View from Ibiza: Preserving The Union
The news that Michael Gove is appointed Justice Secretary with the job of introducing a Bill of Rights which enables the UK to withdraw from the human rights structure of Europe including its court of which we are a founding member has significant implications. On the face of it the administration of UK justice would be simplified and deportation of terrorists would be cleared from all the rigmarole of endless appeals to the European Court, delaying by years their exit.
Yet there is more at stake. First it would be a terrible signal to send to the rest of Europe that we were going to depart from the common standard which has been the bulwark of individual freedoms in the post war era. It would be a sign that the UK is walking away from something both treasured and special. It would be popular in England. But in Scotland? Would Scots give up the protection of their human rights by Europe and cede them to a Tory dominated England? For that would be the implication if not the application. And in populist politics implication is everything. Could this be just the trigger for another referendum for the Scots to go? Because backed by a big issue about their rights and freedoms the SNP could have just the trigger they are waiting for. And next time they will win.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Linda
(new)
May 12, 2015 08:06PM
I think they should get a Bill of Rights. Forget about what the Continent is doing. You have the same legal system as the US. The US has a Bill of Rights. Sot it makes sense that England should have one.
reply
|
flag
You may very well be right, but a problem will arise if Scotland disagrees.
I've mentioned this before, and you disagree. But I don't think Scotland should have the power to disagree anymore than Texas or California can secede from the Union in the US. IT's a very fundamental point. Remember, Germany's not breaking up, and you seem to be. P.S. Somewhere during the Bush administration there was a Supreme Court case that prevented California from having its own foreign policy. If you want England to break up, where would you stop? Would you let Wales go, too? How about the north of England? Do you want a city state: London?
Sadly it is not up to me. But a cultural and political divide is opening up between the two countries. More tomorrow as sleepy after flight etc.
Scotland speaks the same language. So does Wales and Ireland, too, for that matter. They should be part of Britain's sphere of influence. They should use the pound sterling. You don't want Germany meddling in the British Isles.
Agree all that. Gary is right when he says the SNP would lose another referendum, but only if, like last time, it was just a referendum over independence.But they will not call a referendum for that. The trigger would be something like leaving the EU or changing Human Rights laws. If there were a referendum backed by such an issue they would be likely to win.Unfortunately Cameron used the fear of Labour having to to go into coalition with the SNP as a scare tactic to win and this has opened a big cultural and political gulf between the two countries which was not there before.
I know you make the point about Texas, but all the American states are really settled colonies of less than 300 hundred years standing. Scotland and England have been separate and identifiable countries for two thousand years with different cultures and alliances.They have been settled by different tribes for 10,000 years at least. It is just not possible to compare with bits of America breaking off.
They only came together as a monarchy after the death of Elizabeth I and in a political union much later in 1707. The legal and education systems have never been integrated and the Scottish churches are completely different. The glue which held them together was the British Empire, in the management and development of which Scotland punched well above her weight. Without the empire, the glue has become much weaker.
I very much hope that Cameron puts in place a system of federal governance which can work and gets a deal with the EU that makes sure the UK votes to stay in. Then I think the UK is much safer. But if England voted to go and Scotland voted to stay, they would bust apart for sure. This is another problem. Scotland is pro EU and England is anti.
Linda wrote: "Scotland speaks the same language. So does Wales and Ireland, too, for that matter. They should be part of Britain's sphere of influence. They should use the pound sterling. You don't want Germany ..."No, but it will Germany who decides whether Cameron gets enough goodies to persuade the English to stay in the EU. Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are all pro EU and happy with the deal we already have.
I have thought of an alternative idea of a trade deal between the US, UK, Canada and Ireland.Free movement of goods, services and citizens across borders etc. It would be the biggest market in the world and the largest industrial/capitalist conglomeration in history. But England would fear that it would end up having to use the $ and that Edinburgh and Dublin would have more influence with Washington than London.
The US would never permit its currency to move beyond its borders. It doesn't play politics with its currency the way Germany does. So England should have no fear of being forced to adopt the dollar. Remember, even Canada has their own dollar, and the economy is joined with the US anyway. Ridiculous that Dublin and Edinburgh should have more influence than London. London is a much more important and bigger city. Despite the current occupant of the White House, most Americans are still very pro-Anglo even if they are of Scottish or Irish descent.
Linda wrote: "The US would never permit its currency to move beyond its borders. It doesn't play politics with its currency the way Germany does. So England should have no fear of being forced to adopt the dolla..."Good to hear that. Thanks.
Is this trade deal among the US, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, and England in the works? Has anybody proposed it? Or is it just your idea?
Linda wrote: "Is this trade deal among the US, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, and England in the works? Has anybody proposed it? Or is it just your idea?"Just my idea if we are silly enough to walk out of Europe, but I am sure others will be thinking about it.
Do you think it would be better for England to remain as part of the EU or to join with the US in an economic union and why?
I think it would be better to remain in the EU, because we are so connected already. We are all citizens of Europe and we are free to live and work in any country and all the trade is free. In addition our business and financial system is very closely linked to the U.S.already so it would not be difficult to forge closer links with the U.S if we had to. But with luck we will get both as the EU and the U.S. are about 18 months from signing an open trade deal anyway.By the same token if we walk out of Europe we would walk out of that too, and then we would have to get the best deal we could with whoever. And we would be on our own because Scotland will exit the Union if it exits the EU, there is absolutely no doubt about that.
If you go back sixty years it might have been better for GB and Ireland to join the U.S. instead of Europe as I have suggested, but at that time GB still saw itself as an imperial power.
Maybe it's better to be part of the EU just because you are geographically closer to the Continent. That impressed me the last time I was in Europe sailing from Southampton to Hamburg. The noon Captain's Report every day at lunch time said that it was the busiest shipping lane in the world. Is that true? Also we were skirting along the coast of the Low Countries at the same time. It all felt as if it was interconnected and meant to be that way.
I think it is better this way and I think Britain will vote to stay in the EU. The quitters have been making all the noise for the last several years but as the big guns line up with the projected job losses etc if we move out, I expect the majority to want to stay. It does depend when the referendum is held, sooner the better, and no big disasters in the EU to put people off.Yes the English Channel is the worlds busiest shipping lane. You are right, we are very close. If you take the ferry from Dover to Calais it is only twenty one miles and when in mid Channel you can see both coasts within touching distance equally well. It is like a large river.
Last night I dug up a flint tool in the garden, about 10,000 years old. In those days you could walk to France and we were joined on. The Channel is not very deep.
How deep is the Channel? It must be deep enough for shipping. I remember from the Queen Mary when they gave you the depths that the coastal waters were much more shallow than mid ocean. But it varied all over the place. You needed a map of the floor of the ocean, which was something I had never thought about before. Have you ever heard of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge for instance? I'd never heard of it before I sailed. Ditto the Porcupine Ridge. Compared to mid ocean where you rarely saw another ship, the Channel was really crowded. You always saw other boats and shipping. Ditto the Elbe River coming into Hamburg.
Linda wrote: "How deep is the Channel? It must be deep enough for shipping. I remember from the Queen Mary when they gave you the depths that the coastal waters were much more shallow than mid ocean. But it vari..."At its Atlantic mouth it is about 400 ft deep but at the Straits of Dover it is about 150 ft.
Yes I did know about the undersea mountain ranges and deep trenches but only in the general knowledge sense. I am no expert and not familiar with the names.
On the Queen Mary they sold maps of the Atlantic Ocean. You were supposed to write down your coordinates every day and map your course across the ocean.
Well I suppose people who enjoy sailing on a big liner want to take part in the whole thing. It is the same on planes. On long haul you have a screen in front of you for movies but you can set it to an interactive map which shows you exactly where the plane is at any time, so you can follow the journey.
Such excitement! The Stones River PC has arrived. It is very good of you to have taken the time and trouble. Thank you so much.Stone's River was one of the many battles in the civil war in which one or other side claimed victory and were said to be decisive but were not. Both armies went on fighting afterwards. There were only two generals in the civil war, both in the Union, Grant and Sherman, who could deliver knockout blows and eventually won the war. Lee, Jackson and Stuart could win dramatic victories but they could never deliver a knockout blow to win Confederate independence.
I guess you have yet to get the postcards sent from the New Market Battlefield. Gary sent you one, too.
