Oops!
Quote:
AN INDEPENDENT Scotland would have to apply to join the European Union if voters back the SNP’s plans to break away from the United Kingdom, officials in Brussels have said.
In a significant blow to the Nationalists, the European Commission has written a letter intended for a House of Lords committee stating that if Scots voters back independence, existing treaties which cover the UK’s EU membership will “cease to apply”
In a significant blow to the Nationalists, the European Commission has written a letter intended for a House of Lords committee stating that if Scots voters back independence, existing treaties which cover the UK’s EU membership will “cease to apply”
Heh. This (marginally) explains Salmond's "EU legal advice" lies, deception and smokescreen I guess, but how he thought he or his party could keep this under wraps, or that the Scottish Electorate wouldn't bother to find this out for themselves, is anyone's guess.
They'll be much gnashing of Vimto-saturated, caries-infested teeth over this one, I'll be bound.
They'll be much gnashing of Vimto-saturated, caries-infested teeth over this one, I'll be bound.
The funny thing is, this might bolster the independence vote. How many Scots want to escape the EU? That said, the *SNP* certainly doesn't want to, so we could end up in the absurd situation of the SNP getting what it wants in terms of independence and then the electorate that got them that being shafted with the newly independent Scottish government immediately launching into an EU application process. (Either that or Scots will increasingly wake up to Salmond being a bit of a fibber and wonder what else he's lying about.)
Haha! Oh dear.
Thinking about it, an independent Scotland wanting to join the EU might cause the UK and Ireland to finally join Schengen, as otherwise we'd have to have a new Hadrian's Wall (Von Rompoy's Wall doesn't sound as good). I don't think they'd get an opt-out on both the euro and Schengen, unless they really knew how to negotiate (or agreed to contribute loads to the wretched CAP)
Thinking about it, an independent Scotland wanting to join the EU might cause the UK and Ireland to finally join Schengen, as otherwise we'd have to have a new Hadrian's Wall (Von Rompoy's Wall doesn't sound as good). I don't think they'd get an opt-out on both the euro and Schengen, unless they really knew how to negotiate (or agreed to contribute loads to the wretched CAP)
The flipside of "existing treaties which cover the UK’s EU membership will “cease to apply” would be that rUK would be thrown out too? I can't see that happening, to be honest.
Peter St. John wrote:
The flipside of "existing treaties which cover the UK’s EU membership will “cease to apply” would be that rUK would be thrown out too? I can't see that happening, to be honest.
But Peter, this isn't some tittle tattle or scaremongering by some politician or other, it's from the horse's mouth - the European Commission themselves - in writing - via a letter to the House of Lords?
If Cybernats care to unilaterally declare that they "can't see it happening" that's up to them I guess, but I can't see many sensible people deluding themselves in such a ludicrous fashion. The facts are the facts.
The full context and likely panicked reasoning of the SNP's duplicity as regards "EU Advicegate" is now becoming clearer, as it was always going to - and it's exploding in their faces. The resultant dire loss of credibility has struck a blow far deadlier than any 'Unionist Black Ops' could've conceived, and the plain, delicious fact of the matter is this: it was entirely unforced, entirely of their own making. No amount of Cybernat black-is-white revisionist twattery and hypocrisy is ever going to wipe that slate clean.
---
To my mind, the future is clear. The Referendum will be lost; the Union will stay - I predict 60/40 in favour, or thereabouts. However, DevoMax will be the result (which frankly is probably what many in the SNP camp actually want anyway). Why? The Tories need SNP support to get their electoral boundaries in order, and Salmond will extract a heavy price for this Westminster support - smoke-filled rooms ahoy!
The result will be Tory Westminster governments in perpetuity, the sidelining of Labour and the annihilation of the the Lib Dems. Scotland will get pseudo-independence. The UK will remain in - or eject itself from - the EU as a collective, either way.
(The *relative* praise of the Autumn Statement by the SNP in Parliament was really quite the eye-opener, I thought?)
You read it here first.
The impression I got was that the UK would remain a member, as Scotland was breaking away, rather than two new countries being formed.
Kern wrote:
The impression I got was that the UK would remain a member, as Scotland was breaking away, rather than two new countries being formed.
If you take the EC's letter literally - the existing treaty would not cover rUK, and thus they'd have to rejoin as well. Which would open a huge can of worms that I don't even think France and Germany would want to open - so I can see a deal to keep both countries in rather than having to deal with that headache, even if by the letter of the law, the EC's view is right.
Quote:
Why? The Tories need SNP support to get their electoral boundaries in order, and Salmond will extract a heavy price for this Westminster support - smoke-filled rooms ahoy!
The result will be Tory Westminster governments in perpetuity, the sidelining of Labour and the annihilation of the the Lib Dems. Scotland will get pseudo-independence. The UK will remain in - or eject itself from - the EU as a collective, either way.
The result will be Tory Westminster governments in perpetuity, the sidelining of Labour and the annihilation of the the Lib Dems. Scotland will get pseudo-independence. The UK will remain in - or eject itself from - the EU as a collective, either way.
Don't get too ahead there - the referendum isn't until 2014, which would leave very little time for the boundaries to be redrawn for 2015 - at which point the current Government may not be in power or have a very limited majority. Plus the ever-present roadbloack of the Lords. And even if it did - the worst affected would probably the LDs rather than Labour, who would still be able to call the support of their Scotland MPs (unless you also think the SNP will give up representation in Westminster as part of devo-Max, I guess - even so, a permanent Conservative government is not really likely. Just smaller majorities and perhaps more coalitions!).
Peter, I stick to what I've said and would remind you that behind the scenes political deals can be struck well in advance of the referendum. 
And yes, full-phat DevoMax would indeed remove Scottish MPs from the Westminster Parliament.
And yes, full-phat DevoMax would indeed remove Scottish MPs from the Westminster Parliament.
Lord Raiden wrote:
And yes, full-phat DevoMax would indeed remove Scottish MPs from the Westminster Parliament.
Or Westminster becomes some form of quasi-federal body to deal with the few remaining UK-wide issues.
Kern wrote:
Lord Raiden wrote:
And yes, full-phat DevoMax would indeed remove Scottish MPs from the Westminster Parliament.
Or Westminster becomes some form of quasi-federal body to deal with the few remaining UK-wide issues.
Indeed.
Deals can be struck, but they've still got to get through both Houses of Parliament. And if such a deal was made, Labour would throw the kitchen sink at it to delay it (and thus the implementation - the boundary redrawing would take some time even if Parliament could pass it the day after the referendum, after all).
(plus, Labour would have still won 1997 and 2001 (and 2005?) without Scotland, so don't get too comfortable with one-party rule)
(turning Westminster into a Federal Parliament would also require the formation of an English Parliament, no? Good luck getting that through the Lords before 2015
)
(plus, Labour would have still won 1997 and 2001 (and 2005?) without Scotland, so don't get too comfortable with one-party rule
)(turning Westminster into a Federal Parliament would also require the formation of an English Parliament, no? Good luck getting that through the Lords before 2015
) Peter St. John wrote:
Deals can be struck, but they've still got to get through both Houses of Parliament. And if such a deal was made, Labour would throw the kitchen sink at it to delay it (and thus the implementation - the boundary redrawing would take some time even if Parliament could pass it the day after the referendum, after all).
Yeah, but to quote the Scots, that's all pish and nonsense at the end of the day. The boundary redraw legislation is going to happen, because there will be a parliamentary majority to make it so, and plenty of time too.
Quote:
(plus, Labour would have still won 1997 and 2001 (and 2005?) without Scotland, so don't get too comfortable with one-party rule )
)Oh sorry, don't assume I'm fully in favour of this - I'm not. However, this is how it's going to go nevertheless; even I can see that.
The biggest casualty, as ever, is Democracy. Ironic that DevoMax isn't even an option for the forthcoming Referendum...
Lord Raiden wrote:
Peter St. John wrote:
Deals can be struck, but they've still got to get through both Houses of Parliament. And if such a deal was made, Labour would throw the kitchen sink at it to delay it (and thus the implementation - the boundary redrawing would take some time even if Parliament could pass it the day after the referendum, after all).
Yeah, but to quote the Scots, that's all pish and nonsense at the end of the day. The boundary redraw legislation is going to happen, because there will be a parliamentary majority to make it so, and plenty of time too.
You're going to need to show your working. I have 317 (Tories + SNP + DUP) for, which isn't a majority. You might be able to pick up Plaid Cymru, but I highly doubt it, to be honest. And again, I think you underestimate the ability of both Houses to gum up the works - especially if all they have to do is run out the clock for 2015…
Peter St. John wrote:
Lord Raiden wrote:
Peter St. John wrote:
Deals can be struck, but they've still got to get through both Houses of Parliament. And if such a deal was made, Labour would throw the kitchen sink at it to delay it (and thus the implementation - the boundary redrawing would take some time even if Parliament could pass it the day after the referendum, after all).
Yeah, but to quote the Scots, that's all pish and nonsense at the end of the day. The boundary redraw legislation is going to happen, because there will be a parliamentary majority to make it so, and plenty of time too.
You're going to need to show your working. I have 317 (Tories + SNP + DUP) for, which isn't a majority. You might be able to pick up Plaid Cymru, but I highly doubt it, to be honest. And again, I think you underestimate the ability of both Houses to gum up the works - especially if all they have to do is run out the clock for 2015…
I'm assuming, of course, that a few LDs (particularly cabinet members) would also vote in favour, since they're in government! But whatever, like I say, we shall see.
Lord Raiden wrote:
I'm assuming, of course, that a few LDs (particularly cabinet members) would also vote in favour, since they're in government! But whatever, like I say, we shall see.
They're taking ahard line on the boundary redraw at the moment, though, including the cabinet. And once you get to that close a vote, you also have to consider the Tories who are not happy with losing their seats. It'd be a high-risk strategy for Cameron…but yes, we shall see!
Lord Raiden wrote:
Oops!
Quote:
AN INDEPENDENT Scotland would have to apply to join the European Union if voters back the SNP’s plans to break away from the United Kingdom, officials in Brussels have said.
In a significant blow to the Nationalists, the European Commission has written a letter intended for a House of Lords committee stating that if Scots voters back independence, existing treaties which cover the UK’s EU membership will “cease to apply”
In a significant blow to the Nationalists, the European Commission has written a letter intended for a House of Lords committee stating that if Scots voters back independence, existing treaties which cover the UK’s EU membership will “cease to apply”
I wouldn't be surprised if the Commission is deliberately acting to place obstructions in the way to prevent a 'domino effect' of separatism elsewhere in Europe (in Flanders, South Tyrol, Catalonia, etc) if Scotland votes for independence.
Hero of Excellence wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if the Commission is deliberately acting to place obstructions in the way to prevent a 'domino effect' of separatism elsewhere in Europe (in Flanders, South Tyrol, Catalonia, etc) if Scotland votes for independence.
Perhaps. I doubt there's much enthusiasm amongst the member countries, especially the large ones, for a major re-jigging of voting strengths and contributions etc.
Hero of Excellence wrote:
Lord Raiden wrote:
Oops!
Quote:
AN INDEPENDENT Scotland would have to apply to join the European Union if voters back the SNP’s plans to break away from the United Kingdom, officials in Brussels have said.
In a significant blow to the Nationalists, the European Commission has written a letter intended for a House of Lords committee stating that if Scots voters back independence, existing treaties which cover the UK’s EU membership will “cease to apply”
In a significant blow to the Nationalists, the European Commission has written a letter intended for a House of Lords committee stating that if Scots voters back independence, existing treaties which cover the UK’s EU membership will “cease to apply”
I wouldn't be surprised if the Commission is deliberately acting to place obstructions in the way to prevent a 'domino effect' of separatism elsewhere in Europe (in Flanders, South Tyrol, Catalonia, etc) if Scotland votes for independence.
Actually, that's a pretty fair point; you might well be right there. Would not surprise me either.
However, regardless, the EU Commission are "the best kind of correct" as The Doc would say?
The legal facts and framework backdrop is correct. Scotland (and rUK) WOULD need to reapply, under the terms of relevant (fundamental) legal agreements, treaties and legislation. I'm not saying that it is an impossibility that exception(s) could somehow be made - or some form of accommodations - but it is IMHO ludicrous to simply cast the whole thing aside and glibly state "it won't happen" (not saying you're doing this, obv., but that seems to be the Cybernat position), and these "exceptions" would, by definition, have to be fundamental/massive, hardly to be taken for granted, or lightly.
As I've been saying all along, from the Scottish peoples' perspective, urgent clarity in this matter is surely required, and should have been delivered way before now already. Sweeping stuff like this under the carpet, which has the clear potential to have a massive effect on Scotland as a nation, in or out of the EU, is clearly grossly irresponsible. It is the SNP who are making the firm proposal of full independence from the rest of the UK, no-one else, and so the responsibility to clarify such fundamental likely outcomes with relevant Third Parties rests wholly and exclusively on their shoulders. That they have manifestly failed to do so, either through incompetence, naivety, gross complacency/ignorance or actual design (and told a bunch of crass lies and tried to mislead their own people and the media in the process, creating an expensive legal smoke-screen in the process with hard-earned Scottish public money), is hugely regrettable and is, no doubt, a foretaste of how "things would be done" in future, in any fully independent Scotland with the SNP having a clear parliamentary majority? "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"?
I'm not sure you're correct on the rest of the UK Cavey - the UK would still be a member, it's just that the EU would need to renegotiate the bits of the treaties that give the UK money in respect of Scotland e.g. farmers (and even that's on the assumption that the treaties aren't drafted on the basis of "we'll give you £x per hectare to each farmer in the UK registered for subsisdies" - which I bet it is - as then we would just have fewer farmers in the "UK" and get less money). We wouldn't give a toss, as otherwise we'd continue to get the money. Just because part of the country ceases to exist doesn't mean the whole country ceases to exist - a (rather daft, admittedly) equivalent would be if there was a 2012-style plate shift and Cornwall fell into the sea. Would the "UK" as a constituted nation cease to exist and have to reapply to the EU as "UK-C"? I can't see that we would.
Mr Christmassyfur wrote:
I'm not sure you're correct on the rest of the UK Cavey - the UK would still be a member, it's just that the EU would need to renegotiate the bits of the treaties that give the UK money in respect of Scotland e.g. farmers (and even that's on the assumption that the treaties aren't drafted on the basis of "we'll give you £x per hectare to each farmer in the UK registered for subsisdies" - which I bet it is - as then we would just have fewer farmers in the "UK" and get less money). We wouldn't give a toss, as otherwise we'd continue to get the money. Just because part of the country ceases to exist doesn't mean the whole country ceases to exist - a (rather daft, admittedly) equivalent would be if there was a 2012-style plate shift and Cornwall fell into the sea. Would the "UK" as a constituted nation cease to exist and have to reapply to the EU as "UK-C"? I can't see that we would.
Hmm, well, if that's true, chap, then the danger to Scotland is even greater than I'd envisaged - rUK remaining within the EU with a few minor tweaks but Scotland being out in the cold and having to reapply etc. (and, by definition therefore, having no option but to adopt the Euro within an agreed timescale, incidentally).
'No positive case for the Union', as an oft-used catchphrase, seems to be ringing a tad hollow these days.
I apologise for asking what may be a question already answered upthread or in a link ("I'm not reading etc"), but why would Scotland have no choice but to adopt the Euro?
Mr Christmassyfur wrote:
I apologise for asking what may be a question already answered upthread or in a link ("I'm not reading etc"), but why would Scotland have no choice but to adopt the Euro?
It's my understanding that any country applying to become a member of the EU must, as a matter of course, adopt the Euro.
Quote:
Lawyers have told Coalition ministers that Scotland is only an EU member by virtue of being part of the United Kingdom and would lose this status following separation.
An independent Scotland would then have to join the EU as a new accession state, a process that could take up to three years, meaning the UK’s derogation from the single currency would not apply.
An independent Scotland would then have to join the EU as a new accession state, a process that could take up to three years, meaning the UK’s derogation from the single currency would not apply.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -euro.html
Bear in mind also that Spain (and Cyprus) have openly stated that Scotland "would need to get to the back of the queue" as well, and it would not benefit from the UK's various opt-outs, either.
(You're right about rUK's status within the EU as well; it would, apparently, be defined as a "successor state" and as such, would remain in the EU).
Really? I thought only about 75% of EU members are in the Euro, so it's a bit odd new entrants would have to join it.
I haven't looked into it so I'll defer to you on this one. Still, it would provide an interesting challenge for Salmond to sell to his supporters.
I haven't looked into it so I'll defer to you on this one. Still, it would provide an interesting challenge for Salmond to sell to his supporters.
Mr Christmassyfur wrote:
Still, it would provide an interesting challenge for Salmond to sell to his supporters.
You're assuming he's actually going to bother to tell them at some point, mate? You'd think so, wouldn't you...
Some Cybernat Echo Chamber discussion here for reference - ostensibly about this issue - but increasingly all about Stu castigating his hapless commenters for having the temerity to be rude on the internet, on HIS blog, which "isn't a Democracy", apparently (like, no shit, who'd of thunk it etc.).
So it's probably worth a read just for a laff likes.
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/the-real- ... /#comments
So it's probably worth a read just for a laff likes.
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/the-real- ... /#comments
When's all this Scotland business going to be over and done with? Hurry up, I say.
I just can't read any more of dear old Reverend Stuart's debating. It makes my head hurt.
Pod wrote:
When's all this Scotland business going to be over and done with? Hurry up, I say.
Only another 2 years.
I used to find it quite tedious, but I have to say, the more I look into it, the more fascinating it gets. It's like the Wild West of UK politics, with all kinds of unbelievable shit being pulled off, some of which I describe above. I *love* Scotland and (most) of its people with great affection. Can't wait to go there later this month on our Hogmanay jollies. These guys and gals know how to party, Lord and Lady Raiden style.
markg wrote:
I just can't read any more of dear old Reverend Stuart's debating. It makes my head hurt.
But it's really quite fantastic though Mark?
I actually believe that the irony of him - quite the rudest person I have ever come across on the entire internets - lecturing hapless others of even his own ilk about the evils of being (slightly) rude, is totally lost on him. I doubt it's even crossed his mind.
The sheer majesty of it; a steaming pile of ironing high enough to touch the very surface of the Moon.
For accuracy's sake, that is approximately 38,447,228,160 pressed, collarless shirts.
It's not so much that he is rude so much as he is often rude and wrong. I can take someone being rude (granted not always immediately) if they clearly have some actual knowledge and are educating me. It's a price worth paying. However it's just his steadfast refusal to ever give any ground or any credence to any other point of view because having thought about any particular point or subject for more than thirty seconds he has obviously become the world's leading expert.
MaliA wrote:
For accuracy's sake, that is approximately 38,447,228,160 pressed, collarless shirts.
Brilliant mate lol.
Not sure of Chinny's banana scale of excellentness, but that's a shedload of ripe, juicy plantains, right there.
markg wrote:
It's not so much that he is rude so much as he is often rude and wrong. I can take someone being rude (granted not always immediately) if they clearly have some actual knowledge and are educating me. It's a price worth paying. However it's just his steadfast refusal to ever give any ground or any credence to any other point of view because having thought about any particular point or subject for more than thirty seconds he has obviously become the world's leading expert.
Yeah I know mate, what can one say.
Regarding the euro, as far as I understand it the UK's opt out is written into the Maastricht Treaty, so for new members the beloved euro isn't optional but something that has to be adopted (even though some are dragging their heals).
As for the question of successor states, I think it's clear that even if Scotland follows Ireland and leaves, the continuity of our government that's existed since 1689 will remain unbroken. It's kind of the opposite of the East German case: as West Germany swallowed up the GDR, its membership was never in doubt because the Federal Republic had not ceased to exist. We, on the other hand, will be sending Scotland on its merry way, so for the Scots it'd be Year Zero.
Now, on an unrelated note, does anyone know if the SNP has plans for a second chamber post-independence?
As for the question of successor states, I think it's clear that even if Scotland follows Ireland and leaves, the continuity of our government that's existed since 1689 will remain unbroken. It's kind of the opposite of the East German case: as West Germany swallowed up the GDR, its membership was never in doubt because the Federal Republic had not ceased to exist. We, on the other hand, will be sending Scotland on its merry way, so for the Scots it'd be Year Zero.
Now, on an unrelated note, does anyone know if the SNP has plans for a second chamber post-independence?
Lord Raiden wrote:
'No positive case for the Union', as an oft-used catchphrase, seems to be ringing a tad hollow these days.
The flaw in that catchphrase, of course, is that it is up to those in favour of independence to set out a case of why Scotland would be better off outside the Union, and that they have answers to all the complexities involved in becoming an independent state rather than just saying that 'well, it'd be like now, ONLY BETTER'.
Mr Christmassyfur wrote:
Really? I thought only about 75% of EU members are in the Euro, so it's a bit odd new entrants would have to join it.
I haven't looked into it so I'll defer to you on this one.
I haven't looked into it so I'll defer to you on this one.
You shouldn't, because he's talking complete bollocks as usual.
http://stephennoon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/ ... rship.html
If you'd like actual properly-researched and fully-sourced facts on any aspect of Scottish politics rather than some dolt repeating half-arsed cobblers they saw in the Telegraph, pop by Wings Over Scotland any time.
/cameo
The ECB disagrees:
Joining the ERM is the first stage. Of course, I don't remember that working out well for us 20 years ago.
Quote:
All Member States of the European Union, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. To do this they must meet certain conditions known as 'convergence criteria'.
Joining the ERM is the first stage. Of course, I don't remember that working out well for us 20 years ago.
Admittedly, we'll keep the idea that any of the current eurozone members with the exception of France and Germany met the criteria without seriously fiddling their books as moot, for the purposes of argument.
Kindly Old Uncle Stu wrote:
/cameo
That's funny. I usually only get visited by ghosts on 24th December.
Life's a bitch, and then you try to read a European treaty. James Madison this ain't.
Right, from a brief skim through of the PDFs here, several articles stick out:
Ok, so far: a new member has to accept the aims and objectives of the Treaties, which include adopting an economic policy including the euro.
Now, the critical bit.
...meaning, that until you passed the tests, you have a derogation (you dirty curr!)
So, you have this mark of shame, how do you remove it?
Well...
So, if they like you, you automatically get to join their gang. You could, of course, be like naughty Sweden and never get round to meeting the conditions, but the expectation is that you, as the newbie, should.
I might be completely wrong in this, I might have missed other articles or elaborations, and I'm not a lawyer so can only by what I've found so far, but it seems to confirm the view that a new member is expected to participate in EMU. But, reading an EU treaty is enough to send even the most ardent Eurofanatic to an early grave, so I'm leaving this here. Good night.
Right, from a brief skim through of the PDFs here, several articles stick out:
Quote:
Article 49
(ex Article 49 TEU)
Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting
them may apply to become a member of the Union
...
The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded,
which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and
the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in
accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
(ex Article 49 TEU)
Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting
them may apply to become a member of the Union
...
The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded,
which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and
the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in
accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
Quote:
Article 119
(ex Article 4 TEC)
1. For the purposes set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, the activities of the
Member States and the Union shall include, as provided in the Treaties, the adoption of an economic
policy which is based on the close coordination of Member States’ economic policies, on the internal
market and on the definition of common objectives, and conducted in accordance with the principle
of an open market economy with free competition.
Concurrently with the foregoing, and as provided in the Treaties and in accordance with the
procedures set out therein, these activities shall include a single currency, the euro,...
(ex Article 4 TEC)
1. For the purposes set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, the activities of the
Member States and the Union shall include, as provided in the Treaties, the adoption of an economic
policy which is based on the close coordination of Member States’ economic policies, on the internal
market and on the definition of common objectives, and conducted in accordance with the principle
of an open market economy with free competition.
Concurrently with the foregoing, and as provided in the Treaties and in accordance with the
procedures set out therein, these activities shall include a single currency, the euro,...
Ok, so far: a new member has to accept the aims and objectives of the Treaties, which include adopting an economic policy including the euro.
Now, the critical bit.
Quote:
Article 139
1. Member States in respect of which the Council has not decided that they fulfil the necessary
conditions for the adoption of the euro shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘Member States with a
derogation’
1. Member States in respect of which the Council has not decided that they fulfil the necessary
conditions for the adoption of the euro shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘Member States with a
derogation’
...meaning, that until you passed the tests, you have a derogation (you dirty curr!)
So, you have this mark of shame, how do you remove it?
Well...
Quote:
Article 140
(ex Articles 121(1), 122(2), second sentence, and 123(5) TEC)
1. At least once every two years, or at the request of a Member State with a derogation, the
Commission and the European Central Bank shall report to the Council on the progress made by the
Member States with a derogation in fulfilling their obligations regarding the achievement of
economic and monetary union.
...
3. If it is decided, in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 2, to abrogate a
derogation, the Council shall, acting with the unanimity of the Member States whose currency is
the euro and the Member State concerned, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting
the European Central Bank, irrevocably fix the rate at which the euro shall be substituted for the
currency of the Member State concerned, and take the other measures necessary for the introduction of the euro as the single currency in the Member State concerned.
(ex Articles 121(1), 122(2), second sentence, and 123(5) TEC)
1. At least once every two years, or at the request of a Member State with a derogation, the
Commission and the European Central Bank shall report to the Council on the progress made by the
Member States with a derogation in fulfilling their obligations regarding the achievement of
economic and monetary union.
...
3. If it is decided, in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 2, to abrogate a
derogation, the Council shall, acting with the unanimity of the Member States whose currency is
the euro and the Member State concerned, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting
the European Central Bank, irrevocably fix the rate at which the euro shall be substituted for the
currency of the Member State concerned, and take the other measures necessary for the introduction of the euro as the single currency in the Member State concerned.
So, if they like you, you automatically get to join their gang. You could, of course, be like naughty Sweden and never get round to meeting the conditions, but the expectation is that you, as the newbie, should.
I might be completely wrong in this, I might have missed other articles or elaborations, and I'm not a lawyer so can only by what I've found so far, but it seems to confirm the view that a new member is expected to participate in EMU. But, reading an EU treaty is enough to send even the most ardent Eurofanatic to an early grave, so I'm leaving this here. Good night.
I guess the crux of it is whether there's any actual penalty for being in derogation?
The naughty step.
You don't get to share in the economic miracle along with Greece, Portugal and Ireland.
Kern wrote:
The ECB disagrees:
You might want to try reading Stephen Noon's piece again, but paying attention this time.
It seems that, for avoidance of doubt, participation in EMU has been written into the last three accession treaties. Whether Scotland would be able to negotiate its way out of it would have to be seen, but based on the main EU treaties (above), the implication is that the default position is having to commit:
2003 Accession Treaty
2005 Accession Treaty
2011 Accession Treaty
2003 Accession Treaty
Quote:
Article 4
Each of the new Member States shall participate in Economic and Monetary Union from the date of accession as a Member State with a derogation within the meaning of Article 122 of the EC Treaty.
Each of the new Member States shall participate in Economic and Monetary Union from the date of accession as a Member State with a derogation within the meaning of Article 122 of the EC Treaty.
2005 Accession Treaty
Quote:
Article 5
Bulgaria and Romania shall participate in Economic and Monetary Union from the date of accession as Member States with a derogation within the meaning of Article III-197 of the Constitution.
Bulgaria and Romania shall participate in Economic and Monetary Union from the date of accession as Member States with a derogation within the meaning of Article III-197 of the Constitution.
2011 Accession Treaty
Quote:
Article 5
Croatia shall participate in the Economic and Monetary Union from the date of accession as a Member State with a derogation within the meaning of Article 139 of the TFEU.
Croatia shall participate in the Economic and Monetary Union from the date of accession as a Member State with a derogation within the meaning of Article 139 of the TFEU.
Enough EU treaties for now.
The more I think about this, the more I'd love to know if the experiment in Scottish unicameralism since 1999 is considered a Good Thing for the quality of Scottish law-making or not, and whether the SNP would continue it or want a second chamber.
Kern wrote:
Now, on an unrelated note, does anyone know if the SNP has plans for a second chamber post-independence?
The more I think about this, the more I'd love to know if the experiment in Scottish unicameralism since 1999 is considered a Good Thing for the quality of Scottish law-making or not, and whether the SNP would continue it or want a second chamber.
Kindly Old Uncle Stu wrote:
Kern wrote:
The ECB disagrees:
You might want to try reading Stephen Noon's piece again, but paying attention this time.
I read that. Dimes to dollars, I'm with Kern on this.
Kindly Old Uncle Stu wrote:
Mr Christmassyfur wrote:
Really? I thought only about 75% of EU members are in the Euro, so it's a bit odd new entrants would have to join it.
I haven't looked into it so I'll defer to you on this one.
I haven't looked into it so I'll defer to you on this one.
You shouldn't, because he's talking complete bollocks as usual.
http://stephennoon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/ ... rship.html
If you'd like actual properly-researched and fully-sourced facts on any aspect of Scottish politics rather than some dolt repeating half-arsed cobblers they saw in the Telegraph, pop by Wings Over Scotland any time.
/cameo
Heh, love it.
Amazed to see you've finally acquired the cahoneys to show your miserable mug around here. I mean, you do realise, right, that this place is owned by someone who allows free speech; he doesn't indulge in silencing or banning people because [he doesn't like them/they tell him some home truths/he doesn't agree with their views/some other spurious reason - delete as applicable]. Nor does he edit, delete or change the timestamp of posts, or other similar internet dickery, presumably because someone might be getting the better of him? (Shit, he doesn't even "charge" people to post here and/or start new threads, albeit many of us here, myself included, are happy to chuck into the forum's pot without any comment or fanfare, and nor do we expect to become "Star Members", "Subscribers" with gold stars above our names or whatever other ludicrous, childish pseudo-hierarchy it is that you do?)
It is supremely ironic that you are able to do this (albeit of which I am quite glad), with so many here not afforded the same basic courtesy/right on your tumbleweed-infested bombed out shell of a forum, (or your spiteful little blog for that matter). If *anyone* deserves to be banned here, it's surely you?
So no, you'll have no such "protections" here, matey, so pull up a chair and enjoy the free air with the rest of us - come on down! Let's see if anyone dies as a result of this free speech, unfettered level playing field debate and "rude words on the internet" eh? Let's see you finally have to live by the standards that you purport to adhere to when it's you who has his hands on the controls.
So then, now that's the pleasantries out of the way, a brief comment on the matter at hand. We'll agree to differ on your definition of "actual properly-researched and fully-sourced facts", I think. Personally I don't count antics such as the half-arsed cyber-stalking of someone's Twitter profile as in that category? Besides, the *credentials* of whoever it is doing the researching comes into the equation as well? Pardon me if I shall place more weight on a legal professional person or body than some bod who used to be an (acting?) editor of some long-dead, obscure computer games magazine about an obscure, long-dead computer, from a long defunct company harking back nearly a quarter of a century, whilst making claims along the lines of "... when I was an editor and stories like this crossed by desk" or whatever it was you said on your blog? Fuck me, that's enough to make Walter Mitty blush, you complete and utter buffoon. (I am reminded of your laughable bust-up with the Laws of Physics here also; you remember, right? O-Level Physics laws of gravitation; your arguing with actual, professional Engineers and Scientists with Science Degrees and the like, but hey, *you* presumably know better than all of them, just like you presumably know better than the EU Commission themselves and/or a whole bunch of professionally-qualified practitioners of Law).
Kern has taken the time and trouble and posted, just for your benefit, a whole bunch of stuff that clearly and absolutely refutes your arrogant claims. At the very least, it clearly illustrates that the whole issue of whether or not an independent Scotland would have to adopt the Euro, in whatever timescale, is FAR from ruled out (and personally I would go much further than that). So go on, have a good read. Educate yourself, learn something. Accept that other people may know more about something than you. Open your mind. Will you move on, evolve, modify your position in the light of new information or expertise? Or will you go on spouting the same "boilerplate" shite you've done for the last 20 years+, entirely unmodified?
I'd also suggest you tell your glorious leader and hero that the people of Scotland also deserve to be armed with basic, incredibly important facts such as these, one way or another, well before they're asked to take a decision as to whether Scotland is to become independent.
In fact, the entire peoples of the United Kingdom deserve to know, despite our not having a "dog in the fight" as you put it to me last, presumably because some of us weren't born in Scotland itself and so, presumably, don't deserve any say according to you?
