Independent: Spanish PM opposes EU talks with Scotland

The Spanish prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, has said he will oppose any attempts to hold talks with Scotland over its EU membership in the wake of Brexit.

Speaking as Nicola Sturgeon arrived on the second day of an emergency summit in Brussels, Mr Rajoy said that "if the UK goes, Scotland goes too".

Mr Rajoy, who is the acting prime minister after Spain's inconclusive election results at the weekend, said he was "extremely against" the idea of taking Scotland as an independent party. [...]

Ms Sturgeon was due to meet Mr Juncker on Wednesday evening after conversations with the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz.

And after that meeting Mr Schulz told reporters she was "at an early stage of this process".

"I have set out Scotland’s desire to protect our relationship with the European Union, I don’t underestimate the challenges that lie ahead for us in seeking to find a path," she said.

read the article 

Reuters: Supreme Court refuses to hear gay-sex ban challenge

A number of well-known lesbian, gay and bisexual Indians had argued that Section 377 of India's penal code, which prohibits "carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal", undermined their fundamental rights by failing to protect their sexual preferences.

"The Supreme Court refused to hear the matter and asked the petitioners to approach the Chief Justice of India," Arvind Dattar, a lawyer for one of the petitioners, told Reuters.

India's chief justice is already hearing a separate case to strike down the ban, and the top court has previously argued that only parliament has the power to change Section 377.

read the article 

AP: EU to Britain: No access to single market without migration

Tusk convened a special EU summit on Sept. 16 in Slovakia's capital Bratislava to work out a plan to keep the EU united. There's a widespread sense that the post-war project to foster peace via trade has become too bureaucratic and undemocratic with not enough meaning for its 500 million citizens. The initial EU founding nations in the west lean toward a tighter, closer union, while newer nations in the east want to keep more control with national governments — notably of their borders. [...]

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the lesson from Britain's departure isn't necessarily either deeper integration or returning more powers to national governments. She said Wednesday: "this is not about more or less Europe as a principle, but about achieving better results." She said that combating youth unemployment, for example, could involve both scrapping EU directives and deepening European cooperation. [...]

Vodafone, one of Britain's biggest companies, will consider moving its group headquarters because of the vote. The company, which says a majority of its customers are in other EU countries, said in a statement Wednesday that EU membership had been an important factor in its growth, and that free movement of people, goods and capital were integral to any pan-European business.

read the article 

Salon: The pope’s moral confusion: He should be applauded for his pro-LBGT remarks — but he didn’t go far enough

It’s nice to hear the pope say this, and he ought to be commended for it, but let’s not shower him with praise just yet. First, his distinction between the Church and its members is misleading, and obscures the role of dogmas. The Church is a constellation of the people and the institutions that make it up. It’s individuals who decide and act. It wasn’t “the Church” that used indulgences to pick the pockets of believers, it was Catholics. It wasn’t “the Church” that burned heretics at the stake, it was Catholics. It wasn’t “the Church” that supported fascism in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Croatia, Hungary, and Slovakia, it was Catholics. And it’s not “the Church” that preaches the sinfulness of condom use in AIDS-ravaged Africa, it’s Catholics, including Pope Francis. But the church is culpable for these crimes insofar as it perpetuates the beliefs that motivate them.

The pope is a good man doing his best to turn an archaic institution around, but there’s no avoiding an ugly truth: Christians condemn gay people not because of what they do but because of who they are, and they do so for purely theological reasons. Millions of Christians offer solidarity and love to LGBT people, but that’s an ethical intuition they bring to their faith from outside it. They do what most decent religious people do: pirouette around the parts of the Bible they find violent or regressive. [...]

The Church’s position on homosexuality illustrates why it’s so important to link ethical claims to the reality of human suffering. Religious people often confuse doctrinal obedience with ethical responsibility, but these are different things. There is no ethical reason to judge a gay person on account of his or her homosexuality. And yet religion gives good people bad reasons to do just that. When Francis said gay people need pastoral care, what he means is that they’re fallen and need spiritual guidance. But that assumes they’re broken or defective. What gay people need is what all people need: love. What Francis offered was judgment masquerading as compassion.

read the article 

The Guardian: UK voted for Brexit – but is there a way back?

The British government has not yet said how parliament should implement the decision to leave. It is not clear, for instance, if and what laws would have to be passed to put the referendum decision to leave the EU into effect.

At present, there is not a majority for Britain to leave the EU in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. Indeed, given a free vote, the unelected Lords would probably reject Brexit by a margin of six to one. [...]

More plausibly, the Commons might set conditions on the renegotiation, including access to the single market, membership of the European Free Trade Association or the preservation of the union with Scotland. The opportunities to filibuster and delay are innumerable. It is, for instance, disputed whether triggering article 50 requires the authority of parliament. Most legal opinion suggests not, but political necessity may require the endorsement of parliament. [...]

All these scenarios, however, are inherently speculative – and require an accumulator bet coming good – but if you think it is not being discussed in Whitehall and Westminster, you are mistaken.

read the article