Scottish Parliment Votes For 2nd Indepenence Refferendum

[bionic 50,112]

5 hours ago, LG said:

That's a seperate issue, although I'm against leaving both the EU and UK I'm being neutral here, the negotiation process of us leaving the UK will be greatly disadvantaged by the ongoing negotiation of Britain leaving the EU. The main focus of the rest of the UK will be on getting a good deal out of the EU, little time or consideration will be given to negotiations with Scotland because there is no advantage to the UK of doing so.

if we were going to leave the U.K. it should have been talked about AFTER the uk has left the EU so we can have actual time and focus spent on negotiation

Exactly. A 'good' trade deal for the UK can still be long-term beneficial for Scotland even if it then opts for independence. Why not help out your neighbours (who lbr, will still play a key role in your country's politics post independence) whilst you're still together? 

[The Fame Joanne 5,985]

28 minutes ago, bionic said:

Probably because the EU has to get 28 countries (+ the country trading with) to agree on a trade deal before it passes, whereas the UK would only have to get itself and its trading partner

But the EU would only need one minor deal to compensate the loss of the UK, whereas the UK looses access to the world's biggest single market (where they made about 1/2 of their trade)

30 minutes ago, bionic said:

The UK is a founding member of the EU Intelligence Agency and is its most active member  

Well maybe, but I guess the UK also has a huge interest in keeping those resourcess. So I doubt they would stop working together against terrorism  maybe not as close as before, but I don't see the rise of terrorism in either side's interest 

[Luc 4,776]

5 hours ago, Benji said:

The UK losing "all economical benefits" would hurt the EU more than the UK. The UK can turn elsewhere whilst the EU literally just loses the UK with nothing to fill it's space.

It's why "No deal is better than a bad deal" is better for the UK and "no deal" is disastrous for the EU. Both sides have certain powers over each other but the UK does pretty much have the trump card with the fact it is willing to walk away completely.

That's so wrong. The UK relies on the EU to an extent way bigger than vice versa. The EU has the trump card here and May saying she's willing to walk away or saying that no deal is better than a bad one is for domestic audiences only. The UK relies on the EU for imports. Tariffs would make prices skyrocket, meaning purchasing power decreases immensely. Trade between the UK and EU is big, but the share of EU trade for the economy is much, much bigger for the UK than any the other 27 countries has a share in UK trade for their respective economy. The countries that rely the most on the UK (the Netherlands, Ireland) would lose in exports, but gain in jobs moving from the UK to these two countries. Besides, Euroskepticism is a danger in most member states and what better argument against leaving the EU than direct evidence that it hurts the economy? 

The EU has many trade deals in place and many new ones are being negotiated (Japan, Vietnam). The EU is a much bigger market (like four or five times bigger) with much more room for growth (catch-up effect in Eastern Europe) which means it will be prioritized by other countries. A deal with the US (which was estimated to lead to 0.5-1.0% in economic growth, which is nothing compared to the benefit of the Single Market) may be prioritized by the Trump administration, but by that time we'd have to see if (a) Trump is capable of compromise or actual negotiation and if (b) Trump is still president.

Besides, negotiating a trade deal takes time (can be a decade). In the meantime, Britain will face WTO rules. Those are not beneficial to Britain, without any trade deals in place.

I'm really just wondering what source or figure you base your assumption that the EU needs the UK more than vice versa on.

By the way, wasn't it you that argued that May would push for a soft Brexit?