Leaving the EU
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
I don't think so, I think that was just a UK politician's scare story to get them to stay in the UK.
Greenland was a country possessed by Denmark and both together in the EU. In 1979 Greenland was granted home rule by Denmark, but stayed within the EU. In 1985 Greenland voted to leave the EU and then did so.
I think this shows that individual countries within unions or leaving unions can act independently on whether they stay in or leave the EU, without the EU getting stroppy about it. In any case, the EU have made it clear they wouldn't want to lose any member so would hardly be likely to force anyone out.
.
Time for a reprint?
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm
Voted no back then and will again this time.
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm
Voted no back then and will again this time.
I'm willing to bet that if the EU found a way of keeping Scotland in the EU, rather than it having to apply for membership in it's own right, they would HAVE to adopt the Euro.
Not sure the Scots could be persuaded to join the Euro in it's current state
Not sure the Scots could be persuaded to join the Euro in it's current state
And I'm equally sure that is wrong and another political scare story from the referendum debate. Having existing membership they would not have to join the euro. That is the rule for new members. After all, it wouldn't be Scotland changing it's EU status, it would be the English led UK leaving the EU.
In any case, to adopt the euro it's necessary to meet a set of finacial criteria requirements, and Scotland could easily manipulate it's currency status to avoid that.
And Greenland didn't have to adopt the euro when it gained home rule from Denmark but stayed in the EU.
.
Me - I'm undecided.
The main reason is that EU today is not what was signed up for, this phrase from the EU, quote "The EU budget doesn't aim to redistribute wealth, but rather to focus on the needs of all Europeans as a whole", I see as complete rubbish because redistribution is exactly what has happened.
Pretty much all countries that joined after year 2000 take out of the EU far more than they contribute according to figures available in 2013, and are subsidised by existing countries France, Germany Netherland, UK etc. (except spain) to me that was not the original principal of the EU.
Secondly, I don't want any immigration figures forced on the UK, we are a tiny island and already have a population area percentage greater than most other EU countries, our own population growth over the next 20 to 30 years just won't support a large influx of people.
Anyway those my two areas of concerns about the EU.
The main reason is that EU today is not what was signed up for, this phrase from the EU, quote "The EU budget doesn't aim to redistribute wealth, but rather to focus on the needs of all Europeans as a whole", I see as complete rubbish because redistribution is exactly what has happened.
Pretty much all countries that joined after year 2000 take out of the EU far more than they contribute according to figures available in 2013, and are subsidised by existing countries France, Germany Netherland, UK etc. (except spain) to me that was not the original principal of the EU.
Secondly, I don't want any immigration figures forced on the UK, we are a tiny island and already have a population area percentage greater than most other EU countries, our own population growth over the next 20 to 30 years just won't support a large influx of people.
Anyway those my two areas of concerns about the EU.
But the rules now are that every new entrant would have to join the euro so it would be entirely dependent on whether Scotland will be deemed to be a new entrant or not. I just can't see Germany and France letting them keep sterling when the opportunity will be there for them to enforce the euro
It could anyway be argued by Westminster that Scotland have no right to the British pound of they are no longer part of Britain (that's just a bit of a tease, bit stranger things have happened!)
I think the dominant factor is that the the EU will not drive anyone out. With their ambitions for expansion they won't want to do that so I'm sure would not make an issue of an essentially petty matter.
It's so easy for them to allow Scotland to continue with it's current status that I think it's likely they'd take that option.
.
Policies, that's why. The Scots have long been unhappy with certain UK policies but broadly agree with the EU's policies and ambitions and see themselves as better placed to succeed as an independent and co-operative part of the EU.
.
From the five point aims of the EU:
- To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.
.
It's not in the least amazing really. Even in England and Wales, there are substantial numbers of both politicians and people generally who would prefer not to be ruled by the Westminster elite. To imagine that British people are ruled by people in Brussels is just the typical rhetoric and jingoism disseminated by the Murdoch media arm of the tory party.
The present younger generation of the UK knows nothing of socialist government as Britain hasn't had a socialist government for almost 40 years. Since 1979, unchecked capitalism has been allowed to reign free, the result of which in Britain can be measured against Germany over the same period. Anyone who actually believes that the UK can exit the EU and re-discover the country we knew in the early post-war years is simply deluded.
For better or worse, the world has moved on since we signed up for membership of the common market as our press described it to us. Things change inevitably and many countries have done very well as a direct result of their EU membership. Our problem is that we have never fully embraced the principles and we have flatly refused to switch our currency to the Euro.
It does rather trouble me that so many people seem to imagine that our lives will be improved in some way by exiting the EU but perhaps I'm missing something.
Tom
I appreciate what you're saying and I am not sure what the right way to go is but I don't think that the Euro has been a great success. So are we just swapping the Westminster elite for the Brussels elite. My view is that the people who are voted in should be the ones responsible for running the country otherwise what is the point of having more than six hundred of them lurking in parliament. As for the press.We have to take what they say with a pinch of salt but that also applies to the left wing press and the BBC. As regards Scotland not liking the policies of Westminster, they don't seem to do too badly, having enough resources to provide many things for free that have to be paid for in England.
But that's come about since they got their own parliament and started making their own decisions about how the money should be distributed.
There can be no better illustration of the respective priorities than their refusal to accept having nuclear missile submarines and the UK parliament's determination to spend £40 billions on renewing them.
.
It may also be something to do with the amount of money they get through the Barnet formula. So are you saying the we should not have the ability to defend ourselves. In an ideal world there would be no nuclear weapons but that is not the case. Only this week North Korea are saying they have gone nuclear. I know that's not forced to be true, but it highlights possible dangers
Yes, the Barnet formula has always been unfair and adds to their gain from making their own decisions.
As for nuclear weapons, most of the world's countries including bigger ones than us manage without and have no desire to have them, so why should we take it upon ourselves to have them. Couldn't it be more due our long record of attacking others prompting the desire to continue in that warlike vein?
Having nuclear weapons increases the risks to us, since any larger opposing country with them will be certain to take us out first while ignoring the surrounding non-nuclear nations who are no threat to them.
.
I very much agree, but that's entirely our own fault. As I remarked above, our liking for attacking others in a major cause of that hatred. From the crusades through to Afghanistan, we have a very long history of violent interference on others lives and affairs.
We don't have to continue in that way, and shouldn't. We can take ourselves off target lists with nothing more than a simple statement, as Spain proved most recently.
.
.
Last edited:
When we joined the eu,the harmonisation of taxes sounded great,all of the other countries paid far less taxes on,alchohol petrol and cigarettes what was not to like,but those taxes never changed much,and we were suckered in,the only people who benefitted were the rich,taking advantage of low pay foreign labour,to drive down wages of employees,
Could not agree more. I can't understand why we have to get involved in everything.Its as if we still think we have an empire and a responsibility to police the world