Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[baldgye]

Incidentally, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, or with a deal that disadvantages Scotland (which the Backstop pretty much will), I expect the SNP to call a second referendum within hours. No Deal would make this a certainty, and it would also make the timeline much clearer... UK leaves the EU with No Deal at midnight on April 11/12th, SNP call a second independence referendum in the morning.

This is something I do not doubt, though I can't see two sinking smaller ships doing any better better than one bigger sinking ship...

 

[Tired Tyres]

Erm, yeh - just a bit different.

My friend (and former boss) has lived in the UK for over 20 years, but has done so quite legally with a Dutch passport. He is married to a Scottish woman and they have a child who was born in Scotland and has lived here his whole life. And yet, my friend didn't get a vote in the EU referendum. Meanwhile, an Indian guy he hired in 2014 (and who went back to India permanently in 2017) was allowed to vote (though I don't think he actually did).

Ironically, my friend (my boss at the time) was eligible to vote in the Scottish independence referendum, and I managed to persuade him (and several others) against voting in favour of Scottish independence, largely based on the fact that independence would have seen Scotland ejected from the EU by default and that staying in the UK was the wiser move for an EU national.... to be fair, that was correct at the time, but now that major reason for voting against Scottish independence has been turned on its head. If there is another Scottish independence referendum, I expect Scexit to win by a huge majority.

edit: Incidentally, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, or with a deal that disadvantages Scotland (which the Backstop pretty much will), I expect the SNP to call a second referendum within hours. No Deal would make this a certainty, and it would also make the timeline much clearer... UK leaves the EU with No Deal at midnight on April 11/12th, SNP call a second independence referendum in the morning.

It would have been 11AM on the 29th so probably early afternoon for the SNP.

 

[Touring Mars]

This is something I do not doubt, though I can't see two sinking smaller ships doing any better better than one bigger sinking ship...

Alas me neither. I've said right from the beginning of the Brexit debacle that a vote in favour of Scottish independence on top of Brexit would be a disaster upon a disaster. I think Scottish independence is a bad enough idea without also doing it at the worst possible time.

However, the argument would be that the EU would welcome us back with open arms and speed up our application process (like, overnight) to allow Scotland rejoin the EU. But... obviously, that is far, far easier said than done.

'Scentry' (into the EU) would have parallels and differences to Brexit... I reckon that Scotland would vote overwhelmingly in favour of 'Scentry', but a large portion of that vote would be akin to those who voted to leave the EU but without actually defining how to leave or recognising that they can choose to leave, but they cannot dictate on what terms. Similarly, alot of pro-Scottish independence supporters seem woefully misguided on a) what the UK will offer in terms of an exit deal and b) what terms our membership of the EU will impose upon us. The parallels with Brexit are, however, that the vote will probably happen first, and then the shambles of sorting it will begin. It would be more tolerable as an idea if Scotland/the SNP were, somehow, to do it the other way around - sort out both an exit deal with the UK and our future relationship with the EU, and then put that to a public vote. But that level of common sense is maybe too much to expect from politicians of any flavour.

But if you think Brexit is an omnishambles, then just imagine how much harder it would be if we were also trying to negotiate our way into an even larger political union at the same time.

I've always said that Brexit should not be a justification/reason for Scotland to leave the UK, but I'm in an ever-decreasing minority. The irony is that the SNP couldn't convince enough people that they could make a success of Scexit (sound familiar?!), but that was also not helped by the fact that our place in the EU was also at stake. Now things are quite different, but Scexit will be as hard (if not considerably harder) than Brexit, plus it is by no means certain that Scotland really wants to be a fully fledged part of the EU's future full integration (currency and all)... but alas most independence supporters seem oblivious to the fact that leaving one union to join another one is logically inconsistent.

 

[Robin]

My friend (and former boss) has lived in the UK for over 20 years, but has done so quite legally with a Dutch passport. He is married to a Scottish woman and they have a child who was born in Scotland and has lived here his whole life. And yet, my friend didn't get a vote in the EU referendum. Meanwhile, an Indian guy he hired in 2014 (and who went back to India permanently in 2017) was allowed to vote (though I don't think he actually did).

Just out of interest why did your friend not apply for UK citizenship at some point? Did he also not want the chance to vote in general elections for all those years? The government likely sees taking citizenship as the way they differentiate intent, for example, a migrant worker who might be here a year from someone who wants to put down long term roots (even if it doesn't always work out that way). I see no reason why someone wouldn't unless maybe they don't have any desire to influence the politics of the country.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Alas me neither. I've said right from the beginning of the Brexit debacle that a vote in favour of Scottish independence on top of Brexit would be a disaster upon a disaster. I think Scottish independence is a bad enough idea without also doing it at the worst possible time.

However, the argument would be that the EU would welcome us back with open arms and speed up our application process (like, overnight) to allow Scotland rejoin the EU. But... obviously, that is far, far easier said than done.

'Scentry' (into the EU) would have parallels and differences to Brexit... I reckon that Scotland would vote overwhelmingly in favour of 'Scentry', but a large portion of that vote would be akin to those who voted to leave the EU but without actually defining how to leave or recognising that they can choose to leave, but they cannot dictate on what terms. Similarly, alot of pro-Scottish independence supporters seem woefully misguided on a) what the UK will offer in terms of an exit deal and b) what terms our membership of the EU will impose upon us. The parallels with Brexit are, however, that the vote will probably happen first, and then the shambles of sorting it will begin. It would be more tolerable as an idea if Scotland/the SNP were, somehow, to do it the other way around - sort out both an exit deal with the UK and our future relationship with the EU, and then put that to a public vote. But that level of common sense is maybe too much to expect from politicians of any flavour.

But if you think Brexit is an omnishambles, then just imagine how much harder it would be if we were also trying to negotiate our way into an even larger political union at the same time.

I've always said that Brexit should not be a justification/reason for Scotland to leave the UK, but I'm in an ever-decreasing minority. The irony is that the SNP couldn't convince enough people that they could make a success of Scexit (sound familiar?!), but that was also not helped by the fact that our place in the EU was also at stake. Now things are quite different, but Scexit will be as hard (if not considerably harder) than Brexit, plus it is by no means certain that Scotland really wants to be a fully fledged part of the EU's future full integration (currency and all)... but alas most independence supporters seem oblivious to the fact that leaving one union to join another one is logically inconsistent.

Never ever accuse a nationalist of logical thought process.

 

[baldgye]

Alas me neither. I've said right from the beginning of the Brexit debacle that a vote in favour of Scottish independence on top of Brexit would be a disaster upon a disaster. I think Scottish independence is a bad enough idea without also doing it at the worst possible time.

To be fair, the SNP could demand another independence vote, but I can't imagine it would ever be allowed due to the monumental political cluster-**** no deal would be. Every person in Parliament would be too busy trying to grab what they can and leaving before the building collapsed than to worry about the Scots.

 

[Touring Mars]

To be fair, the SNP could demand another independence vote, but I can't imagine it would ever be allowed due to the monumental political cluster-**** no deal would be. Every person in Parliament would be too busy trying to grab what they can and leaving before the building collapsed than to worry about the Scots.

The only saving grace is that Nicola Sturgeon - however much I do not support her - is a smart person, and she appears to be making the right moves towards sorting out a way forward before jumping off the cliff Brexit-style. My fear, however, is that even Sturgeon may be compelled to act by the electorate before the time is right... if it ever is.

But... there is no way a second independence referendum could be blocked. Even legally, the Scottish Government would have a water-tight case for arguing under international legal conventions that there has been a fundamental change of circumstances since the first vote.

Hell, even I would agree that a second independence referendum was justified, but especially under a No Deal exit from the EU.

Sadly, however, I think the timing for Scotland could work out very badly. By the time a second independence vote were held, and by the time an exit strategy with the UK were agreed (and that could take a decade and still not work out well for Scotland), we'd already have been damaged from Brexit. In other words, the damage will have already been done, and we could be in danger of committing ourselves to even more damage on top of that.

Just out of interest why did your friend not apply for UK citizenship at some point?

Because he is Dutch and has a Dutch passport - and had a legal right to live and work in the UK. The question is, why would he have applied for UK citizenship when he didn't need to do so?

Did he also not want the chance to vote in general elections for all those years?

Let's be clear here - he does (now) have indefinite leave to remain... even without the commitments made by the UK government during the Brexit process thus far, he personally would still be allowed to live/work in the UK.... but even 'indefinite leave to remain' would not have qualified him for a vote in the EU referendum, which is frankly ridiculous.

As for general elections, he is registered to vote and can vote in UK elections... but EU citizens were specifically not allowed to vote in the EU referendum, whether they were registered to vote or not.

 

[Robin]

The question is, why would he have applied for UK citizenship when he didn't need to do so?

I guess because its a statement of intent, you don't need to and it doesn't change much but it ensures you get all the rights available to you including voting in that referendum. If he wishes to remain Dutch living in the UK then he is Dutch, so therefore the choice to be not be a British citizen has been made. There were people that did take up UK citizenship after the referendum was announced and even before the vote to confirm intent, so they would not only be protected (before indefinite leave to remain was known) but also so they would have a say. I guess the question I should ask is, Did he want to vote in the referendum? If he didn't then I understand his choice.

 

[Touring Mars]

I guess because its a statement of intent

One might argue that choosing to live and work in the UK for over 20 years, and to start and raise a family in this country was a statement of intent too...

you don't need to and it doesn't change much

... apart from losing your citizenship of your own country...

but it ensures you get all the rights available to you including voting in that referendum.

He already had the same rights as any other legal citizen of the UK/EU, including voting rights, but the referendum was considered an exception. But you seem to be suggesting that swapping one's nationality/passport is a price worth paying for merely being allowed to take part in the EU referendum, but why would anyone have done that knowing that there was a chance of losing the right to live/work in your home country if the vote went the wrong way for them (which it did)?

If he wishes to remain Dutch living in the UK then he is Dutch, so therefore the choice to be not be a British citizen has been made. There were people that did take up UK citizenship after the referendum was announced and even before the vote to confirm intent, so they would not only be protected (before indefinite leave to remain was known) but also so they would have a say.

Everyone's circumstances are different. My friend came here originally because Scotland was a good fit for his career, and he was a much sought after international researcher. He stayed here because he did brilliantly well, and the fact that he was legally allowed to live and work here made that much easier for him. He then raised a family here (again, presumably on the basis that there were no legal obstructions to that). But, he also has family, friends, colleagues and personal ties to Holland... like most Dutch people, he didn't grow up in Glasgow. And yet, he either gave up his Dutch nationality in advance, or, he gets barred from voting in the EU referendum - I know what I would have opted for in his situation.

It is a great pity (and IMO a shame on us all) that he was ever put in that position. It is also a slap in the face when a student from India who was only ever going to be in the UK temporarily did get a vote...

 

[Robin]

One might argue that choosing to live and work in the UK for over 20 years, and to start and raise a family in this country was a statement on intent...

But the government cannot 'know' that unless you tell them with a piece of paper, as it currently stands that's the way it operates, citizenship is intent. Whether that's too defined is a whole other debate.

... apart from losing your citizenship of your own country...

Many countries allow dual citizenship including plenty in the EU but I am aware that the Netherlands doesn't.

He already had the same rights as any other legal citizen of the UK/EU, including voting rights, but the referendum was considered an exception. But you seem to be suggesting that swapping one's nationality/passport is a price worth paying for merely being allowed taking part in the EU referendum, but why would anyone have done that knowing that there was a chance of losing the right to live/work in your home country?

But that's a contradiction, on the one hand choosing to live in a country for 20 years and have a family should be considered intent of being a citizen (therefore being your home country) and then on the other somewhere else is your home country. It has to be one way or another, or it can be both if your from a country that allows dual citizenship.

 

[Touring Mars]

But that's a contradiction, on the one hand choosing to live in a country for 20 years and have a family should be considered intent of being a citizen (therefore being your home country) and then on the other somewhere else is your home country. It has to be one way or another, or it can be both if your from a country that allows dual citizenship.

Not a contradiction, but a direct result of the UK being a member of the EU.

My mate is Dutch, but has lived half of his life in Scotland. He is a Dutch national by birth, but is a UK and a Dutch citizen by law. The fact that the law is now changing is a shame, but that isn't really my point. My point is, why did he not get a say in whether that law/legal status (around which he has built his career and family life) is retained?

I had a similar feeling in the Scottish independence referendum - I am Scottish and British, but if Scotland were to vote for independence, it would have forced me to make a choice - a choice that isn't going to benefit me either way... but at least I got a vote, whereas my mate wasn't so lucky.

But, more importantly, it isn't just that I may feel or identify as British and/or Scottish - the fact is that I am legally both, irrespective of my personal feelings on the matter, and I have made important life choices based on this fact. Similarly, my friend is (for the moment at least) both Dutch and a legal UK citizen, by personal choice and in law, and he has lived his life accordingly - yet he was prevented from taking part in a vote on the precise issue of EU nationals' legal status in the UK. That is fundamentally unfair IMO.

Meanwhile, a student from India living in the UK for a couple of years did get to vote in the EU referendum - and why? The only reason was that he comes from a country which currently happens to be part of a multinational union of which the UK is a member - the irony...

 

[Robin]

He is a Dutch national by birth, but is a UK and a Dutch citizen by law.

I'm confused now, I thought he was a Dutch citizen and not a UK one as the Dutch don't allow dual citizenship?

I had a similar feeling in the Scottish indepedence referendum - I am Scottish and British, but if Scotland were to vote for indepedence, it would force those of us who consider themselves to be both to make a choice that isn't going to benefit them in any way...

But these are choices people have to make outside of the EU all the time. In other countries there often isn't even a choice to straddle both sides. My point is, being put in this position is not unusual and it practically makes half the worlds citizenship procedures 'unfair'. If Scotland leaves and citizens have to make a choice that is a reality that will have to be accepted as a consequence of leaving the union.

 

[Touring Mars]

I'm confused now, I thought he was a Dutch citizen and not a UK one as the Dutch don't allow dual citizenship?

I meant that he is, by virtue of the UK's membership of the EU, a legal citizen of the UK, though he is not a UK passport holder.

But that is the point of EU membership - one did not need to possess a UK passport to have a legal right to live and work here, and among those rights afforded to EU nationals in the UK is the right to vote. Why that right was not extended to the EU referendum is what I'm concerned with.

But these are choices people have to make outside of the EU all the time. In other countries there often isn't even a choice to straddle both sides. My point is, being put in this position is not unusual and it practically makes half the worlds citizenship procedures 'unfair'. If Scotland leaves and citizens have to make a choice that is a reality that will have to be accepted as a consequence of leaving the union.

True, but the analogy would be that Scotland has a referendum on UK membership but no English, Welsh or N. Irish people living in Scotland are allowed to vote. That would be absurd, because so many non-Scottish UK citizens have established careers, families and lives in Scotland, and IMO there is no legal justification for barring them from a vote that fundamentally changes their status as legal residents/citizens.

I am aware, of course, that this is all a moot point - the decision was made long ago, and it cannot be changed. But, it does bear remembering that, unlike any assertions that some people may have been misled by dodgy campaigning, it practically goes without saying that the result of the referendum would have been drastically different but for the decision to not allow EU citizens who live and work in the UK from voting too.

 

[Robin]

I meant that he is, by virtue of the UK's membership of the EU, a legal citizen of the UK, though he is not a UK passport holder.

But that is the point of EU membership - one did not need to possess a UK passport to have a legal right to live and work here, and among those rights afforded to EU nationals in the UK is the right to vote. Why that right was not extended to the EU referendum is what I'm concerned with.

I understand now, but EU citizens cannot vote in everything, specifically they cannot vote in parliamentary elections, your friend cannot have done if he is still is an EU citizen. In that regard the key point here is that the rules on eligibility applied to the EU referendum were no different to a general election, it was not some special exclusion.

www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-uk-general-election

True, but the analogy would be that Scotland has a referendum on UK membership but no-one from English, Welsh or N. Irish people living in Scotland are allowed to vote. That would be absurd, because so many non-Scottish UK citizens have established careers, families and lives in Scotland, and IMO there is no legal justification for barring them from a vote that fundamentally changes their status as legal residents/citizens.

That is only because the UK has been in a union such a long time that it is a difficult if not impossible task to demography Scotland. They could give people a choice on what they identify as to establish the 'Scottish people' then give just them the vote and citizenship but I agree it would be an usual case.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I understand now, but EU citizens cannot vote in everything, specifically they cannot vote in parliamentary elections, your friend cannot have done if he is still is an EU citizen.

All EU citizens of voting age can vote in EU elections though - that's how we return our MEPs to the parliament. There was no need to be a specific national of any specific EU country because we could travel and work anywhere in the EU with no problem.

it is a difficult if not impossible task to demography Scotland. They could give people a choice on what they identify as to establish the 'Scottish people' then give just them the vote and citizenship but I agree it would be an usual case.

Sociographic voting restrictions? That's the new most-Brexit-thing I've heard.

 

[Robin]

All EU citizens of voting age can vote in EU elections though - that's how we return our MEPs to the parliament. There was no need to be a specific national of any specific EU country because we could travel and work anywhere in the EU with no problem.

Yes I know that, but we are talking about General elections and the EU referendum following its eligibility.

Sociographic voting restrictions? That's the new most-Brexit-thing I've heard.

You have got to be joking, people are asking how you separate Scotland from the union and you take issue with people in Scotland being asked whether they identify as Scottish and therefore want to remain in Scotland as an independent nation? How exactly do you propose its done?

 

[Touring Mars]

I understand now, but EU citizens cannot vote in everything, specifically they cannot vote in parliamentary elections, your friend cannot have done if he is still is an EU citizen. In that regard the key point here is that the rules on eligibility applied to the EU referendum were no different to a general election, it was not some special exclusion.

www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-uk-general-election

I didn't realise that was the case, but that is partly because EU nationals in Scotland are allowed to vote in Scottish parliamentary elections, but not (apparently) in UK elections.

That said, I still don't understand the merit of disallowing settled EU nationals voting rights but affording temporary visitors from the Commonwealth the right to vote.

 

[Robin]

I didn't realise that was the case, but that is partly because EU nationals in Scotland are allowed to vote in Scottish parliamentary elections, but not (apparently) in UK elections.

That was the key confusion between us, there was no special exclusion and following the rules applied to a general election aren't unreasonable. The notion that EU citizens where purposefully silenced is simply not true.

That said, I still don't understand the merit of disallowing settled EU nationals voting rights but affording temporary visitors from the Commonwealth the right to vote.

Again, its just some old laws and quirks of whats 'on paper'.

 

[Touring Mars]

That was the key confusion between us, there was no special exclusion and following the rules applied to a general election aren't unreasonable.

This is true...

The notion that EU citizens where purposefully silenced is simply not true.

...but I'm not so sure about that.

I think it was quite purposeful - the UK government could have allowed anyone to vote in the referendum. But my point is that someone who has worked, voted and paid taxes in the UK for as long as I have ought to have the same right to vote in UK elections as I do, be it General Elections or whatever... but especially in a referendum that fundamentally affects them and defines the basis for their future rights in the place they have legally called home for so many years.

 

[Robin]

I think it was quite purposeful - the UK government could have allowed anyone to vote in the referendum. But my point is that someone who has worked, voted and paid taxes in the UK for as long as I have ought to have the same right to vote in UK elections as I do, be it General Elections or whatever... but especially in a referendum that fundamentally affects them and defines the basis for their future rights in the place they have legally called home for so many years.

But then the whole point of having a referendum would be invalidated. If your going to allow 'anyone to vote' in it it would be about as representative as that online petition. Without any clear defined eligibility half of Europe could theoretically vote and then it would likely be a given Remain anyway. Without documentation how could the government identify these long lived, worked and paid tax individuals as being rightly deserving over a tourist that popped over on voting day. It would require a fundamental change in the logging of citizens, the laws of citizenship and also the laws of voting which would take years prior to the vote itself to implement.

I don't quite understand how it is purposefully wrong to give UK citizens a vote pertaining to the UK.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You have got to be joking, people are asking how you separate Scotland from the union and you take issue with people in Scotland being asked whether they identify as Scottish and therefore want to remain in Scotland as an independent nation? How exactly do you propose its done?

Ask the citizens with British passports who are resident in, and therefore presumably paying their tax to, Scotland. It doesn't matter how they identify unless you're re-enacting Orwell's 1984 and conducting thought policing.

If your going to allow 'anyone to vote' in it it would be about as representative as that online petition.

If you don't allow "anyone" to vote then you set a precedent for a return to excluding non-landowners, proles, women, blacks, anybody the legislators of the day don't like. Any legal resident of voting age (a discussion in itself) has the right to be represented in governance. That's a properly British value that took too long to be fully enacted the first time around.

EDIT: Caused the split of a decent colony too... no taxation without representation.

 

[Touring Mars]

But then the whole point of having a referendum would be invalidated. If your going to allow 'anyone to vote' in it it would be about as representative as that online petition.

That's quite a long way from what I'm suggesting. I'm saying that, if an Indian student who has lived in Kerala his whole life is allowed to vote in the EU referendum because he happened to be studying in the UK when the vote was held, then someone who has lived, worked and paid taxes in the UK for over 20 years ought to be allowed to vote too.

I don't quite understand how it is purposefully wrong to give UK citizens a vote pertaining to the UK.

Again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are EU nationals in the UK who had as much justification as voting in the EU referendum as I did. That doesn't mean 'anyone' should get a vote, and obviously there must be a line somewhere - but I don't understand why Commonwealth nationals resident in the UK for any length of time got a vote while EU nationals resident for decades did not. My point is not that there needs to be a line, but where that line was drawn and why.

 

[MatskiMonk]

This is not about what's best for the country, it's about party politics and control of power...

... it's what it was when Cameron called it, it's what it was when MP's voted on it, and it's what it is now.

 

[Robin]

Ask the citizens with British passports who are resident in, and therefore presumably paying their tax to, Scotland. It doesn't matter how they identify unless you're re-enacting Orwell's 1984 and conducting thought policing.

That's what I said! Ask English, Irish, Welsh, European etc people living in Scotland whether they wish to uptake citizenship (identify as Scottish) in an independent Scotland and the voting rights that comes with it. So why the outrage from you then?

If you don't allow "anyone" to vote then you set a precedent for a return to excluding non-landowners, proles, women, blacks, anybody the legislators of the day don't like. Any legal resident of voting age (a discussion in itself) has the right to be represented in governance. That's a properly British value that took too long to be fully enacted the first time around.

EDIT: Caused the split of a decent colony too... no taxation without representation.

Anyone other than UK citizens, tell me how that is wrong? The notion that your comparing not having foreign nationals participate in another countries voting (how its done in pretty much every country on earth) is the same as not allowing Women etc to vote is absurd.

That's quite a long way from what I'm suggesting. I'm saying that, if an Indian student who has lived in Kerala his whole life is allowed to vote in the EU referendum because he happened to be studying in the UK when the vote was held, then someone who has lived, worked and paid taxes in the UK for over 20 years ought to be allowed to vote too.

But for him to have been able to vote he had to have made the intent (applied for citizenship) in order to get that right, others who want that right should apply for them as well. If they don't the government cannot see the intent.

 

[Touring Mars]

Except... given the fact that the vote itself is all about the definition of citizenship (and legal rights pertaining to it), it seems ridiculous to suggest that one must first indicate a willingness to reject one's own citizenship in order to qualify to vote on the subject.

 

[baldgye]

This is not about what's best for the country, it's about party politics and control of power...

... it's what it was when Cameron called it, it's what it was when MP's voted on it, and it's what it is now.

Two things stand out;
1. The Lib Dem’s remembered to vote
2. Labour actually (by enlarge) agree on something!

 

[Robin]

Except... given the fact that the vote itself is all about the definition of citizenship (and legal rights pertaining to it), it seems ridiculous to suggest that one must first indicate a willingness to reject one's own citizenship in order to qualify to vote on the subject.

That is indeed a paradox of this particular referendum yes but the citizenship rules predate it.

Edit - For clarity no UK citizen had to relinquish anything and they did not face any paradox, this only pertains to EU citizens.

 

[HenrySwanson]

 

[Beeblebrox237]

In this thread:
Robin "Those are the rules, this is how it is"
Everyone "Those rules aren't very fair, this is how I think the rules should be changed to make the system better"
Robin "But those are the rules, that's how it is"
Everyone "We had a vote on what the rules should be for one thing, why not also let the people have a say in the rules of that vote?"
Robin "Because those are the rules"

 

[Touring Mars]

In this thread:
Robin "Those are the rules, this is how it is"
Everyone "Those rules aren't very fair, this is how I think the rules should be changed to make the system better"
Robin "But those are the rules, that's how it is"
Everyone "We had a vote on what the rules should be for one thing, why not also let the people have a say in the rules of that vote?"
Robin "Because those are the rules"

To be fair, this is an opinions thread and opinions will always have to contend with facts, such as they are.

-

Meanwhile, I'm lamenting the fact that the two most comical things on British TV at the moment are Scotland international football matches and BBC Parliament.