Independence

[Donny osmond]

Everyone bizarrely ignores the economics required to join the EU, which is a large part of the focus of that link I posted. Look up the Copenhagen Criteria.

Without some special dispensation, an independent Scotland or Wales wouldn't be able to apply to join the EU without an established independent central bank that consistently demonstrates responsible practice. That in itself would take years.

Given what we've seen in the UKs trade figures this week, a whole 2 months after Brexit, spending even as little as 5 years outside both the UK and the EU would pose significant problems for Scotland's economy, with knock on effects for a membership application. That can't just be shrugged off.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Puja]

Everyone bizarrely ignores the economics required to join the EU, which is a large part of the focus of that link I posted. Look up the Copenhagen Criteria.

Without some special dispensation, an independent Scotland or Wales wouldn't be able to apply to join the EU without an established independent central bank that consistently demonstrates responsible practice. That in itself would take years.

Given what we've seen in the UKs trade figures this week, a whole 2 months after Brexit, spending even as little as 5 years outside both the UK and the EU would pose significant problems for Scotland's economy, with knock on effects for a membership application. That can't just be shrugged off.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Surely that criteria wouldn't make sense for a newly independent state - they'd be asking them to set up a new central bank for the sole purpose of handing over all the policy levers to the ECB. Isn't that the whole point of economic union?

Puja

[Digby]

Everyone bizarrely ignores the economics required to join the EU, which is a large part of the focus of that link I posted. Look up the Copenhagen Criteria.

Without some special dispensation, an independent Scotland or Wales wouldn't be able to apply to join the EU without an established independent central bank that consistently demonstrates responsible practice. That in itself would take years.

Given what we've seen in the UKs trade figures this week, a whole 2 months after Brexit, spending even as little as 5 years outside both the UK and the EU would pose significant problems for Scotland's economy, with knock on effects for a membership application. That can't just be shrugged off.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Surely that criteria wouldn't make sense for a newly independent state - they'd be asking them to set up a new central bank for the sole purpose of handing over all the policy levers to the ECB. Isn't that the whole point of economic union?

Puja

They are going to look at a whole bunch of convergence criteria, many of which would normally come out of said nation's running of their central bank. For instance they're going to want you to peg your currency against the Euro in an exchange rate mechanism and hold it there for a number of years, which will be tricky if you're using someone else's currency.

It's all politics so some steps can always be skipped past, either with a claim they'll come back to them or just ignore them outright. But on the off chance the EU don't want a budget drain more than pissing of whatever's left of the UK government would amuse them it'd be an easy issue to say sort this and then come back to us with an application.

[Donny osmond]

Everyone bizarrely ignores the economics required to join the EU, which is a large part of the focus of that link I posted. Look up the Copenhagen Criteria.

Without some special dispensation, an independent Scotland or Wales wouldn't be able to apply to join the EU without an established independent central bank that consistently demonstrates responsible practice. That in itself would take years.

Given what we've seen in the UKs trade figures this week, a whole 2 months after Brexit, spending even as little as 5 years outside both the UK and the EU would pose significant problems for Scotland's economy, with knock on effects for a membership application. That can't just be shrugged off.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Surely that criteria wouldn't make sense for a newly independent state - they'd be asking them to set up a new central bank for the sole purpose of handing over all the policy levers to the ECB. Isn't that the whole point of economic union?

Puja

You're right, it would seem to be a daft amount of hoop-jumping... But these are the criteria that are currently written. If they can get circumvented then great, but we've no way of knowing if they can or not. Any change to the Copenhagen Criteria would have to be ratified by the EU parliament plus every members parliament (I think).

Going blindly into a future based on what some people think might happen is far too brexity to be able to sell to voters.

Plus there's the small matter of current applicants and recent joiners who might look at a request from a newly independent Scotland/Wales to circumvent the exact treaties and articles that would've caused no small amount of grief to those recent joiners and think, er.... No, we had to do it so should you.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Donny osmond]

Sorry, that last para is very badly written, hope you get my meaning

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Digby]

Do they criteria say anything specific about having a central bank? For sure there's stuff in there about having institutions such you can demonstrate you can accept the rule of law, that you can function as a market economy, can you basically acquiesce to the acquis, and without a central bank and that history of managing a currency, inflation and the like there'd be a query about how you might demonstrate certain things, but are they actually that specific?

I mean they might be, but the EU would leave themselves more wriggle room if they lacked specificity, and to be specific you'd have to foresee so many more scenarios, such as what happens if a country splits from another and doesn't have its own history to present, and to what degree you might take the UK's history as in this instance Scotland's history

[Donny osmond]

Do you really think so? Surely the Euro is the only stumbling block to Scotland rejoining the EU within 5 years of independence? And IMO 5 years is the longest it would take.

Based on what?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Scotland voted against Brexit. If they leave the UK, why would they not want to undo Brexit at the first opportunity?

Of course there are many steps to the process but they should be easily fulfilled. (Obviously, if a member decides to veto the application, Scotland can't get in, and that's it.)

NB there's no precedent for a recent former member rejoining the EU but it would clearly be easier than for any applicant accepted in the last 20 years).

(I like the way that Iceland's application process has been 'frozen' )

"Scotland voted against Brexit" is a very nice way of ignoring the numbers: for every 3 people who voted against it, 2 people voted for it. In a relatively low turn out referendum, only 40% of voters said they wanted to stay in the EU.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Donny osmond]

Do they criteria say anything specific about having a central bank? For sure there's stuff in there about having institutions such you can demonstrate you can accept the rule of law, that you can function as a market economy, can you basically acquiesce to the acquis, and without a central bank and that history of managing a currency, inflation and the like there'd be a query about how you might demonstrate certain things, but are they actually that specific?

I mean they might be, but the EU would leave themselves more wriggle room if they lacked specificity, and to be specific you'd have to foresee so many more scenarios, such as what happens if a country splits from another and doesn't have its own history to present, and to what degree you might take the UK's history as in this instance Scotland's history

Good question.

I looked up the EU website (https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-econ ... riteria_en ) and it says this:

The criteria for countries that want to join the European Union are laid out in the Copenhagen criteria, agreed at the June 1993 European Council in Copenhagen, Denmark.

The economic criteria to be eligible to join the EU are:

the existence of a functioning market economy

the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union

To assess whether countries meet the economic criteria the European Commission monitors the following sub-criteria.

A functioning market economy requires

high quality of economic governance

macroeconomic stability (including adequate price stability as well as sustainable public finances and external accounts)

proper functioning of the goods and services market (including business environment, state influence on product markets, and privatisation and restructuring)

proper functioning of the financial market (including financial stability and access to finance)

proper functioning of the labour market

Being competitive in the EU requires

a sufficient amount of human capital, education, research, innovation, and future developments in this field

a sufficient amount and quality of physical capital and infrastructure

changes in the sector and enterprise structure in the economy, including the role of SMEs

a sufficient degree and pace of economic integration with the Union, and price competitiveness

So no it doesn't mention central banks specifically, but meeting the economic Copenhagen criteria means demonstrating good governance of monetary policy, so if you don’t govern monetary policy, interest rates, quantitative easing, or the ability to influence your exchange rates then it is difficult? impossible? to meet the economic Copenhagen criteria.

How one does these things without a central bank I don't know.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Digby]

This is much more political than anything else, so it could be done. It is weird though as has been noted that the pro independence crowd who were often very anti Brexit and cited it made such huge promises that seemed at significant odds with reality just state as obvious they've an obvious case for entry. They don't set out the likely significant timeframe, and they sure as merde don't set out the vast cuts in government spending needed to pursue an EU application.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Based on what?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Scotland voted against Brexit. If they leave the UK, why would they not want to undo Brexit at the first opportunity?

Of course there are many steps to the process but they should be easily fulfilled. (Obviously, if a member decides to veto the application, Scotland can't get in, and that's it.)

NB there's no precedent for a recent former member rejoining the EU but it would clearly be easier than for any applicant accepted in the last 20 years).

(I like the way that Iceland's application process has been 'frozen' )

"Scotland voted against Brexit" is a very nice way of ignoring the numbers: for every 3 people who voted against it, 2 people voted for it. In a relatively low turn out referendum, only 40% of voters said they wanted to stay in the EU.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

How am I ignoring the numbers? A majority of the vote was to remain. If repeated, that would be sufficient to pass any further referenda (assuming the terms were set by a Scottish government that wanted to rejoin the EU, ie a simple majority only).

[Zhivago]

Obviously the EU would expedite a Celtic nation joining in order to say F you to the English. That said, joining the Euro would be disastrous.

[Digby]

The English and the Welsh please, we're both culpable for Brexit. Certainly Scotland or Northern Ireland might end up in the EU, directly themselves or who knows, maybe as part of Ireland. But it might be neither ended up joining, and it's certainly not obvious it'd happen nor that the process would be rushed through

The EU might have reasons to want to expedite an application, though why say Scotland's and not some others isn't remotely obvious. Yes they've some issues with the UK, but how much they'd go out of their way to get a country that doesn't meet the economic model for joining the EU and/or the Euro, and one who'd be a net recipient most likely from the EU budget isn't clear.

[Zhivago]

The English and the Welsh please, we're both culpable for Brexit. Certainly Scotland or Northern Ireland might end up in the EU, directly themselves or who knows, maybe as part of Ireland. But it might be neither ended up joining, and it's certainly not obvious it'd happen nor that the process would be rushed through

The EU might have reasons to want to expedite an application, though why say Scotland's and not some others isn't remotely obvious. Yes they've some issues with the UK, but how much they'd go out of their way to get a country that doesn't meet the economic model for joining the EU and/or the Euro, and one who'd be a net recipient most likely from the EU budget isn't clear.

Debatable - it was the English living in Wales who swung Wales to majority Brexit.

[Digby]

The English and the Welsh please, we're both culpable for Brexit. Certainly Scotland or Northern Ireland might end up in the EU, directly themselves or who knows, maybe as part of Ireland. But it might be neither ended up joining, and it's certainly not obvious it'd happen nor that the process would be rushed through

The EU might have reasons to want to expedite an application, though why say Scotland's and not some others isn't remotely obvious. Yes they've some issues with the UK, but how much they'd go out of their way to get a country that doesn't meet the economic model for joining the EU and/or the Euro, and one who'd be a net recipient most likely from the EU budget isn't clear.

Debatable - it was the English living in Wales who swung Wales to majority Brexit.

I don't know the numbers but it's probably not far off equal numbers of Welsh living in England as English living in Wales. England as with Wales has a large contingent of thick as shit constituents, man of whom are also racist. I'd also be willing to guess Wales voted for Brexit by more than the number of English people who live in Wales, and way more than the number of English people who live in Wales that voted, and a still more obviously than voted to leave, 'cause they're probably not all thick as mince.

[Zhivago]

The English and the Welsh please, we're both culpable for Brexit. Certainly Scotland or Northern Ireland might end up in the EU, directly themselves or who knows, maybe as part of Ireland. But it might be neither ended up joining, and it's certainly not obvious it'd happen nor that the process would be rushed through

The EU might have reasons to want to expedite an application, though why say Scotland's and not some others isn't remotely obvious. Yes they've some issues with the UK, but how much they'd go out of their way to get a country that doesn't meet the economic model for joining the EU and/or the Euro, and one who'd be a net recipient most likely from the EU budget isn't clear.

Debatable - it was the English living in Wales who swung Wales to majority Brexit.

I don't know the numbers but it's probably not far off equal numbers of Welsh living in England as English living in Wales. England as with Wales has a large contingent of thick as shit constituents, man of whom are also racist. I'd also be willing to guess Wales voted for Brexit by more than the number of English people who live in Wales, and way more than the number of English people who live in Wales that voted, and a still more obviously than voted to leave, 'cause they're probably not all thick as mince.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... t-research
"About 21% (650,000) of people living in Wales were born in England, with nearly a quarter aged over 65. The country voted for Brexit by a majority of just 82,000."

[Digby]

Debatable - it was the English living in Wales who swung Wales to majority Brexit.

I don't know the numbers but it's probably not far off equal numbers of Welsh living in England as English living in Wales. England as with Wales has a large contingent of thick as shit constituents, man of whom are also racist. I'd also be willing to guess Wales voted for Brexit by more than the number of English people who live in Wales, and way more than the number of English people who live in Wales that voted, and a still more obviously than voted to leave, 'cause they're probably not all thick as mince.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... t-research
"About 21% (650,000) of people living in Wales were born in England, with nearly a quarter aged over 65. The country voted for Brexit by a majority of just 82,000."

Well there we go, still offsets against the Welsh in England mind. And the valley towns are full of thick as mince racists, even the ones that are 99% and over white

[Sandydragon]

I know a lot of people born and bred in Wales who voted for Brexit; the sense of being left behind in the valleys towns is as strong as say in the north of England. Also an opportunity to give the Tories a kicking. I’d love to blame the English but plenty of Celts voted for Brexit across all four countries.