EU referendum are you in or out

[gravy]

This goes here, right?

[KlaxonCow]

Plus only two years ago they voted convincingly to stay in the UK; it’s hard to believe a vote now would produce a radically different result.

It was not remotely "convincing". Scotland barely voted to stay in the UK. And it was on the basis of various promises that haven't really been fully honoured yet and, of course, implicitly, the basis that the UK they were remaining a part of, remained a EU member country.

It's perfectly easy to believe that a second referendum will produce a different result.

It seems entirely credible to me that - like the devolution votes themselves, where Scotland and Wales said "no" in the '70s but then said "yes" in the '90s - if this goes to a second referendum then Scotland is gone. Not a certainty, granted - after Brexit, no votes anywhere feel like a certainty anymore - but a decent chance, leaning towards "likely".

Even without leaving the EU, many Scots, I'm sure, feel like Westminster promised them any old shit to keep them within "the English Empire" and, at best, haven't exactly been enthusiastic about rushing to implement most of it. Their grievances there have not yet been redressed - and a large part of the basis of that grievance was how Scotland's treated as a second class citizen in the Union, not the equal partner that, legally, it is (Wales was conquered but Scotland signed up to the Union). That, alone, could see Scotland out of the UK anyway.

But a large part of why the groundswell towards leaving the UK didn't quite win - though it came awfully close to doing so - the first referendum was uncertainty. Economic uncertainty. Geopolitical uncertainty, with regards to Scotland leaving the UK automatically meaning that it would leave the EU - as it is the UK that's the EU member nation - and then have to reapply, which could, indeed, take a decade to complete and would implicitly mean accepting the Euro because new members cannot opt out.

All that potential uncertainty - remember, this was the original "Project Fear" - pushed it to barely securing that "better safe than sorry" result.

But if there's Brexit, then all those uncertainties will now happen regardless. They're no longer an impediment, as there now isn't any "safe" to prefer over a potential "sorry". It's a sorry affair either way.

Even before Brexit, I was calling a second Scottish referendum as the end of the UK. Because what happened between the '70s "no" and the '90s "yes" with devolution was both a growing confidence and a realisation that choosing "better the Devil you know" not only doesn't change anything, but can even make things worse.

Your attitude nicely illustrates this. The Scottish referendum was barely a win for staying in the UK. Barely. It came down to the wire and could easily have gone the other way. But you're acting like it was a landslide victory - beyond all reasonable doubt - that Scotland is a shoo-in to forever sit compliant and dutiful in Westminster's pocket. Such "fuck them" arrogance was exactly and entirely the reason why the Scots considered a referendum and nearly won it in the first place.

If it goes to a second referendum, Scotland will walk. Because why the shit shouldn't they? Brexit already is economic and geopolitical uncertainty for at least a decade to come, so that's no reason to be shy of leaving. And that was really all that kept Scotland in the UK - by its fingernails - the last time around.

I'll say it again. The only way to save the UK, long term, is to equalise the relationship. To go federal. For England to have its own Parliament - or, perhaps more usefully, for the English regions to have their own Parliaments, as the true tension in the UK is actually "Megacity London vs. the rest of the UK" - or, while the disparity lasts, it's just slowly corroding the UK away. Doing nothing does not preserve the status quo. If you believe that, then correct your perception of what's really going on.

Megacity London and the Westminster bubble within it are tearing the UK apart because, within that bubble, Westminster doesn't even realise that there is another country slowly developing outside. The failure to understand that was an element of the Brexit vote - London voted remain, the rest of England didn't.

[tufty]

a pretty boring and uncontroversial trade deal. Really, you can sort of understand people fearing a deal with the US, but Canada?!

CETA has exactly the same issues as TAFTA, viz:

- EU or local rules mean product X is not allowed to be sold in the EU / EU country.
- Y, the manufacturer of product X, based in Canada, wants to sell it in the EU / EU country.
- EU / local government say "make it comply with EU / local law"
- Y says "fuck that, you're causing me losses" and sues for brazillions.

There's all sorts of products that are allowed to be sold elsewhere but not in the EU due to stricter regulation over here, and even more local regulation that is stricter than EU regulation. For example, there's all sorts of EU rules about what you're allowed to put in cigarettes, and what you have to put on the packaging, which don't necessarily apply to cigarettes sold in the US, Canada, or, say, Africa. Furthermore, certain EU countries are starting to require "neutral" packaging.

That's what the fuss about TAFTA was, and that's what the fuss about CETA is. Both are an affront to your actual sovereignty. Both put financial concerns over national and / or regional law. Bend your rules to allow companies to sell whatever the fuck they like, or pay fines.

[pogo]

There's all sorts of products that are allowed to be sold elsewhere but not in the EU due to stricter regulation over here, and even more local regulation that is stricter than EU regulation. For example, there's all sorts of EU rules about what you're allowed to put in cigarettes, and what you have to put on the packaging, which don't necessarily apply to cigarettes sold in the US, Canada, or, say, Africa. Furthermore, certain EU countries are starting to require "neutral" packaging.

And those things are unaffected by trade deals. Don’t forget we have the mother of all free trade deals already, within the EU. But it does not stop us imposing plain packaging on cigarette packets. A much weaker and more restricted deal with Canada won’t make any difference to that, or to our health regulations on what goes in cigarettes.

There’s a lot of misinformation out there about how such agreements work, and this one comes up most often. Yes, Philip Morris sued the Australian government for introducing plain packaging, based on a trade deal. And lost. Australia went ahead with plain packaging. Now other countries have, including much larger markets like the UK. Philip Morris made a high stakes bet and lost.

There is no precedence in such rulings, but every other country now knows how to fight the tobacco giants if they try something like they did in Australia; in court, or by drawing up packaging laws correctly, or by incorporating health exceptions into such treaties. It seems highly unlikely therefore that treaties like Ceta could stop countries using plain packaging.

[tufty]

It's not misinformation, you total tit. And although Philip Morris lost against Uruguay, that's not the only case that's ever been brought; just as a for example, Canada lost against SD Meyers, Ethyl Corporation and Dow Agroscience, all of which were cases where the company sued the government for not allowing them to flaunt public health regulations.

[pogo]

It is misinformation: it’s the same bad example (“Oh noes, big bad tobacco is forcing countries to tear up their health regulations and ditch plans for plain packaging”) that those opposed to trade treaties trot out, ignoring the fact that the treaty did it job and let Australia introduce plain packaging.

[tufty]

It is misinformation: it’s the same bad example (“Oh noes, big bad tobacco is forcing countries to tear up their health regulations and ditch plans for plain packaging”) that those opposed to trade treaties trot out, ignoring the fact that the treaty did it job and let Australia introduce plain packaging.

But Canada had to indemnise Ethyl Corporation to the tune of a quarter of a billion dollars. Ecuador were made to pay 2.4 billion dollars to Occidental. And so on.

I'm just as good at picking cherries as you are.

[Little stoned kiwi]

The problem with free trade deals is they are rarely about free trade. If every country removed tarrifs and subsidies, we'd have globalised free trade.
Regulations have nothing to do with free trade. A country should have every right to exert packaging, labeling, or health and safety regulations.

[zip accident]

It's not misinformation, you total tit. And although Philip Morris lost against Uruguay, that's not the only case that's ever been brought; just as a for example, Canada lost against SD Meyers, Ethyl Corporation and Dow Agroscience, all of which were cases where the company sued the government for not allowing them to flout public health regulations.

FTFY

[tufty]

So you did. Thanks.

[pogo]

It is misinformation: it’s the same bad example (“Oh noes, big bad tobacco is forcing countries to tear up their health regulations and ditch plans for plain packaging”) that those opposed to trade treaties trot out, ignoring the fact that the treaty did it job and let Australia introduce plain packaging.

But Canada had to indemnise Ethyl Corporation to the tune of a quarter of a billion dollars. Ecuador were made to pay 2.4 billion dollars to Occidental. And so on.

I'm just as good at picking cherries as you are.

I wasn’t cherry picking. It was you that raised the example of cigarette packaging. Now I’ve pointed out that yes, it’s a good example, a good example of trade deals working to protect governments’ rights to introduce laws like plain packaging. So now you have some other examples, such as Occidental:

Ecuador to pay $980 million to Occidental for asset seizure

$980m, not $2.4bn. And for asset seizure. Sounds like a lot of money but it’s based on the value of the oil field and oil in it that Ecuador’s government seized, so the government is not out of pocket, assuming they have a plan to exploit that field.

This is how the settlement process is meant to work. It stops governments using their sovereign authority to arbitrarily confiscate the assets of firms, without due process and compensation. Such cases should be resolved in local courts but if that is not possible international arbitration can be used.

[tufty]

$980m, not $2.4bn. And for asset seizure.

Ah, so they got it down. Good.

What happened, in the case itself, was that Occidental broke the terms of the contract they had with Ecuador (AIUI, by divesting rights to third parties, something they were explicitly forbidden from doing by their contract), and the penalty for which was having their rights to exploit pulled. That was the "asset seizure" - Ecuador applied the terms of the contract, kicked occidental out, and gave the exploitation rights to someone else. It's worth pointing out that Occidental don't deny having broken the contract terms.

So again, it's big companies flouting the law, and then suing for compensation when they get pulled up on it. To the tune of the (negotiated down) better part of a billion dollars.

Yay treaties.

[gumboot]

What's the basis for the ruling? Just "treaty says you can't do that, and treaty trumps contract"?

[zip accident]

What's the basis for the ruling? Just "treaty says you can't do that, and treaty trumps contract"?

How many divisions does the Pope (treaty) have?

[pogo]

$980m, not $2.4bn. And for asset seizure.

Ah, so they got it down. Good.

What happened, in the case itself, was that Occidental broke the terms of the contract they had with Ecuador (AIUI, by divesting rights to third parties, something they were explicitly forbidden from doing by their contract), and the penalty for which was having their rights to exploit pulled. That was the "asset seizure" - Ecuador applied the terms of the contract, kicked occidental out, and gave the exploitation rights to someone else. It's worth pointing out that Occidental don't deny having broken the contract terms.

And the tribunal decided that seizing their assets, worth $1 billion or so, was disproportionate, as previous similar cases had not been resolved this way. In particular the decree they used to effect the seizure was illegal, even under Ecuadorian law.