Should Westminster Allow Indyref2?

Avatar Image
ToraToraTora | 16:50 Thu 25th Apr 2019 | News
105 Answers
I think they should let wee Jimmy get it out of her system once and for all.


61 to 80 of 105rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"C'mon, NJ. It's only been a disaster for the countries who had very dodgy monetary 'systems' in the first place."

I'm not disputing that, Zacs (though I'm not sure Spain has numbered amongst them). But in the past those countries have managed their troubles and their international trade by adjusting the value of their currencies or, to a lesser degree, their interest rates and I don't recall youth unemployment reaching 50% in Greece in pre-euro days. The euro may suit many businesses because it saves them the trouble and expense of having to deal with currency conversions, but for huge numbers of individuals the euro has been a disaster. The paradox is that in those countries they don't see the single currency as the cause of their woes and they are reluctant to ditch it as Karl intimates. But it certainly is.
NJ, what you say about Greece etc. lacking self restraint in taking loans is akin to expressing of concern over alcohol being available to alcoholics. Is the responsibility that of the producers and should we do away with alcohol (loans) altogether (close down the euro) or do we allow it ? Bootleg booze (overspending) will still be around. Not the best of comparisons but you'll see what I mean. The loans were available for development, external oversight/vetting may not have been adequate but that is not the fault of the currency per se.

Unlike the UK, Sweden has a very straight forward national management system whereby of those who are legally in the country they basically know exactly who everyone is, where they are and an up-to-date list of everything. It is more or less true to say nobody can legally exist in the country, take part in economic activity, obtain state assistance, use the banks, etc. unless they are registered. This is true even of non-residents. Those who are there illegally cannot access anything unless expressly sanctioned by the system which then registers them so they become trackable "faces".

The dilemma for the Swedes, like Germany, France, etc. and also the UK (without the benefit of a robust admin/management system), is whether to expel people, many of whom are in a bad situation, and then where to. All these countries have largely held back, although expulsions do take place. The authorities in Sweden are as responsive as anywhere to the concerns of their citizens and they are apparently not preparing for any drastic action in Malmo. They are still trying to find out who killed Olof Palme by point blank gunshot long before Sweden entered Schengen and years before Sweden joined the EU.

At one point when the congregating of would-be UK immigrants in and around Calais caused friction between the UK and France, a French minister (can't recall which/who) said in some despair that "if only the British had a system" things would be easier to deal with. France sees things differently from Britain. It is not at all difficult to persuade people to become worried. According to my knowledge of Swedish issues (which admittedly is limited), they are aware that they are being tested by the pressures but so far they seem to be calmly adjusting to a new reality, whether temporary or permanent. They too have different types of extremist elements among them. They too feel the consequences of the fallout from the West's past mistakes and misdeeds on the world stage and home grown reactionaries.

It is geography that has put Italy and Greece under particularly great pressure but other countries feel it too. There have been temporary border arrangements but so far no serious call for abandoning Schengen has emerged. The reason is, just like on the island of Ireland, free movement (physical and economical) is very highly valued indeed - only the blinkered knee-jerkers genuinely fail to appreciate that.

// TTT, do you have a box of Porage Oats in front of you? //
Do you mean Porridge?
The red dwarf should have her referendum - even if she wins they will suddenly find out they cant offer all the things they currently do.
The definition of a Referendum is that it is a ONE OFF ! You do not keep having them until you get the result you want !
BALDRIC, no I meant Porage as in "Scott's Porrage Oats" since TTT appears unable to spell Scots.
EDDIE, your "definition" is clearly wrong since there can be a poll every seven years, if required, on whether Ulster should leave the UK.
A 'poll' is NOT a referendum!

Where does it say that a referendum is a "one off", Eddie?
It is commonly called a Border Poll but it is a referendum.
Referendum, poll, election - all of these relate to the process of obtaining the registered electorate's decision on a matter or matters. Debating the meanings of the words is probably just an exercise in unproductive pedantry. In each and every case of any of these the outcome may or may not be binding so far as the follow-on is concerned, depending on the state of law governing each of them. Sometimes there may be no tangible effect at all. For example, a conventional "election" to a legislative assembly only automatically gives an outright majority the right to form a government (well, almost always - whether that government is then actually in charge is very occasionally another matter). In other cases the matter is not at all clear cut and negotiations and bargaining follow, it can often go more than one way.
A referendum may not be defined as a one off event but common sense tells us that one doesn't opt to spend public money on referenda willy nilly. In appropriate circumstances one asks the country, and then one acts on the result. One doesn't ask again until an appropriate period has passed and the country can judge the result of implementing the first decision. In practical terms this means it is a one off, or a widely spaced series of one offs.
Only six of the nine counties of Ulster are in the UK.
Donegal, Monaghan, and Tyrone, are in the Republic of Ireland.
PETE, I am well aware of that but if it was good enough for the RUC, it's good enough for me. I will continue to refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster as I see fit and no doubt some others will call it the Six Counties or the North.
"Elections" are polls usually required to be held at least every X years. Other types of polls, including referenda (one might call them irregular elections, indeed a ballot is cast), are carried out whenever the decision to hold one is arrived at, often due to pressure of some sort being judged to require it by those deciding to hold one. It is recognised that there will always be some resistance to a non-election poll being held (and even scheduled elections receive resistance at times), not least because those resisting don't want to risk the status quo (whether of short term or long term standing) being changed. It seems entirely logical that those resisting for such reasons will insist it is not time, that it should never be allowed, etc., etc. Everyone, including they, is entitled to their opinion but that opinion is just that.
Can someone explain how Scotland would manage financially if it became independent? Just wondering .
The RUC?
The Patten Commission recommended the RUC should be renamed the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
And it was.
PSNI in short.
That is why I said "was" and not "is" but I think my using "Ulster" is not pertinent to the discussion.

61 to 80 of 105rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Should Westminster Allow Indyref2?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.