public pressure would continue to mount until a government was eventually forced to hold one whether they liked it or not. And in addition, due to the total lack of democratic legitimacy in the Labour Government's decision the public would blame the EU for everything that went wrong whether it was warranted or not. Again, anyone who has a remote understanding of British culture should have seen an in/out referendum coming from a mile away. I did not state that the signing of the Lisbon Treaty was what directly caused the "Yes" vote to win.

There should not have been a referendum anyway. It was also made clear the referendum was not legally binding.

Parliament is also supposed to serve at the will of the governed. In the 2005 elections all major parties made campaign pledges to hold a referendum on a major treaty change like the European Constitution. In effect virtually 100% of the population voted to have a referendum on the European Constitution. Are you seriously naïve enough to believe that "Lisbon Treaty technically doesn't count, therefore no soup for you!" was going to be considered acceptable, and that there wouldn't be any backlash because of it?

Assuming people are not idiots like you who do not understand the difference between a constitution and subsidiary law then no. There sure as heck wasn't one in Germany.

And as for the 66% majority for all referendums, I would agree to that when it comes to maintaining an existing status quo (such as the in/out referendum). Do you really think it would have been acceptable if there had been a referendum and say, 65% had voted against the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, then the government completely ignored that result and went ahead anyways? I don't think so.

Then the people could have voted that Government out. Not a problem. You seem to be stuck on the idea that referendums are the preferred or only way to shape government policy. This is not the case. In a representative democracy the people do not get a say. It is done via elections.

Heck, the people of East Germany did not vote at all whether they wanted to be annexed/reunified. They elected parties who were in favor of it who voted in parliament for the treaty. Oh noes, how terribly illegitimate.

[Tribble]

snip

I disagree with your viewpoint on referendums regarding EU-like treaties, and I will continue to carry on that part of the conversation should you desire to do so, though I feel I may have caused us to side track from what I was attempting to convey. Should you wish to carry on about the former, please let me know.

My points were initially intended to be context as to why I felt an in/out referendum became more or less inevitable after the Lisbon Treaty was signed without holding one rather than should there be referendums on treaties like that. Sorry for the side-track. At any rate, here is essentially what I was trying to say:

The UK does not have a written constitution, and acts via solely parliamentary supremacy and precedent via rule of law

The UK government's decision to hold a referendum on the EEC (the UK's first referendum by the way) and stick to the results formed a precedent for future similar treaties, both in the political / legal sense and in the mindset of a large segment of the public.

When the UK government signed off on the Maastricht Treaty, it broke both precedents. Legal? Yes. Good idea in the long run? Probably not. There actually was quite a bit of criticism over this at the time, though to a much lesser degree than the Lisbon Treaty. I mentioned it more because it was a precursor, and would later add to the argument that UK voters were not given a real choice to vote on the EU. Whether or not that argument is valid, the sentiment was certainly there and would help shape later events.

There was definitely the expectation that the European Constitution was going to require a referendum, which is why all parties pledged to holding one if they were elected. IMO part of this belief came from the EEC precedent, part of it came from lingering Maastrict Treaty backlash and part of it came from increasing Anti-EU sentiment. Whatever the case may be, when the European Constitution fell through, the Lisbon Treaty followed immediately afterwards. While not a constitutional document the Lisbon Treaty was still considered a big enough change by many to require a referendum (particularly when architects of the Lisbon Treaty like Valéry Giscard d'Estaing were claiming that the Lisbon Treaty was the European Constitution in all but name). Whether or not that was actually the case was besides the point, it was the sentiment that mattered more.

The Labour Government's decision to sign off on the Lisbon Treaty without holding a referendum was incredibly ill timed. Yes, the EU needed changes like the Lisbon Treaty, but it was a serious miscalculation on the Labour government's part to renege on a central campaign promise like that when the public sentiment for a referendum was already pretty high. Apart from just holding the referendum, at least they ought to have waited until the next election (or called one) and campaigned on signing the Lisbon Treaty rather than signing it without any public input.

As things turned out, if their plan was to just go ahead and sign it then hope everything would eventually simmer down, that backfired spectacularly. They basically handed Anti-EU voters one of the best possible means, motive and opportunities for drumming up support that they could have possibly hoped for. From that point onwards all the anti-EU crowd would have to say (whether or not there truth to it) was "see, look at how the EU is screwing us up, and we never even had a choice in the matter!" At that point IMO an in/out referendum became inevitable - everything the UK and EU did would just add fuel to the already existing fire and be seen as democratically illegitimate and criticised thoroughly whether it was warranted or not. When even idiots such as myself could spot the long-term implications of what the Labour Party was doing, one wonders what they were smoking if they actually believed they would be able to pull it off without a hitch. Or perhaps they just didn't care anymore.

As for the Conservatives, as I mentioned in another thread they had been pretty consistent about holding referendums for awhile now (since the early 2000s at least). Their viewpoint seems to have been "A referendum on the EU is necessary, but do everything possible to keep the UK in it." Whether or not that line of thinking is the correct one, their stance certainly added to calls for a referendum. However, IMO had the Conservatives dropped the issue altogether and/or reneged on their promise for an in/out referendum, all that would have done is kicked the can down the road a couple more years at best (which they had done once before btw).

As for the referendum campaign itself, the results and the aftermath, plenty has already been said. I'll just repeat that while IMO the UK would be better in an EEA type agreement I would have definitely voted to Remain as the risk of a "hard' Brexit was far too great.

[K. A. Pital]

You seem to be stuck on the idea that referendums are the preferred or only way to shape government policy. This is not the case. In a representative democracy the people do not get a say. It is done via elections.

This is not enough as history shows. At some point the public perception of being fed up of not getting a say will lead to consequences.

In this case it seems Tribble's argument is more nuanced than this, though. It is not that this is preferrable, but that this was inevitable because a vote was expected by the public (and if public expectations are not met, well, we all know being elected is not good help from being ousted by a mob that gathers outside the buildings in the capital cities - history never ends).

[Crazedwraith]

Still using this as ongoing brexit thread: Brexit Bill passed

Parliament has passed the Brexit bill, paving the way for the government to trigger Article 50 so the UK can leave the European Union.

Peers backed down over the issues of EU residency rights and a meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal after their objections were overturned by MPs.

The bill is expected to receive Royal Assent and become law on Tuesday.

This means Theresa May is free to push the button on withdrawal talks - now expected in the last week of March.

The result came as Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced that she intended to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence at a time when Brexit negotiations are expected to be reaching a conclusion.

Ms Sturgeon said she wanted a vote to be held between autumn 2018 and spring 2019 - but there is speculation that Mrs May will reject the idea of the referendum being held before the Brexit process is completed.

That Brexit process is set to take two years from when Mrs May invokes Article 50, which formally gives the EU notice of the UK's intention to leave.

Brexit Secretary David Davis said. "We are now on the threshold of the most important negotiation for our country in a generation."

The EU Withdrawal Bill was passed unamended late on Monday after peers voted by 274 votes to 118 not to challenge the Commons again over the issue of whether Parliament should have a veto on the terms of exit.

The House of Lords also agreed not to reinsert guarantees over the status of EU residents in the UK into the bill, with the government winning the vote by a margin of 274 votes to 135.

Later analysis of the division list for the first Lords vote on EU citizens' rights to remain in the UK showed that 25 Labour peers sided with the Lib Dems, including former cabinet minister Lord Mandelson.

Earlier, the government had comfortably won votes on the issues in the Commons, with only a handful of Tory MPs rebelling.

Corbyn to 'challenge plans'

The votes came after Brexit minister Lord Bridges of Headley warned that now was not the time to "return to the fray" by inserting "terms and conditions" in the legislation.

Labour's spokeswoman Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town attacked the Lib Dems for not being responsible and "falsely raising" people's hopes on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK.

Liberal Democrat Lord Oates said the government had failed to make concessions over the position of EU nationals living in the UK and called on peers to insist on changes.

Brexit campaigners welcomed the "clear mandate" given to the UK government ahead of the start of official negotiations.

"Now, it's time to go into these negotiations with some ambition and support the government, so it can secure the very best deal - one that is good for the whole UK, and good for the EU too," said Tory MP and former minister Dominic Raab.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the rejection of the Lords amendments was "deeply disappointing" but insisted the opposition would continue to press for the rights of EU nationals to be prioritised and for the maximum parliamentary oversight of the process.

He tweeted: "Labour at every stage will challenge govt plans for a bargain basement Brexit with our alternative that puts jobs & living standards first."

So the lords attempted to add a couple of things but didn't when the MPs wouldn't budge and kept sending it back unaltered. And there are hints the old 'can't deny the will of the people!' thing was used to bludgeon them.

[K. A. Pital]

So, I guess EU citizens who stay in Britain must be feeling quite uneasy right now.

The lesson of this tale? Don't make friends with Britain, I guess.

[His Divine Shadow]

These are interesting times, not sure britain will be such a special case in a year or five.

[Zaune]

These are interesting times, not sure britain will be such a special case in a year or five.

I'm not sure Britain as we know it will exist in five years. I do wish I could find a credible Midlands Nationalist Party...

[Tribble]

Well, there could be some positives... for the EU. The UK was by far the number one obstructionist country, so once it leaves it should be easier for the EU to move towards closer integration. Plus UK financial services will mostly migrate over to other EU countries, so whatever they lose in potential trade should be made up for at least in part it by having more financial services in their countries.

[His Divine Shadow]

The closer they try to integrate, the more star sy- countries will slip through their fingers.

And those financial services, talk about a trojan horse, if it goes like in the UK it will be like a disease that kills the rest of the economy while the country grows too dependent on it and the false corrupted economy it represents.

[Thanas]

The closer they try to integrate, the more star sy- countries will slip through their fingers.

The EU is not some evil empire.

[His Divine Shadow]

Sure. It's a heap of assholes.

[Tribble]

The closer they try to integrate, the more star sy- countries will slip through their fingers.

The EU is not some evil empire.

I agree that for all its flaws the EU is far from being "evil". However, His Divine Shadow has a point in that attempts at tighter integration will probably backfire, at least for the moment.

Thanas, what do you think may be some positives for the EU when the UK leaves, if there are any? I'm not meaning to snarky on this one. Do you think with the UK out of the way some things may be easier? The UK has always seem to have acted obstructionist and as a counterweight to a lot of the EU's plans. Will financial centres moving to the continent be better in the long run than had the UK stayed in the EU and they remained in London?

[Thanas]

Thanas, what do you think may be some positives for the EU when the UK leaves, if there are any? I'm not meaning to snarky on this one. Do you think with the UK out of the way some things may be easier? The UK has always seem to have acted obstructionist and as a counterweight to a lot of the EU's plans. Will financial centres moving to the continent be better in the long run than had the UK stayed in the EU and they remained in London?

I am the crazy kind of European who actually wants the Brits to stay in because I think every group needs at least one huge critic to keep everybody honest. Also Britain is a huge trading partner so that will hurt. And if they start another fishing war then everybody will hurt from that.

As to financial centres I don't really know if it is positive, right at the moment it seems more like each EU government is trying to outbid the other to get a share. Catering to the financial sector is not a good thing IMO.

Sure maybe there will be tighter integration but it might just be that France and Southern Europe will do even more to make a mockery out of EU rules than they already are.

[K. A. Pital]

How did Britain keep everyone honest? Their crime-ridden money-laundering hole known as "London", filled with fatcat banker trash, surely was not contributing, unless you think a cancerous tumor contributes to keeping the body healthy.

Nevermind their xenophobia, even against people that pretty much created a new servant underclass for the Blairite "Great" Britain, like Polish workers.

Britain's presence in the EU only meant more stupid wars for the sake of British-American relationship and terrible debacles at every corner.

Once they have left, the EU may very well cease to exist, but they weren't contributing more than the problems they have caused.

Their stubborn attitude towards Middle Eastern conflicts and funneling of funds to the Gulf States is one of the direct causes of the biggest humanitarian crisis with the refugee populations shooting through the roof.

Oh the fighters for democracy, the vigilant and the unyielding! I think everyone will breathe a sigh of relief once they are gone - from the EU at least, but maybe even from the world map, if Scotland or Northern Ireland really do pull that independence thing off.

[Hillary]

I think everyone will breathe a sigh of relief once they are gone - from the EU at least, but maybe even from the world map, if Scotland or Northern Ireland really do pull that independence thing off.

Northern Ireland will not even ask for an Independence vote - you are letting your hatred of Britain blind you to some very basic facts about the political situation in the province.

Scotland is also more than likely to stay, given the collapse in oil prices. Don't forget that 40% of Scots voted to leave the EU, so a lot of them will be happy with Brexit.

[His Divine Shadow]

I don't think Scotland would like it on it's own in the EU.... They are running quite a deficit that's made up for by transfers from london iirc. In the EU they'd have to go on a severe diet.

[jwl]

Northern Ireland leaving the UK would probably be a net gain for Britain on the world stage. In terms of the economy it's a money sink, in terms of influence it's in some sense embarrassing. It wouldn't be good for Northern Ireland if they left though, having unionist paramilitaries running around again would be a distinct possibility.

[Hillary]

I don't think Scotland would like it on it's own in the EU.... They are running quite a deficit that's made up for by transfers from london iirc. In the EU they'd have to go on a severe diet.

That's if they were accepted into the EU - Spain would take a lot of convincing for one.

Northern Ireland leaving the UK would probably be a net gain for Britain on the world stage. In terms of the economy it's a money sink, in terms of influence it's in some sense embarrassing. It wouldn't be good for Northern Ireland if they left though, having unionist paramilitaries running around again would be a distinct possibility.

I'm not sure they ever stopped - from what I've heard, they've simply moved into the "general gangster" business (that applies to paramilitaries on both sides).

[Zaune]

I'm not sure they ever stopped - from what I've heard, they've simply moved into the "general gangster" business (that applies to paramilitaries on both sides).

Pretty much, or so I'm told, except for the ones who set themselves up as consultants. (No, really; FARC had a couple of ex-Provos on the payroll training new recruits at one point.) But the important fact is that they're no longer running an actual insurgency.

[jwl]

I don't think Scotland would like it on it's own in the EU.... They are running quite a deficit that's made up for by transfers from london iirc. In the EU they'd have to go on a severe diet.

That's if they were accepted into the EU - Spain would take a lot of convincing for one.

Northern Ireland leaving the UK would probably be a net gain for Britain on the world stage. In terms of the economy it's a money sink, in terms of influence it's in some sense embarrassing. It wouldn't be good for Northern Ireland if they left though, having unionist paramilitaries running around again would be a distinct possibility.

I'm not sure they ever stopped - from what I've heard, they've simply moved into the "general gangster" business (that applies to paramilitaries on both sides).

They mostly did stop, the remnants went into the "general gangster" business.

[K. A. Pital]

That's if they were accepted into the EU - Spain would take a lot of convincing for one

Maybe Spain itself is next on the line, and by the time they would need any convincing, Spain would itself become a historical footnote, once Catalonia separates. They seek to stop it by purging inconvenient politicians in Barcelona, but it seems like this strategy backfired. A second independence referendum is announced, and who knows the outcome...

[The Xeelee]

Oh brexit. Of course we do the most economically self destructive thing ever right when I am about the enter the workforce. Anyone know some good countries that could use an immigrant programmer?