PDA

View Full Version : How to join the EU


JFZ90
23rd May 2014, 19:35
There has been some debate about how easy or difficult it is for new states to join the EU, but the following correspondence does bring some clarity to the subject.

http://tinyurl.com/q8go5tm

The official response is below.

http://tinyurl.com/pbrdezg

500N
23rd May 2014, 19:54
I like it :ok:

Trossie
23rd May 2014, 20:00
Sounds quite clear cut to me...

(But then you might find someone trying to interpret it is some strange way to get it to mean what they want it to mean in their minds?)

Another way of seeing it is that a vote for the SNP's independence is a Scottish equivalent of a vote for UKIP?

bcgallacher
23rd May 2014, 20:07
Wee Eck seems to have forgotten to inform the electorate about this one - I like it too. I puts me in a dilemma though - I would like out of the EU but will not vote for an independent Scotland. Eck and his thin lipped sidekick scare me shitless - if Scotland does choose independence the policies they espouse will have us with a financial system based on barter and an energy system that will have us chopping up and burning the furniture to keep warm and cook.

Hussar 54
23rd May 2014, 21:09
We're having a short holiday in the UK this week....And yesterday I spent an hour or so watching the Parliament Channel while Frau H was preparing herself for lunch....

Although only for an hour or so, I was amazed at the total hostility of all the Scottish Nationalist politicos towards England and the English....

They were bitching about the UK Government declining to let the Scots have Sterling as their curency should they win the vote later on this year....Blackmail, moaned one....Scare tactics, moaned another....Outrageous and what we've come to expect from Westminster, moaned another....

So....When you tell your spouse that you want a divorce, you really think that they're going to make it easy for you ??

Said it before - the best way for the Scottish Seperatists to ensure they win the vote, is just to let the English vote as well !!

Having said that, I was mightily impressed by the Fat Controller's credentials as a politician....Failed to answer one single question with a straight, clear answer and without putting the blame for everything going wrong on Westminster....And was also intrigued by the body language of his scary sidekick - she spent the whole time sat sideways in her chair staring at him intently and silently worshipping his very being....

Add both of these two to my ' Why I hate Politicians ' list....

JFZ90
24th May 2014, 06:43
The interesting thing about the letter exchange is the way it just blatantly exposes the lack of honesty on this subject and you can therefore assume others. I don't understand why they are not held to account for this, and how the civil service machine seems implicated too. Its bizarre.

rh200
24th May 2014, 06:54
They were bitching about the UK Government declining to let the Scots have Sterling as their curency should they win the vote later on this year....Blackmail,

Well they want independence or they don't, not some well we can keep this. Frankly I think in this day and age its just childish seeking independence in their case. I mean are they down trodden, are they getting suppressed, I mean what the f#$ck.

Its like the young teenager moving out of home just to prove how much of a man they are.

acbus1
24th May 2014, 07:52
How to join the EU?

You read this first:

http://www.acasefortreason.org.uk/index.php/the-great-conspiracy

Sallyann1234
24th May 2014, 08:03
Talking of conspiracies, what does the learned Pprune panel make of the announcement of new plastic banknotes to be issued by Scottish banks next year?
In pounds sterling.

acbus1
24th May 2014, 08:17
...what does the learned Pprune panel make of the announcement of new plastic banknotes...
I reckon that it is an irrelevance to this thread, perhaps designed to steer attention away from reading this:

http://www.acasefortreason.org.uk/index.php/the-great-conspiracy

JFZ90
24th May 2014, 08:54
acbus1

I'm not sure what your point is - 2 wrongs make a right perhaps?

It is therefore OK for the SNP to be less than honest as you feel the case for EU membership in the 1970s was arguably misrepresented at the time?

Being in the EU has pros/cons - the pros it seems to me have been proven to outweigh the cons in the past 40 years, though that is not to say there are no cons. In any case the SNP are totally pro EU, so what is your point?

acbus1
24th May 2014, 09:07
(1) - You clearly haven't read the link.

or

(2) - This comment would be moderated. :rolleyes:

JFZ90
24th May 2014, 09:14
I skim read it - it suggests the full intentions of Govt of the time regarding EU integration were glossed over when the case was made to the nation.

Is that why you posted it?

If not, which point are you making? Are you able to articulate it?

acbus1
24th May 2014, 09:19
This might have the potential to be fun if you'd only put a bit more thought into it.


I'd better add this link (in case anyone has lost track):

http://www.acasefortreason.org.uk/index.php/the-great-conspiracy
.
.
.

JFZ90
24th May 2014, 09:37
This might have the potential to be fun if you'd only put a bit more thought into it.

I'd better add this link (in case anyone has lost track):

Interesting. I can see a well trodden SOP emerging.

Above you intimated that perhaps there was an attempt to "steer attention away" from the link you have now linked to several times.

I have asked twice now for you to expand upon the point you wish to highlight in that link, but you seem unable to articulate it.

Why is that? Can you summarise the point you were trying to make in one sentence? You have one more chance I think to dazzle all readers with some breathtaking insight, before we must conclude that perhaps you are just treading the well worn path of deflection, bluff and bluster.

ExXB
24th May 2014, 09:45
So if I understand Ms. Reading an independent Scotland would be free to apply for membership. If the application is accepted by the Council (etc.) then negotiations would be made. Membership is then subject to a unanimous vote of the Member States.

Seems fairly straight forward.

But does anyone believe that countries who have their own problems with separatists would ever agree (in the Council) to enter into negotiations or vote to accept Membership? Nothing against the Scots, but not willing to accept the precedent either. EU Members which would not like the precedent include Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and of course the UK.

Can you ever see Cyprus agreeing that a part of its territory could separate and apply independently to become a Member State?, or Spain?, or France???

I also think the argument about the pound is also moot. Every new Member State since the big bang have been required to adopt the Euro, when conditions merit. Scotland will have the Euro not a question of if, but when.

Seldomfitforpurpose
24th May 2014, 09:49
Scotland will have the Euro not a question of if, but when.

As they won't have the Pound one imagines it would have to very PDQ!

acbus1
24th May 2014, 09:55
I also think the argument about the pound is also moot.
There'd better not be any argument.

If the rest of the UK allowed Scotland the British pound, they (the rest of the UK) would have to foot the bill when (not if) Scottish independence goes horribly wrong.


acbus1

Ignore list: JFZ90

:ok:

JFZ90
24th May 2014, 09:57
More parliamentary comedy gold:

European Union Membership: 7 May 2014: Scottish Parliament debates - TheyWorkForYou (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2014-05-07.15.0#g15.4)

Q : SNP, do you have any EU advice on membership?

SNP: No.

Q : What about the letter from that nice lady in the EU, VR?

SNP: Er, oh, er, that one, mmm, err, that doesn't count as VR mentioned Article 49, we intend to sue Article 48.

(ignoring the rather important point that the VR letter was in direct response to a specific SNP question as to whether the SNP can use Article 48.....)


PS I now realise the link that ACBus is so keen on has been hacked and amongst other things makes reference to "villians in woodpiles" and other rather unsavory prejudicial articles. Be warned. Edit: thankfully I see I'm now on his ignore list. It will be interesting if he posts anymore prejudicial pro UKIP propaganda in defence of the behaviour of their obvious bedfellows, the SNP....(or was it BNP, it is sometimes confusing).

Checkboard
24th May 2014, 10:50
Being in the EU has pros/cons

Indeed.

Pros: Eastern European prostitutes outnumbering Scouse women on streets - claim Merseyside sex workers - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/eastern-european-prostitutes-outnumbering-scouse-3152524)

Cons: Romanian gangs behind nine in ten cashpoint robberies rake in 30m a year | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120049/Romanian-gangs-cashpoint-robberies-rake-30m-year.html)

I think that's what many UK people are objecting to! ;)

rh200
24th May 2014, 10:58
Pros: Eastern European prostitutes outnumbering Scouse women on streets - claim Merseyside sex workers - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/eastern-european-prostitutes-outnumbering-scouse-3152524)

Being a pro, I guess that means their hotter than scouses:p

JFZ90
25th May 2014, 11:18
More fun politics

Independence oil fund plan ?doesn?t add up? - The Scotsman (http://m.scotsman.com/news/uk/independence-oil-fund-plan-doesn-t-add-up-1-3422032)

'Its like borrowing on credit cards and putting it in a savings account'

SNP response - 'and we can do it from day 1 of independence'

ORAC
25th May 2014, 12:27
Sharp practice at Holyrood: how the SNP uses committees to push the case for independence (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benrileysmith/100273086/sharp-practice-at-holyrood-how-the-snp-uses-committees-to-push-the-case-for-independence/)

Getting punters excited by Holyrood's backbench committees isn't easy. Faced with a myriad of remits, annexes, convenors and minority statements, most readers tend to switch off. And who can blame them?

But there's a scandal bubbling up behind the the Scottish Parliament's locked doors that really shouldn't be ignored. It raises questions about how the government is scrutinised and democracy functions. But more urgently, it addresses one of the most potent concerns in the independence debate: are voters being duped about the risks of leaving the UK?................

Fareastdriver
25th May 2014, 14:32
With Scottish independence I am starting to see a similarity to the communist takeover of China. After the Japanese surrender the civil war started again. Mao was an excellent leader but the civil war was going quite badly for his side. They only controlled the west of China and the Nationalists, with superior equipment and organisation were containing him quite easily.
Then one of the Nationalists generals changed horses. With him he took an army of 250,000 troops. That threw the balance of power irrevocably in favour of Mao and in a few months it was all over.

In Scotland the YES campaign has had a massive, 3.5 million input from one man who scooped the Euromillions Lottery, all 145million of it. His individual finance has overwhelmed the NO campaign and has had a direct result in the opinion polls.

History may well record that Scotland became independent, not because of the inbuilt will of the people, but by the roll of lottery numbers.

And was also intrigued by the body language of his scary sidekick - she spent the whole time sat sideways in her chair staring at him intently and silently worshipping his very being....

You mean Ayatollah Sturgeon

JFZ90
25th May 2014, 15:31
ORAC - that is very disturbing.

It one thing to vote 4:3 to take a certain course of action, but quite another to vote 4:3 to stop even various points of view being recorded.

It seems it is a case of "that experts opinion must be struck from the record as it does not support our view". It does seem quite at odds with the fact that these committees are supposed to keep Holyrood 'honest'. Seems it is not working. Where is the impartiality of the civil service?

You have to wonder why they want to resort to this, or feel they have to. It says to me that they can't allow all the facts to be recorded and develop a way forward based upon a justified analysis of the pros and cons. It seems this is not possible so they have to whitewash the cons from the record to try and justify what is presumably unjustifiable.

They'll be banning books next, or worse burning them.

Trossie
25th May 2014, 20:39
That'll be the National Socialist Scottish Workers Party then?