Originally posted by Yam-pk:
I really don't see anything inherently xenophobic or nationalistic in being against unaccountable, unelected bureaucratic European institutions.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:I thought we were kept out because the French didn't want us.
Originally posted by Sighthound:
With 20/20 hindsight we should have gone in at the start and helped shape it to suit ourselves.
quote:That sort of scenario keeps me awake at nights. But realistically, it overlooks problem no. 1, which is the increasing financial tension caused by differential development rates. Whilst the initial reaction of a move towards fiscal union looks attractive, in the medium term it will make things worse, as resentment at financial institutions (primarily the ECB) will be replaced by political resentment. Matters would likely get very ugly indeed.
Originally posted by no prophet:
How important is the UK to a Germany-dominated EU anyway? Can we foresee that a rising German, Poland and Turkey will be dominant in that part of the world, with the full eclipse of a UK that sheds Scotland and becomes a rump of a quaint England of castles and Euro-trash royalty, dominated by new immigrants, with all of that contributing further devolved nationalism in Wales?
quote:Germany isn't the only dominant nation in the EU - you're forgetting the French.
Originally posted by no prophet:
How important is the UK to a Germany-dominated EU anyway? Can we foresee that a rising German, Poland and Turkey will be dominant in that part of the world, with the full eclipse of a UK that sheds Scotland and becomes a rump of a quaint England of castles and Euro-trash royalty, dominated by new immigrants, with all of that contributing further devolved nationalism in Wales?
quote:Am I a xenophobe for liking Europe and the Europeans but hating the EU?
Originally posted by ken:
We're staying in and Turkey will join and that's great. Get over yourselves you pompous xenophobes.
quote:/tangent It's my understanding that there has been no official statement from the European Commission yet, although there have been a number of people suggesting that this is their view. It is however disputable under international law - which is why Salmond is clinging to the hope that he may get to stay in, and carrying on muddying the waters. If they don't, then the referendum is a dead duck: Scotland clearly does not have a future outside the EU.
Originally posted by deano:
On the subject of Scottish independence, I listened to a report on the Today programme last week and it said that the EU had confirmed that if Scotland left the UK, it would no longer be in the EU as of right because the EU membership is in the name of the United Kingdom. Scotland would be a new country in the eyes of the EU, and would therefore have to apply to join as a new member. This would mean they would have to join the Euro as well. This is a point that we will be making quite strongly before any independence referendum. I understand the SNP were a little upset about it!
quote:On this subject it's worth recalling that Nigel Farage's wife is German ...
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Am I a xenophobe for liking Europe and the Europeans but hating the EU?
Originally posted by ken:
We're staying in and Turkey will join and that's great. Get over yourselves you pompous xenophobes.
quote:Only after de Gaulle came to power. The founding six MSs rather hoped we would join them in 1957 but we declined as we still had the Empire, by and large, at that point; the bloody nose of Suez hadn't yet fully registered. Half a dozen years on, decolonisation had firmly begun and we belatedly woke up to the fact that we might just need new trading partners, but were at that point rebuffed by the General's non.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:I thought we were kept out because the French didn't want us.
Originally posted by Sighthound:
With 20/20 hindsight we should have gone in at the start and helped shape it to suit ourselves.
quote:Indeed. I used to be pretty Eurosceptic, but then one day I woke up to the point that you've just made (that and the fact that it's managed to keep an increasingly large area of Europe at peace for 60 years and managed on the whole to integrate all sorts of potentially difficult countries, beginning with Germany, into liberal democratic western European norms- which are considerable achievements but ones which we could in principle admire from afar). I suppose the last two major 'neither Brussels nor Washington' people were Tony Benn (and that's still his position AFAIK) and Enoch Powell. But whether it's a tenable position nowadays, when even the Swiss are increasingly conforming to EU norms, may be open to doubt. There are all sorts of ways in which the EU needs reforming, but ultimately it's still a Good Thing and we should be fully engaged.
Originally posted by Angloid:
The thing which frightens me about the eurosceptics is that they don't seem equally americanosceptic. We are already far too dominated by America, culturally as well as economically. Anything which strengthens our ties to our fellow-Europeans should be welcomed. It's not possible for any nation (let alone a small one) to be 'independent' these days. I'd rather we were interdependent with similar nations only a hop away, than dependent on the great Behemoth across the pond.
quote:As I understand it, there is a concept of a 'successor state' in International Law. When the Soviet Union broke up, for example, Russia was regarded as the successor state and got the Soviet Union's position on the Security Council, etc. Serbia claimed to be the successor state of Yugoslavia but this was not recognised and she had to make a fresh application to join the UN.
Originally posted by Angloid:
Sorry to double post but I've just thought of this: was Czechoslovakia a member of the EU before it split? And does it depend on relative size: if Scotland leaves the UK, what is left is not the same UK that joined the EU. They are both 'new nations' and so shouldn't both (or neither) have to reapply?
quote:When Greenland split from Denmark it then had to apply to leave the EU. If the same thing followed Scotland and the disUnited Kingdom would both be EU members.
Originally posted by Angloid:
Sorry to double post but I've just thought of this: was Czechoslovakia a member of the EU before it split? And does it depend on relative size: if Scotland leaves the UK, what is left is not the same UK that joined the EU. They are both 'new nations' and so shouldn't both (or neither) have to reapply?
quote:By coincidence this is now on the BBC's web site from Manuel Barroso confirming that Scotland would have to apply in her own right post independance...
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
/tangent It's my understanding that there has been no official statement from the European Commission yet, although there have been a number of people suggesting that this is their view. It is however disputable under international law - which is why Salmond is clinging to the hope that he may get to stay in, and carrying on muddying the waters. If they don't, then the referendum is a dead duck: Scotland clearly does not have a future outside the EU.
quote:No. Czechoslovakia was in the Soviet sphere of influence and therefore a member of the Warsaw Pact rather than the EU. Neither of the post-split countries joined the EU until at least 2003.
Originally posted by Angloid:
Sorry to double post but I've just thought of this: was Czechoslovakia a member of the EU before it split?
quote:I don't think so, because the UK is a union of four constituent countries. The secession of one would not affect the international standing of the UK, there being the important precedent of the UK having previously 'survived' the secession of Southern Ireland without any effect on the UK's treaty obligations, diplomatic recognition or membership of international organisations.
And does it depend on relative size: if Scotland leaves the UK, what is left is not the same UK that joined the EU. They are both 'new nations' and so shouldn't both (or neither) have to reapply?
quote:Oh, I am at least as Americanosceptic as I am 'Eurosceptic'. And it's EU-sceptic, please. I have nothing, per se. against a continent or its peoples (e.g. I had a rather good week away this summer in Croatia, which is alas, falling into the EU trap). I have a lot against an unelected body like the EU Commission deciding things for me and the 'voters' of EU member states.
Originally posted by Angloid:
The thing which frightens me about the eurosceptics is that they don't seem equally americanosceptic. We are already far too dominated by America, culturally as well as economically. Anything which strengthens our ties to our fellow-Europeans should be welcomed. It's not possible for any nation (let alone a small one) to be 'independent' these days. I'd rather we were interdependent with similar nations only a hop away, than dependent on the great Behemoth across the pond.
quote:/TANGENT ALERT
Originally posted by Angloid:
The thing which frightens me about the eurosceptics is that they don't seem equally americanosceptic. We are already far too dominated by America, culturally as well as economically. Anything which strengthens our ties to our fellow-Europeans should be welcomed. It's not possible for any nation (let alone a small one) to be 'independent' these days. I'd rather we were interdependent with similar nations only a hop away, than dependent on the great Behemoth across the pond.
quote:I'm as pro-EU as Alaric is agin' it but as far as the EU Commission is concerned we're of one mind. The members must be directly elected, rather than superannuated party hacks from the constituent contries, and they must take their lead from the European Parliament not the Brussels machine.
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
quote:Oh, I am at least as Americanosceptic as I am 'Eurosceptic'. And it's EU-sceptic, please. I have nothing, per se. against a continent or its peoples (e.g. I had a rather good week away this summer in Croatia, which is alas, falling into the EU trap). I have a lot against an unelected body like the EU Commission deciding things for me and the 'voters' of EU member states.
Originally posted by Angloid:
The thing which frightens me about the eurosceptics is that they don't seem equally americanosceptic. We are already far too dominated by America, culturally as well as economically. Anything which strengthens our ties to our fellow-Europeans should be welcomed. It's not possible for any nation (let alone a small one) to be 'independent' these days. I'd rather we were interdependent with similar nations only a hop away, than dependent on the great Behemoth across the pond.
quote:I completely understand your position, but the elected legislature was originally conceived with the inherent weaknesses deliberately built in.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm as pro-EU as Alaric is agin' it but as far as the EU Commission is concerned we're of one mind. The members must be directly elected, rather than superannuated party hacks from the constituent contries, and they must take their lead from the European Parliament not the Brussels machine.
Imagine the British Cabinet formed exclusively from members of the House of Lords, legislation being formulated and put to it by civil service policy branches and the House of Commons being relegated to a debating chamber with no executive power whatsoever.
quote:The EU is increasingly a German sphere of influence with the French playing second fiddle. Hollande recently tried to position France in defiance of German austerity demands and very soon had to back down. I think on a split between performing Euro countries (the northern group) and non-performing Euro countries (the southern med group) France would probably fall into the latter group.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:Germany isn't the only dominant nation in the EU - you're forgetting the French.
Originally posted by no prophet:
How important is the UK to a Germany-dominated EU anyway? Can we foresee that a rising German, Poland and Turkey will be dominant in that part of the world, with the full eclipse of a UK that sheds Scotland and becomes a rump of a quaint England of castles and Euro-trash royalty, dominated by new immigrants, with all of that contributing further devolved nationalism in Wales?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:There isn't but proponents of EU membership are finding it increasingly diffcult to find positive arguments so make fatuous accusations instead.
Originally posted by Yam-pk:
I really don't see anything inherently xenophobic or nationalistic in being against unaccountable, unelected bureaucratic European institutions.
quote:Greenland is not independent. Denmark is still sovereign and has control of foreign affairs.
Originally posted by balaam:
That contradicts what happened with Greenland, so either he's wrong or something has changed.
Does anyone around here understand the Treaty of Lisbon, which seems the likeliest candidate for change in EU policy.
{cross posted = reply to deano}
quote:Germany is all those things, as you say, Albertus. But I think you are overlooking the enormous fiscal boost it has received from being a member of a unified currency area. Being successful, hardworking etc. would normally cause its currency to rise in value internationally, so would ultimately make more marginal German industry less competitive. Being a member of the euro means that doesn't happen. It's the direct opposite of what has happened to the PIIGS countries.
Originally posted by Albertus:
Although of course, as was pointed out upthread, the weakness of the European Parliament (not as weak as it was, by the way) reflects the inter-governmental nature of the original ECSC/EEC arrangements. If you want more directly democratic accountability for EU institutions, you're accepting the EU as a supranational body.
On the question of Germany: of course it's going to dominate Europe. Its big, centrally placed, hardworking, clever, and rich. There is no-one else in Europe to match it on all these counts. The ECSC/EEC/EC/EU has been the best go yet at getting Germany to work with its neighbours rather than against them. You're bothered about German domination of Europe now? Just take a mo to think how much worse it could be- and has been.
quote:And the Republic of Irelkand isn't part of the UK (the chances are that Scotland won't be soon either) and Britain isn't part of any Europe-wide nation state because there isn't one to be part of.
Originally posted by agingjb:
Random thoughts (from a "don't know"):
Japan isn't part of China; Sri Lanka isn't part of India; Cuba isn't part of the USA. There's a case for substantial islands remaining apart from a dominating neighbouring continent.
quote:Blimey - unless they have two members you must be Alexander Bath.
Originally posted by agingjb:
Random thoughts (from a "don't know"):
Japan isn't part of China; Sri Lanka isn't part of India; Cuba isn't part of the USA. There's a case for substantial islands remaining apart from a dominating neighbouring continent.
I've been known to argue that the only natural political units are the parish and the planet.
But then I'm a rather unemphatic Wessex Nationalist at heart.
quote:And in fact Japan dominated China, or tired to, for a spell; India didn't dominate Sri lanka because they were both under colonial or quasi-rule and then India had quite enough to be getting on with elsewhere; and the USA thoroughly dominated Cuba for the first six decades of the C20 and most of the USA's subsequent bad feeling has been about the impertinence of the Cubans in wanting not to be so dominated rather than about Castro's Communism (which was only declared after the USA started throwing its toys out of the pram at having its favourite gambling resorts put off limits).
Originally posted by ken:
quote:And the Republic of Irelkand isn't part of the UK (the chances are that Scotland won't be soon either) and Britain isn't part of any Europe-wide nation state because there isn't one to be part of.
Originally posted by agingjb:
Random thoughts (from a "don't know"):
Japan isn't part of China; Sri Lanka isn't part of India; Cuba isn't part of the USA. There's a case for substantial islands remaining apart from a dominating neighbouring continent.
So your point is?
quote:Yet. But it's coming - Germany will keep insisting on greater and greater control over the PIIGS economies until it gets to the point that it may as well just be running those countries anyway. Then it will just take them over. France won't last a whole lot longer, and the Eastern European countries probably won't even bother putting up a fight. Someone will point out that as the continent is one single country now they may as well move the political capital to the same place as the central bank (i.e. Germany), and Bob's your uncle - the Germans have finally succeeded in taking over the whole continent.
Originally posted by ken:
Britain isn't part of any Europe-wide nation state because there isn't one to be part of.
quote:Who said anything about "secretly"?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
a series of posts about how the Germans are secretly intent on continental domination
quote:Why? What for? Who wants to do that? What would be the point?
Originally posted by Sighthound:
It seems to me that the only way to make the EU satisfactory is to turn it into something like the USA.
quote:I think that is the accepted wisdom. It seems to have backfired on the French though, in the same way that extending the membership to include Eastern European states was a strategy of the British which seems to have backfired on them. The irony is that when unification came the adoption of the Deutschmark in the East had the effect of overnight deindustrialisation whilst giving the former West Germany an enormous advantage. One wonders why the countries joining the Euro didn't see the dangers being repeated on a much grander scale. The French will quite soon really regret their membership of the Single Currency because the East-West German imbalances were solved by massive capital transfers from West to East but that is never going to happen within the EuroZone without the Germans calling all the tunes.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Some time ago a friend who is MUCH better versed in international politics than I, told me that the French forced the Euro on Germany as the price for accepting reunification - his overall argument being that the entire Euro exercise was part of the overall French strategy of running Europe. Most of the comments on this thread go directly against his idea. Does it seem plausible to anyone?
quote:What do you see taking its place, then, aumbry?
Originally posted by aumbry:
The Euro is rapidly destroying the EU and any vote on membership will probably be otiose as the EU as it is currently constituted will soon be defunct.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
I'm from Britain. I live in Poland. I have a business in Germany, where I do a lot of work. In Germany I am treated fairly equally. Here as well, though I cannot register myself for more than a year, and things like health insurance have to go through my wife. The tri-national dimension of my life does in fact raise complications regarding registration, health insurance and pension, but slowly things are getting sorted.
But all in all, being class 1 EU helps me.
If Britain was to leave the EU my life would get much more complicated. It would also leave to a greater anti-British prejudice, something that would effect me. Already people tell me that "Brits are arrogant" and "think they are better than us" and the such.
The EU is simply a convenient scapegoat, used by various politicans to distract from real issues (jobs, workers' rights, health, schooling, the environment) and whipped up by a sales-hungry media, going down the nationalist line.
That's not to say that all criticism of the EU is nationalist. There are sound left-wing reasons for criticising the EU. Thing is, the media doesn't give voice to those reasons, choosing rather to invite some right-wing soundbite producer.
British business by the way is massively against GB leaving the EU.
quote:Cos the present situation is shite democratically.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Why? What for? Who wants to do that? What would be the point?
Originally posted by Sighthound:
It seems to me that the only way to make the EU satisfactory is to turn it into something like the USA.
quote:British Business in the guise of the CBI was massively in favour of joining the Euro and we don't hear anything from them about that any more. In fact almost every one of the CBI's predictions were wrong in that regard. British business has hardly prospered mightily in the EU where the UK has a massive trade deficit so I would take your assertion with a pinch of salt. British business needs to start trading with the rest of the world and EU regulatory red tape does nothing to help that.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
British business by the way is massively against GB leaving the EU.
quote:British manufacturing business hardly exists since the Thatcher era (nb I said 'era', not necessarily apportioning blame), so there is not much to trade with. Either in the EU or elsewhere.
Originally posted by aumbry:
British business needs to start trading with the rest of the world and EU regulatory red tape does nothing to help that.
quote:Then fix it. But proposing some sort of centralised "United States of Europe" just plays into the hands of the Little Englanders whoi can say that's what we really wanted all along.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Cos the present situation is shite democratically.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Why? What for? Who wants to do that? What would be the point?
Originally posted by Sighthound:
It seems to me that the only way to make the EU satisfactory is to turn it into something like the USA.
quote:Assuming you mean central European states, it hasn;t backfired. Its been massively successful. Win-win all round.
Originally posted by aumbry:
..., in the same way that extending the membership to include Eastern European states was a strategy of the British which seems to have backfired on them.
quote:And even if they are, openly or secretly, why should it bother us? I suspect that a lot of this anti-german stuff is because we know, deep in our hearts, that in almost every respect - education, industrial relations, technology, productivity, constitution- they're better than we are, and it's scant consolation to know that they owe a lot of this to our influence on their postwar reconstruction!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Who said anything about "secretly"?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
a series of posts about how the Germans are secretly intent on continental domination
quote:Benefit for whom?
Originally posted by ken:
90% of the benefit of the EU comes from free movement across borders and and the right to live and work in other countries.
quote:That is just not true. Britain is the sixth largest manufacturing nation in the world. Manufacturing represents 12% if the economy and 83% of exports. It is also the only hope of increasing levels of employment as services and the public sector cannot be expected to show a lot of future growth.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:British manufacturing business hardly exists since the Thatcher era (nb I said 'era', not necessarily apportioning blame), so there is not much to trade with. Either in the EU or elsewhere.
Originally posted by aumbry:
British business needs to start trading with the rest of the world and EU regulatory red tape does nothing to help that.
quote:The former figure sounds rather minor, and the latter may simply reflect the fact that we don't export anything very much. I certainly wouldn't expect us to export much in the way of raw materials from the UK, which is presumably the 17% then.
Originally posted by aumbry:
Manufacturing represents 12% if the economy and 83% of exports.
quote:A benefit indeed for people living in countries with convergent economies were the flow is likely to be both ways but a disaster where this is not the case. This will be massively exacerbated when Bulgaria and Romania get full rights of free movement. These countries can expect to see substantial portions of their skilled workers and youth leaving.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Benefit for whom?
Originally posted by ken:
90% of the benefit of the EU comes from free movement across borders and and the right to live and work in other countries.
quote:Almost everybody.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Benefit for whom?
Originally posted by ken:
90% of the benefit of the EU comes from free movement across borders and and the right to live and work in other countries.
quote:12% of the economy is actually a bigger slice than the USA it is on a par with countries like France and only below par in comparison with Germany. Britain is a world leading manufacturer in pharmaceuticals and aerospance and is gaining ground in the automotive industries.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:The former figure sounds rather minor, and the latter may simply reflect the fact that we don't export anything very much. I certainly wouldn't expect us to export much in the way of raw materials from the UK, which is presumably the 17% then.
Originally posted by aumbry:
Manufacturing represents 12% if the economy and 83% of exports.
(Next you'll be telling us that we're not xenophobes, since 100% of our exports go abroad).
quote:Except it is not freedom - in most cases it is forced on people by economic necessity. Yours is the freedom of movement of the rich.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Almost everybody.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Benefit for whom?
Originally posted by ken:
90% of the benefit of the EU comes from free movement across borders and and the right to live and work in other countries.
I like reedom. Its a positive good. Governments and police ought not to tell people where to live or work.
quote:I've heard this sort of talk before. I remember vividly Paddy Ashdown saying in 1999/2000 that if Britain didn't join the Euro, the pound would 'be like a cork bobbing in the sea between two ocean liners'. (I think we were meant to interpret that metaphor negatively, not that cork floats and ships can sink.)
Originally posted by Matariki:
It seems on the right of British - no English - politics there remains an element which is not reconciled to the UK being a medium sized power.
quote:The UK government have taken legal advice which concurs with this. So, I understand, has the EC. Alex Salmond earlier suggested he had advice to the contrary, but was then forced to admit that he had taken no legal advice at all.
Originally posted by deano:
On the subject of Scottish independence, I listened to a report on the Today programme last week and it said that the EU had confirmed that if Scotland left the UK, it would no longer be in the EU as of right because the EU membership is in the name of the United Kingdom.
quote:The Scottish Independance issue is now dead in the water.
Originally posted by Cod:
The UK government have taken legal advice which concurs with this. So, I understand, has the EC. Alex Salmond earlier suggested he had advice to the contrary, but was then forced to admit that he had taken no legal advice at all.
<snipped>
The nationalists have really got this one wrong.
quote:An excellent point that outside the EU there would be a marked reduction in the cost of foodstuffs in the World Market as well as a revival of the British fishing industry outside the disasterous Common Fisheries Policy. Of course EU countries are unlikely to put up trade barriers against Britain as Britain is a bigger market for their exports than they are for Britain. If they did the countries that would suffer most would be Ireland, France and Denmark.
Originally posted by Cod:
From where I sit, a UK departure from the EU would benefit New Zealand moderately well. New Zealand used to send 80% of its exports to the UK. These were mostly foodstuffs and primary produce such as wool. The UK has now been overtaken by China, Australia and the US amongst others and now only takes (I think) about 8%.
Entry into the EEC put the UK behind a tariff wall, which disadvantaged NZ produce in favour of EU produce. If that were to be removed, one would expect NZ exports to the UK to increase.
However, I can't see what benefit would accrue to the UK from this, except for slighly cheaper lamb, butter and cheap cheese.
quote:I for one am perfectly content with Britain being a medium-sized power.
Originally posted by Matariki:
It seems on the right of British - no English - politics there remains an element which is not reconciled to the UK being a medium sized power.
quote:Because self-determination is a good thing.
Originally posted by Albertus:
But why should we want to?
quote:I wouldn't be so keen on Turkey joining the EU if recent history is anything to go by. As a democracy it is incredibly unstable by all accounts, with something like four military coups in the last half a century or so, it has seen a marked turn to suppression of freedom of thought and expression and a slow creep back to radical Islamisation under the AK party. Look to the treatment of the pianist Say for recent events amongst others.
Originally posted by ken:
We're staying in and Turkey will join and that's great. Get over yourselves you pompous xenophobes.
quote:If they want it, yes. I've posted to that effect a number of times.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Presumably you'd therefore support Scottish and Welsh independence on that ground?
quote:An argument against the EU, and arguments for self-determination, do not then equate to a race to the smallest possible group of people being self-determining (or you could end up with a situation where Llanwrtyd Wells decides it wants to seceed from Wales). The ability of a community to function properly and sustainably is to find the right size of population and territory to adequately provide and maintain it's citizens. Before you go onto point out that there are small nations which function rather well, I will take the example of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Despite being self-determining territories, they have a relationship of mutual support and reliance with the UK due to being too small to fully support themselves adequately. On the flip side if a political area becomes too large it becomes problematic designing and enacting legislation that works effectively and fairly for the large majority of citizens - if you water down legislation to accomodate everyone you end up with legislation which helps nobody and angers everybody.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Presumably you'd therefore support Scottish and Welsh independence on that ground?
quote:The question is, who gets to decide what that size is? Is it the people in the area itself (be it Wales or Llanwrtyd Wells), is it the people in the wider area from which it would be seceding, or is it the government of the larger area?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The ability of a community to function properly and sustainably is to find the right size of population and territory to adequately provide and maintain it's citizens.
quote:I'm not denying that they have the right to try, but it is up to the people of the area wanting to become independent to decide. Determining the appropriate size of territory, population and resources required is an economic factor coupled with the expected standard of living. If an area wishes to do away with all forms of state welfare, have no hospitals etc. etc. adn go back to a self-sufficient form of farming then a small population with a small area of territory will find it relatively easy, however most people in Wales who want independence wish to keep all tehir modern hospitals, the welfare state, government infrastructure programmes etc. etc. and then the debate falls on those wishing independence to prove how the territory can be viable after independence.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The question is, who gets to decide what that size is? Is it the people in the area itself (be it Wales or Llanwrtyd Wells), is it the people in the wider area from which it would be seceding, or is it the government of the larger area?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The ability of a community to function properly and sustainably is to find the right size of population and territory to adequately provide and maintain it's citizens.
Regardless of whether Llanwrtyd Wells could survive as a sustainable independent nation, I am wary of any attitude from the government that says they shouldn't have the right to try if they want to. It starts to sound like "we" can and should override "their" desires (and stay in power over them) for their own good, and that reeks of the worst paternalistic justifications of Empire.
quote:The Germans are deeply apologetic for their behaviour in South West Africa, whilst embarrassing Belgians over the Congo Free State is shooting fish in a barrel.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Slightly o/t and going away from your actual point: I'm no apologist for the Empire, neither do I feel a need to be wracked with Colonial guilt, I find it demeaning and unnecessary especially since the UK seems to be the only place in the world that continues to apologise for once having had an empire (have you heard the USA apologise for it's historical imperial ambitions?)
quote:I'm happy to be corrected - though I'm not sure that wikipedia entrys that detail the atrocities that occured is the same as a continuous national apology and a continued sense of colonial guilt on the issue...
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:The Germans are deeply apologetic for their behaviour in South West Africa, whilst embarrassing Belgians over the Congo Free State is shooting fish in a barrel.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Slightly o/t and going away from your actual point: I'm no apologist for the Empire, neither do I feel a need to be wracked with Colonial guilt, I find it demeaning and unnecessary especially since the UK seems to be the only place in the world that continues to apologise for once having had an empire (have you heard the USA apologise for it's historical imperial ambitions?)
quote:So if no-one is doing the right thing then the British shouldn't? Strange argument.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I find it demeaning and unnecessary especially since the UK seems to be the only place in the world that continues to apologise for once having had an empire (have you heard the USA apologise for it's historical imperial ambitions?)
quote:See above.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:So if no-one is doing the right thing then the British shouldn't? Strange argument.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
[qb] I find it demeaning and unnecessary especially since the UK seems to be the only place in the world that continues to apologise for once having had an empire (have you heard the USA apologise for it's historical imperial ambitions?)
quote:Your reply to ES was about wikipedia, something I didn't link to.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
See above.
quote:Strangely enough I was having a discussion about this last Saturday with an international group who'd visited the House of the Wannsee Conference the day before. We spoke about whether guilt can be inherited. The group came to the view that guilt can not be inherited, but that the consequences of past actions can be. Luckily I know many Germans who take responsibility for the actions done in their name (i.e. the "German" name).
No, I'm not making a case that because others do not, we should not, but making a case that eventually you leave the history to be just that, history. Don't rewrite, continue to teach it as part of a nations history, but at somepoint you have to stop having outpourings of guilt about the historical events that occured or I may as well use the reductio ad absurdum structure and expect the people of nation X to apologise for the atrocities of some empire thousands of years ago since they are the cultural and biologicl descendents of the people who controlled that empire.
quote:Ironically there is a form of anti-semitism in Germany (also here in Poland to some extent) that goes down this route: "These Jews want to talk about how bad we are in order to get money". Simply calling oneself a victim doesn't amount to being a victim. In fact there was more to medieval anti-semitism than accusations of "killing God". Note that I am not here calling anyone a Nazi, included those modern Germans I mention.
Perversely, the flip side, IMHO, of having a self-enforced colonial guilt is that of having 'colonial' (the word being used loosely now) guilt forced upon you by those you mistreated... surely the anti-semetism of medieval Europe is this guilt being forced on an entire group of people for the actions of a few a thousand years before hand... in someway the people of medieaval europe expected the Jews to feel guilty about their atrocious actions for murdering Jesus, so we shall enforce them to have that sense of guilt and punish them for their actions at the sametime...
quote:Where this argument breaks down is at what point do you say you are too small a unit to be allowed to do this? The people in Arcacia Drive, Llanwrtyd Wells may consider their interests are not being looked after by the Peoples Republic of Llanwrtyd Wells and call UDI. Where would it end?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The question is, who gets to decide what that size is? Is it the people in the area itself (be it Wales or Llanwrtyd Wells), is it the people in the wider area from which it would be seceding, or is it the government of the larger area?
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
The ability of a community to function properly and sustainably is to find the right size of population and territory to adequately provide and maintain it's citizens.
Regardless of whether Llanwrtyd Wells could survive as a sustainable independent nation, I am wary of any attitude from the government that says they shouldn't have the right to try if they want to. It starts to sound like "we" can and should override "their" desires (and stay in power over them) for their own good, and that reeks of the worst paternalistic justifications of Empire.
quote:You were providing links to examples of national apologies, such links had already been provided and I conceeded the point that they occur.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:Your reply to ES was about wikipedia, something I didn't link to.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
[qb]See above.
quote:The consequences exist, but the negative consequences die down over time, diluted as they fade into antiquity, and eventually fail to have a modern relevant consequence on the people who inhabit those lands now. British Imperialism of India fails to have serious modern repercussions on the people of India (whilst I would say that the positives such as Parlaimentary democracy, infrastructure, education etc. continue to have a very good influence over the population of the sub-continent) and therefore has now stopped having a relevance for us to feel ‘sorry’ about. ( as an aside: if the nations of the Empire felt so strongly about Colonial wrongs I doubt that they would have joined the Commonwealth of Nations under HM in the first place either.)
Strangely enough I was having a discussion about this last Saturday with an international group who'd visited the House of the Wannsee Conference the day before. We spoke about whether guilt can be inherited. The group came to the view that guilt can not be inherited, but that the consequences of past actions can be. Luckily I know many Germans who take responsibility for the actions done in their name (i.e. the "German" name).
quote:Yes healing should be sought and provided however best, and the modern compensation culture does not provide it as it is about monetary gain as much as a real emotional closure. The only way to gain real closure is to forgive, I'm sure taht's somewhere in my faith... But the act of the aggressor trying to provide closure is only possible once, it can be repeated, but that is superfluous, if I apologise for stealing from you once I have apologised, I can’t add anymore to it but to restate it, it is on the victim to use that apology to find the closure they are looking for in the time they need to take. To demand anymore after the aggressor has provided the opportunity for closure is a sign of falseness in my eyes, an attempt to take as much as possible when it is not required. Eventually, I imagine rather soon, we shall go back to forgetting nationally about Hillsborough, it shall become a part of our past and we will not expect the government and police forces to pre-fix everything they say with an apology about how they treated people in the situation and it’s aftermath. It will become a part of history to be taught, learned from so that it does not happen again, but not something to be eulogised over time and time again.
They offer a recognition of what has happened. That in itself (say, with the Hillsborough disaster and the release of documents this September) is healing, the telling of truth. Paying of compensation doesn't offer a writing of wrongs, but the fact is that those who faced hate-crimes in the name of the British empire have been adversely effected by what the British empire did, and some payments for those people and their families (who also suffered through what happened to their family members) is entirely appropriate.
quote:I wonder how far you expect a modern nation to go to atone for the sins of its ancestors. What will constitute a final repayment of the sin-debt that is owed?
GB has a long, long way to go.
quote:You present your argument as if I have said we should just forget about these things, which is distinctly opposite from what I have said. We should remember, teach them to our children and learn from the mistakes of the past, but we do eventually have to say enough is enough, it is an aspect of history, a time now for us to treat it as an historical event and not as something we did yesterday and have only just stopped doing. As I said in a post above, if we take it to its absurd, but logical conclusion, I should expect the Italians as the descendents of the Roman Empire to provide reparations for how they treated my Celtic ancestors, the Scandanavians and the French along the English Channel for much the same. But we don’t, we consign them those events to history.
I do actually know Germans who call for a "end line" like you call for. They see history as linear, where you can cut off effects of the past. That is wrong, the effects of history live with us whether we think about them or not. It's simply impossible to have an "end line". It also should be noted that any "tax burden" or sense of discomfort caused by addressing the history of ones nation is nowhere near the discomfort faced by those effected, or those who still suffer due to actions of the past. The Brits are not victims of colonial history.
quote:I full well know that, but it had an impact on anti-semetism throughout history and is an example to illustrate what I was saying.
In fact there was more to medieval anti-semitism than accusations of "killing God".
quote:Oh. Right.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
You were providing links to examples of national apologies, such links had already been provided and I conceeded the point that they occur.
quote:The impact of the British Empire is still felt. The reasons why countries like Jamaica are a lot poorer are complex, but that it was a British colony is one of them.
The consequences exist, but the negative consequences die down over time, diluted as they fade into antiquity, and eventually fail to have a modern relevant consequence on the people who inhabit those lands now. British Imperialism of India fails to have serious modern repercussions on the people of India (whilst I would say that the positives such as Parlaimentary democracy, infrastructure, education etc. continue to have a very good influence over the population of the sub-continent) and therefore has now stopped having a relevance for us to feel ‘sorry’ about. ( as an aside: if the nations of the Empire felt so strongly about Colonial wrongs I doubt that they would have joined the Commonwealth of Nations under HM in the first place either.)
quote:I've seen Soviet survivors of the concentration camp in Dachau being invited to Dachau, being provided accommodation, food, interpreters, a free visit to a doctor and free medical supplies. These are people who are in poverty now, and part of that owes itself to their treatment in WWII (as well as afterwards by Stalin). Emotional "closure" is a luxury for these people. Same with those in former colonies. Say this example in Kenya where they need psychiatric help, help that costs money.
Yes healing should be sought and provided however best, and the modern compensation culture does not provide it as it is about monetary gain as much as a real emotional closure. The only way to gain real closure is to forgive, I'm sure taht's somewhere in my faith... But the act of the aggressor trying to provide closure is only possible once, it can be repeated, but that is superfluous, if I apologise for stealing from you once I have apologised, I can’t add anymore to it but to restate it, it is on the victim to use that apology to find the closure they are looking for in the time they need to take. To demand anymore after the aggressor has provided the opportunity for closure is a sign of falseness in my eyes, an attempt to take as much as possible when it is not required. Eventually, I imagine rather soon, we shall go back to forgetting nationally about Hillsborough, it shall become a part of our past and we will not expect the government and police forces to pre-fix everything they say with an apology about how they treated people in the situation and it’s aftermath. It will become a part of history to be taught, learned from so that it does not happen again, but not something to be eulogised over time and time again.
quote:Sometimes a crime that isn't a crime or have its terminology can be prosecuted in the future. That was the basis for the Nuremburg Trail(s). Same with the Justice and Truth commission in South Africa. That's just two examples.
I added the emphasis as well, you are applying a modern terminology to an historical event. I cannot go back in time and say the Peasants revolt was a communist action, communism did not exist at the time, it resembles what we constitute as a modern communist revolt, but it was not communist. In the same way I cannot go back in time and apply a modern crime to the acts of the past since such a crime did not exist in the legal framework or mind of the world at that time (in the same way that you cannot be prosecuted for an action you committed last week that became a crime today).
quote:That's your words. I repeat that we inherit situations, such as power and riches through actions of the past. Here in Poland I face very little discrimination as (a) I have white skin and (b) I come from a country seen as "cool". I know people with black skin who get attacked and abused regularly and don't feel safe here in Wrocław. This is a hangover from colonial times (not Polish, of course); European racism was heavily formed via colonial times (of course, there are other contributionary factors) and people are still affected now. I am not going out on my knees or anything like that, but I do become increasigly aware of a colonial mindset that formed my impression of the world, such as through me wanting to speak slower and louder to someone from Kenya.
I wonder how far you expect a modern nation to go to atone for the sins of its ancestors. What will constitute a final repayment of the sin-debt that is owed?
quote:Sorry, that wasn't my intention.
You present your argument as if I have said we should just forget about these things, which is distinctly opposite from what I have said.
quote:The British state that perpetrated crimes is still in existence. Some of those who did crimes are still alive. There is no comparison.
We should remember, teach them to our children and learn from the mistakes of the past, but we do eventually have to say enough is enough, it is an aspect of history, a time now for us to treat it as an historical event and not as something we did yesterday and have only just stopped doing. As I said in a post above, if we take it to its absurd, but logical conclusion, I should expect the Italians as the descendents of the Roman Empire to provide reparations for how they treated my Celtic ancestors, the Scandanavians and the French along the English Channel for much the same. But we don’t, we consign them those events to history.
quote:
In fact there was more to medieval anti-semitism than accusations of "killing God".
quote:Sorry, I had a point in mind, but can't remember what it was now.
I full well know that, but it had an impact on anti-semetism throughout history and is an example to illustrate what I was saying.
quote:In principle, I'm not sure there is any such point. In practice I doubt any area smaller than a city or county would seriously think it a good idea to secede.
Originally posted by aumbry:
Where this argument breaks down is at what point do you say you are too small a unit to be allowed to do this?
quote:From where I sit there's a long way to go yet.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:The Scottish Independance issue is now dead in the water.
Originally posted by Cod:
The UK government have taken legal advice which concurs with this. So, I understand, has the EC. Alex Salmond earlier suggested he had advice to the contrary, but was then forced to admit that he had taken no legal advice at all.
<snipped>
The nationalists have really got this one wrong.
quote:The trouble with these arguments is that try to judge the past on the standards of the present. A reasonable case could be made that the sins of the British Empire were considerably milder than the sins of some other alternative empires. If the British had not colonised these countries and say the Germans or the Belgians had would the outcome have been better? Almost certainly not but the alternative of nobody colonising these countries was never going to happen.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:Oh. Right.
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
You were providing links to examples of national apologies, such links had already been provided and I conceeded the point that they occur.
quote:The impact of the British Empire is still felt. The reasons why countries like Jamaica are a lot poorer are complex, but that it was a British colony is one of them.
The consequences exist, but the negative consequences die down over time, diluted as they fade into antiquity, and eventually fail to have a modern relevant consequence on the people who inhabit those lands now. British Imperialism of India fails to have serious modern repercussions on the people of India (whilst I would say that the positives such as Parlaimentary democracy, infrastructure, education etc. continue to have a very good influence over the population of the sub-continent) and therefore has now stopped having a relevance for us to feel ‘sorry’ about. ( as an aside: if the nations of the Empire felt so strongly about Colonial wrongs I doubt that they would have joined the Commonwealth of Nations under HM in the first place either.)
quote:I've seen Soviet survivors of the concentration camp in Dachau being invited to Dachau, being provided accommodation, food, interpreters, a free visit to a doctor and free medical supplies. These are people who are in poverty now, and part of that owes itself to their treatment in WWII (as well as afterwards by Stalin). Emotional "closure" is a luxury for these people. Same with those in former colonies. Say this example in Kenya where they need psychiatric help, help that costs money.
Yes healing should be sought and provided however best, and the modern compensation culture does not provide it as it is about monetary gain as much as a real emotional closure. The only way to gain real closure is to forgive, I'm sure taht's somewhere in my faith... But the act of the aggressor trying to provide closure is only possible once, it can be repeated, but that is superfluous, if I apologise for stealing from you once I have apologised, I can’t add anymore to it but to restate it, it is on the victim to use that apology to find the closure they are looking for in the time they need to take. To demand anymore after the aggressor has provided the opportunity for closure is a sign of falseness in my eyes, an attempt to take as much as possible when it is not required. Eventually, I imagine rather soon, we shall go back to forgetting nationally about Hillsborough, it shall become a part of our past and we will not expect the government and police forces to pre-fix everything they say with an apology about how they treated people in the situation and it’s aftermath. It will become a part of history to be taught, learned from so that it does not happen again, but not something to be eulogised over time and time again.
It's not the case that once a government apologies and compensation is paid that everything is done and dusted, even if "closure" is found. Effects live on and that requires dealing with. In any case, this is not just a matter for the victims, as well as for the perpetrators. To add to that, we are Brits have been influenced by a colonial mindset. Even people who want to do good can do it out of this mindset (the "poor black children", those who are "less developed"). "Closure" for us involves a lot of work.
quote:Sometimes a crime that isn't a crime or have its terminology can be prosecuted in the future. That was the basis for the Nuremburg Trail(s). Same with the Justice and Truth commission in South Africa. That's just two examples.
I added the emphasis as well, you are applying a modern terminology to an historical event. I cannot go back in time and say the Peasants revolt was a communist action, communism did not exist at the time, it resembles what we constitute as a modern communist revolt, but it was not communist. In the same way I cannot go back in time and apply a modern crime to the acts of the past since such a crime did not exist in the legal framework or mind of the world at that time (in the same way that you cannot be prosecuted for an action you committed last week that became a crime today).
quote:That's your words. I repeat that we inherit situations, such as power and riches through actions of the past. Here in Poland I face very little discrimination as (a) I have white skin and (b) I come from a country seen as "cool". I know people with black skin who get attacked and abused regularly and don't feel safe here in Wrocław. This is a hangover from colonial times (not Polish, of course); European racism was heavily formed via colonial times (of course, there are other contributionary factors) and people are still affected now. I am not going out on my knees or anything like that, but I do become increasigly aware of a colonial mindset that formed my impression of the world, such as through me wanting to speak slower and louder to someone from Kenya.
I wonder how far you expect a modern nation to go to atone for the sins of its ancestors. What will constitute a final repayment of the sin-debt that is owed?
It's an interesting theological point by you, actually. Ideally there would be a "cut-off" point, where "sins were paid". We are not close to this point, though. The British identity (as well as most western European identities) were formed by an European-centric mindset that placed
the others as "less developed".
quote:Sorry, that wasn't my intention.
You present your argument as if I have said we should just forget about these things, which is distinctly opposite from what I have said.
quote:The British state that perpetrated crimes is still in existence. Some of those who did crimes are still alive. There is no comparison.
We should remember, teach them to our children and learn from the mistakes of the past, but we do eventually have to say enough is enough, it is an aspect of history, a time now for us to treat it as an historical event and not as something we did yesterday and have only just stopped doing. As I said in a post above, if we take it to its absurd, but logical conclusion, I should expect the Italians as the descendents of the Roman Empire to provide reparations for how they treated my Celtic ancestors, the Scandanavians and the French along the English Channel for much the same. But we don’t, we consign them those events to history.
quote:
In fact there was more to medieval anti-semitism than accusations of "killing God".quote:Sorry, I had a point in mind, but can't remember what it was now.
I full well know that, but it had an impact on anti-semetism throughout history and is an example to illustrate what I was saying.
quote:
Sometimes a crime that isn't a crime or have its terminology can be prosecuted in the future. That was the basis for the Nuremburg Trail(s). Same with the Justice and Truth commission in South Africa. That's just two examples.
quote:The Scottish government will try to do a deal with Europe beforehand, so that Scotland and England+Wales+bits can both continue the UKs EU membership and treaty obligations on independence.
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:From where I sit there's a long way to go yet.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:The Scottish Independance issue is now dead in the water.
Originally posted by Cod:
The UK government have taken legal advice which concurs with this. So, I understand, has the EC. Alex Salmond earlier suggested he had advice to the contrary, but was then forced to admit that he had taken no legal advice at all.
<snipped>
The nationalists have really got this one wrong.
quote:I have very serious doubts about this.
I believe that a new age of colonialism is coming back with China as the main coloniser first through economic colonisation and eventually the actual physical colonisation. In the overall scheme of things that may not be a bad thing.
quote:That is just the law of the winners and is not relevant. The Nuremberg (not -burg) Trials would obviously never have happened if the Germans had won the war. And if they had then no doubt all sorts of things that are currently not crimes would be so now. You cannot judge the past on the basis of the present anymore than you can judge the present on the basis of the future.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
I repeat:
quote:
Sometimes a crime that isn't a crime or have its terminology can be prosecuted in the future. That was the basis for the Nuremburg Trail(s). Same with the Justice and Truth commission in South Africa. That's just two examples.
quote:No one is saying that an independant Scotland could'nt join the EU.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
My understanding is that the EU apparatus would be OK with Scotland joining as their separation from Wales and England would be through negotiation, unlike the case with Catalonia.
quote:But then why doesn't the SNP equally have the courage of their convictions and urge scots to vote for independance in spite of the EU, after all, the right of self-determination is more important than mere squalid wrangling over a currency isn't it?
Originally posted by ken:
Someone could claim that both a newly independent Scotland and the rest of the Former United Kingdom were new states and so needed to negotiate new treaties.
It would be easier for everyone if all parts of the FUK simply continued as EU members on the basis of the current treaties, sharing their obligations pro-rata according to population.
And if the current UK government just had the confidence of their position, if they actually believed that they could persuade Scots to vote to stay in for their own benefit, , then they'd do everybody a favour and get the EU to allow that second option before the referendum. And once that was cleared up then they could argue their case on its merits instead of threatening Sotland with such things as they have not yet imagined should they dare to try to leave the UK.
quote:No, no, no.
Originally posted by ken:
Someone could claim that both a newly independent Scotland and the rest of the Former United Kingdom were new states and so needed to negotiate new treaties.
quote:That's half-baked. It is like Ipswich Town Council doing a deal with the EU. Both are in essence branches of the British state: the Scottish government is just a bit bigger.
Originally posted by ken:
The Scottish government will try to do a deal with Europe beforehand, so that Scotland and England+Wales+bits can both continue the UKs EU membership and treaty obligations on independence.
quote:Given that it is not really in order for Eurocrats to comment on member states' internal political matters, the EC has been positively outspoken.
IF it is true that this can't be guaranteed, then the cause is lost already.
So far no-one has said anything that commits anyone either way. The quotes from the EU commissioners above (Sepp Blatter or whichever anonymous person has the job this week) don't commit anyone to anyone. They don't say that there cannot be an continuation of the treaties, merely that it isn't automatic, it needs negotiation. But that negotiation can happen before independance, or at lest be started.
quote:Not really, because any such "agreement" would, if it came to fruition, be torpedoed in the courts if that's what the rump-UK government wanted to do.
I would imagine that the Tories are trying as hard as possible behind the scenes to prevent such an agreement in order to torpedo the referendum befiore it happens.
So it really boils down to how friendly the Euroburocrats are to the Tory government. If they are feeling in a good mood about them they will help them out by not talking to Holyrood. If they want to take the snooty Brits down a peg or two they will ralise that stalling is in fct interference in British internal affairs - because it scuppers the referendum process - and so they will sit down in own of the famous smoke-filled rooms. Mostly not very smoky any more.
quote:They could. But they'd be flat wrong.
Originally posted by ken:
Someone could claim that both a newly independent Scotland and the rest of the Former United Kingdom were new states and so needed to negotiate new treaties.
quote:But this isn't about what's easy from whoever's perspective, but legal rights and obligations (or lack of them, in the case of an independent Scotland).
It would be easier for everyone if all parts of the FUK simply continued as EU members on the basis of the current treaties, sharing their obligations pro-rata according to population./
quote:Hassling the Scottish Government into agreeing to a referendum sounds confident to me.
And if the current UK government just had the confidence of their position, if they actually believed that they could persuade Scots to vote to stay in for their own benefit, , then they'd do everybody a favour and get the EU to allow that second option before the referendum. And once that was cleared up then they could argue their case on its merits instead of threatening Sotland with such things as they have not yet imagined should they dare to try to leave the UK.
quote:Except that the break-up of Czechoslovakia preceded the application for membership of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:No, no, no.
Originally posted by ken:
Someone could claim that both a newly independent Scotland and the rest of the Former United Kingdom were new states and so needed to negotiate new treaties.
The precedent of the dissolution of Czechoslovakia shows that would require the UK to agree to that position, an agreement which would not be forthcoming because there is too much for the UK to lose and they have a very big stick to enforce it with (veto power over Scottish UN membership). The secession of Scotland would not be possible as anything other than a secession which leaves the UK carrying on as the sole successor state.
is very attractive...quote:Excellent post.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:No one is saying that an independant Scotland could'nt join the EU.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
My understanding is that the EU apparatus would be OK with Scotland joining as their separation from Wales and England would be through negotiation, unlike the case with Catalonia.
The issue is that the Scottish don't want the Euro, and they would have to take it if they had to apply to join the EU post independence.
and of course the UK will have a veto to prevent Scotland joining anyway, should we choose to use it.
The reason the SNP is desperate for Scotland to REMAIN in the EU post Independance is because then they can keep the Pound under the opt out negotiated by the Major Conservative Goverment of the early 1990's.
The ironies are delicious!
quote:They understand that a nation that doesn't have control over its own currency doesn't have self-determination.
Originally posted by deano:
But then why doesn't the SNP equally have the courage of their convictions and urge scots to vote for independance in spite of the EU, after all, the right of self-determination is more important than mere squalid wrangling over a currency isn't it?
quote:No they don't - they want to leave the UK but continue to be ruled by Brussels. And most of their argument is economic not political; the present devolution settlement has given them all the powers they really want except to go into debt - which would be 'interesting' as I doubt they would get as good a credit rating as the UK given that they would be borrowing in Sterling, which is a foreign currency.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Give them credit where it's due - they want independence, not simply to swap being ruled by London for being ruled by Brussels.
quote:I'm not entirely sure what the SNP want now. Haven't they said that they would retain the pound sterling if they win independence? So whether an independent Scotland joins the Euro or not, Alex Salmond's idea of independence is a country with a non-native currency and a monetary policy decided in a foreign capital.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:They understand that a nation that doesn't have control over its own currency doesn't have self-determination.
Originally posted by deano:
But then why doesn't the SNP equally have the courage of their convictions and urge scots to vote for independence in spite of the EU, after all, the right of self-determination is more important than mere squalid wrangling over a currency isn't it?
Give them credit where it's due - they want independence, not simply to swap being ruled by London for being ruled by Brussels.
quote:It doesn't take account of the needs of (e.g.) Greece as it is, so why would it bother changing things to benefit Scotland?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I suppose if an independent Scotland joined the Euro the Frankfurt would have to take into account the state of the Scottish economy when setting interest rates.
quote:Historically the Chinese kingdom has grown nad shrunk like others, whether through direct action or through the exercise of influence...
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Secondly, China has no history of territorial expansion outside its historical nation even when it had the power to do so. It's the Middle Kingdom - people come to it and give them tribute, rather than it going and governing others.
quote:Quite right. My point was that the ECB should - in theory at least - take into account the state of the economies of all the Eurozone members (though I appreciate that it doesn't in practice).
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It doesn't take account of the needs of (e.g.) Greece as it is, so why would it bother changing things to benefit Scotland?
quote:True, but the difference between the dissolution of Czechoslovakia and a possible secession of Scotland from the UK means we're talking about apples and monkeys.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Except that the break-up of Czechoslovakia preceded the application for membership of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:No, no, no.
Originally posted by ken:
Someone could claim that both a newly independent Scotland and the rest of the Former United Kingdom were new states and so needed to negotiate new treaties.
The precedent of the dissolution of Czechoslovakia shows that would require the UK to agree to that position, an agreement which would not be forthcoming because there is too much for the UK to lose and they have a very big stick to enforce it with (veto power over Scottish UN membership). The secession of Scotland would not be possible as anything other than a secession which leaves the UK carrying on as the sole successor state.
quote:Why would they? The current UK government posturing about EU membership and the Euro is to try to scare Scots away from voting for independence. But if they do so vote then there woudl be no point afterwards in either keeping them out of the EU, or in forcing them to adopt the Euro. So why bother?
Originally posted by Cod:
Not really, because any such "agreement" would, if it came to fruition, be torpedoed in the courts if that's what the rump-UK government wanted to do.
quote:1) It would be the EU forcing them into the Euro. For any new applicant, it is a requirement that they adopt the Euro.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Why would they? The current UK government posturing about EU membership and the Euro is to try to scare Scots away from voting for independence. But if they do so vote then there woudl be no point afterwards in either keeping them out of the EU, or in forcing them to adopt the Euro. So why bother?
Originally posted by Cod:
Not really, because any such "agreement" would, if it came to fruition, be torpedoed in the courts if that's what the rump-UK government wanted to do.
quote:Yes, but does anyone seriously believe that will ever be enforced? If it was there would be no new applicatants in the near future. Of course, they might no change the rules on paper, but if there is a new country joining then they will find a way to make the "transitional arrangements" last as long as anyone wants them. It is in no-ones interest to force the Euro on anyone. The opposite. Most Eurozone governments are probably wishing they had found a way to stop Greece joinging. And some of them woukld want the same for other countries as well.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
1) It would be the EU forcing them into the Euro. For any new applicant, it is a requirement that they adopt the Euro.
quote:For the Spanish government, yes. But not the British government. Or even the rest of the EU. None of the rest of us have anything to lose from an independant Catalunya. Or much to gain from it either. And even Spain would be wounded in the prode rather than the stomach. Maybe the French would worry about Perpignan wanting to shift allegiance. But again, so what? If th3ey want to, let them. Open borders and free trade across them mean there is just much less importance in governments hanging on to every last bit of territory whether or not the people who live there want to be ruled by them. Much easier all round to let them go. When wass the last British government that seriously wanted Ireland to remain part of the UK? Not in our lifetimes. And the EU can make that sort of reordering of boundaries easier, not harder.
2) For the Spaniards, to be able to say to their fisiparous regions that they will be excluded from the EU if they break from Spain, is a powerful weapon in their internal politics.
quote:In what way? If there is a real chance of Scotland being excluded from the EU the deal is off anyway, so the situation is unlikely to arise. And even if it did, the interests of the FUK would be in getting the thing done as quickly and tidily as possible, and not getting bogged doqwn in stupid negotiations about not much at all.
3) For the rump UK government, being able to use EU membership as a negotiating item in the independence discussions that would follow a 'Yes' vote would be very helpful.
quote:I quite like having Airstrip One as part of Oceania.
Originally posted by Angloid:
The thing which frightens me about the eurosceptics is that they don't seem equally americanosceptic. We are already far too dominated by America, culturally as well as economically. Anything which strengthens our ties to our fellow-Europeans should be welcomed. It's not possible for any nation (let alone a small one) to be 'independent' these days. I'd rather we were interdependent with similar nations only a hop away, than dependent on the great Behemoth across the pond.
quote:Spite, I hope.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Why would they? The current UK government posturing about EU membership and the Euro is to try to scare Scots away from voting for independence. But if they do so vote then there woudl be no point afterwards in either keeping them out of the EU, or in forcing them to adopt the Euro. So why bother?
Originally posted by Cod:
Not really, because any such "agreement" would, if it came to fruition, be torpedoed in the courts if that's what the rump-UK government wanted to do.
quote:I see. It may have escaped your attention, but purg. is supposed to be for sensible debate. Or is this another example of your humour?
Because there are plenty of us Englishmen who hate the Scots as much as they hate us!
quote:I'm astonished how many of your posts seem to be about hating one group or another. I wasn't aware of the deep hatred you mention, going in either direction, but maybe I don't have the emotional energy for that sort of thing any more.
there are plenty of us Englishmen who hate the Scots as much as they hate us!
quote:Quite. It shouldn't escape anyone's attention that Scottish independence will only be triggered if a majority of a group comprising less than one tenth of the UK's population, and who live in an area consisting of geographically much less than half of the UK's land area, vote to leave the UK. Simply put, there appears to be no precedent to Scotland being considered a successor state.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
True, but the difference between the dissolution of Czechoslovakia and a possible secession of Scotland from the UK means we're talking about apples and monkeys.
The decision on how the dissolution of the Czechoslovakian federal state (a union of the Czech Socialist Republic and Slovak Socialist Republic) was to precede was mutually agreed upon before it dissolved. The two resultant states presented a joint statement to the UN which outlined that neither was making a claim to be the sole successor state of Czechoslovakia. The dissolution of the USSR was kind of similar, except that the negotiations resulted in an agreement that Russia would be the sole successor state instead of having no successor state (the course the Czechs took).
That's hardly relevant to the UK, because the secession of Scotland would not be met by the UK agreeing to withdraw any claim to being the successor state as both the Czhech Republic and Slovak Republic did. The UK position would undoubtedly be that Scotland was breaking off while the rest of the UK carried on with business as usual.
quote:This sounds like a lack of trust in people to make informed choices about matters related to nationality (which this is largely about, I believe).
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
\\Increasingly it seems to me that the question is so complicated that it will take a massive amount of skill to get it right. In other words, it's the not the sort of thing to be settled by a tool as blunt as a referendum.
quote:Sounds like Euroscepticism-lite to me and certainly not much of an endorsement of The Project.
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Personally, I would like to see as strong ties to Britain as politically possible here, including a return to Sterling parity of the Irish Pound if necessary. All a free floating Irish Pound would lead to would be carpetbagging on a grand scale.
quote:It’s my belief that the major incentive to leave the union for the Scottish people, isn’t to realise their dream of self-determination, of living in an independent, sovereign Scotland, but rather to distance themselves from the English.
Originally posted by aumbry:
Deano is not making sense. Anyone who hated the Scots would do their level best to ensure they remained in the EU. Any sane Scotsman would see forced exit from the EU as the most attractive feature of independence from the UK.
The real difficulty for an independent Scotland is the matter of currency and none of the three alternatives, stay with sterling whilst outside the UK, join the euro or set up a new untested currency seems all that alluring.
quote:Reply in Hell. (But it boils down to FOAD)
Originally posted by deano:
Spite, I hope.
Because there are plenty of us Englishmen who hate the Scots as much as they hate us!
quote:The EU doesn't have anything to do with the open border between the UK and Ireland, which is part of the Common Travel Area (also includes the Crown Dependencies).
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
I am always fascinated about how English Eurosceptics (not British, because Wales/Scotland/Northern Irish aren't as exercised about the EU as they are) completely ignore the fact that they have an open land border with the Republic of Ireland. If the Scottish eventually leave the UK, and I don't believe that they will this time, but will do eventually, the odds are that English voters will support an Out of the EU referendum.
When (not if) that happens, the Republic of Ireland will not follow suit but attempt to get some kind of bilateral agreement with Westminster, otherwise the anamolies of the open border, which was impossible to seal off, even at the height of the Troubles, and the reciprocal citizenship rights of British and Irish citizens in both countries, will have to be dealt with.
quote:Well yes, but amongst a minority. Probably why only a minority support independence.
Originally posted by deano:
I think Anglo-Scottish enmity runs deep. Certainly I could post anecdotes about what quite a few English people think when this subject comes up (overwhelmingly “Good Riddance”), but that isn’t really going to further the debate. Suffice to say that bad feelings exist across both sides of the border.
quote:I have come to realise that I am not competent to make a decision like this (which would have been blindingly obvious to anyone who knows me). Moving on from there, I suspect that the rest of the population is also not competent here.
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:This sounds like a lack of trust in people to make informed choices about matters related to nationality (which this is largely about, I believe).
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
\\Increasingly it seems to me that the question is so complicated that it will take a massive amount of skill to get it right. In other words, it's the not the sort of thing to be settled by a tool as blunt as a referendum.
I share this lack of trust.
quote:More like Europhile-Lite, the relationship with Britain though trumps the one with the EU.
Originally posted by aumbry:
quote:Sounds like Euroscepticism-lite to me and certainly not much of an endorsement of The Project.
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
Personally, I would like to see as strong ties to Britain as politically possible here, including a return to Sterling parity of the Irish Pound if necessary. All a free floating Irish Pound would lead to would be carpetbagging on a grand scale.
As for the Irish middle class considering Farage a laughing stock their own lamentable selection of politicians to represent them (Brian Cowen, Charles Haughey, Bertie Ahern) hardly qualifies them for a prize for political discernment.
Support for withdrawal from the EU stands at 44% in Scotland as opposed to 48% in the whole of the UK so Scotland is not much less eurosceptic than the rest of Britain and like most regions these are larger percentages than those keen on remaining in the EU.
quote:Not really. They are representatives, like a jury. meant to stand up for our interests.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Isn't this the rationale for parliamentary democracy? We elect able (?) people, who have the time to study complex problems in detail, and then make intelligent decisions on our behalf.
quote:To implicate the voters in the process. Like getting new mafia soldiers to kill someone.
In which case, what is the point of having a referendum?
quote:That people are talking about a referendum shows that either the representative process has either failed or that it has succeeded beyond the point they can comprehend. If the representatives had been just delegates who made the decision they were told to make (like the pledged delegates at a US party conference) then there would be no need for talking about referendums - but having delegates in government is not really any different to referenda anyway.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Not really. They are representatives, like a jury. meant to stand up for our interests.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Isn't this the rationale for parliamentary democracy? We elect able (?) people, who have the time to study complex problems in detail, and then make intelligent decisions on our behalf.
quote:Bullshit, I would believe that if there was some way of ensuring people were properly informed before voting (removing gang colours from ballot papers would be a good start) and they had some way of being held accountable for their vote. As it is, the only form of accountability for voters is if policies impact their quality of life or if the government decides to punish a whole electoral division for voting for the opposition (perhaps by cancelling a much-needed infrastructure project).
Originally posted by ken:
quote:To implicate the voters in the process. Like getting new mafia soldiers to kill someone.
In which case, what is the point of having a referendum?
quote:The relevance of referendums in this thread is to whether there should be one on the topic of the UK's membership of the EU, not Scottish secession. I'm not sure why anybody thinks it matters because a referendum in the UK carries as much authority as the letters to the editor in the local rag - they are merely non-binding advisory plebiscites to which the parliament does not need pay a scrap of attention.
Originally posted by ken:
That's nonsense cheeseburger. Referendums are very common all over the world for major constitutional chanbes, and there are good reasons for it. You know perfectly well that if the government decided to make Scotland independent by an normal act of Parliament, without some out-of-the-ordinary process to gain the approval of the people of Scotland, there would be hell to pay.
