mjw47 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 [quote=L00b; Medium Britain, then? We need to be careful here, as I understand it the description Grande Bretagne was given us by the French to distinguish us from Petite Bretagne or Brittany as we know it. How about Britain Lite? That would emphasize how we had separated from the 'deep fried mars bar', 'pint of heavy and a chaser' Jocks. Thanks for the explanation above, think I understand it . Basically, providing the document terms refer to the UK only, then as we remain in whats left of the UK no need to renegotiate. Obviously if there is any specific reference to Scotland that may change but I don't see why there would be such a reference unless there was some form of inventory clause which is doubtful. So whether Farage likes it or not we're still in. ---------- Post added 17-02-2014 at 16:58 ---------- Politically - no. Culturally, yes, but as a political entity, the UK will still exist with the same head of state, laws, and everything else which goes to define a country. If an earthquake was to cause Scotland to sink into the ocean, would that redefine the UK? Don't think we are going to miss the 'culture' too much. Given the state of play with the floods down south we may be finding out quite soon whether or not we need to redefine ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Well done Barosso for demonstrating again just how rotten and anti-democratic the EU is. It's one of life's great paradoxes that those most obsessed with the EU know the least about it. States that wish to become EU members have to be accepted by existing members and MEPs. In other words nation states and their directly elected MEPs decide, not the Commission which is only consulted. Barrosso was only alluding to Spain possibly vetoing secessionist nations in order to frighten off Catalonia from going independent and trying to stay in the EU. Spain doesn't want a precedent and so it would be a nation state that is being rotten and anti-democratic. "The candidate state informs the European Parliament and national parliaments of the Member States of their intention to accede to the EU. The Council must agree unanimously on accession, after consulting the Commission and receiving assent by qualified majority of the European Parliament." http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/member_states_accession_en.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Salmond will have already considered whether Scotland will have it's own currency..... I bet he hasn't. I think it's far more likely that he assumed he'd get the pound to tide him over until he decided on whether to go for the euro or not. He's making an awful lot of rattle for someone with a plan B. He needs to ask the heads of Spain, Germany etc what the chances are of them letting him join the EU gang. I'm staggered he hasn't had a conversation with barroso yet rather than barroso dodging round the question in an interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Tray Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 It's one of life's great paradoxes that those most obsessed with the EU know the least about it. # Are Parradocs boots that parrots wear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I bet he hasn't. I think it's far more likely that he assumed he'd get the pound to tide him over until he decided on whether to go for the euro or not. He's making an awful lot of rattle for someone with a plan B. He needs to ask the heads of Spain, Germany etc what the chances are of them letting him join the EU gang. I'm staggered he hasn't had a conversation with barroso yet rather than barroso dodging round the question in an interview. He absolutely will have considered it. I have no doubts about that. Give him the chance to walk away from the debts and you think he won't take it? He'll do it and make it look like Osborne's & Balls' fault. Salmond is the most cunning and wily politician in the UK - nobody else could have pushed things as far as he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 He absolutely will have considered it. I have no doubts about that. Give him the chance to walk away from the debts and you think he won't take it? He'll do it and make it look like Osborne's & Balls' fault. Salmond is the most cunning and wily politician in the UK - nobody else could have pushed things as far as he has. If an independent Scotland walk away from their debts I doubt the financial community will look very kindly on them in the future when they're being asked to fund our friends North of the border... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 This is totally untrue. The Channel Islands are not in the EU and neither is the Isle of Man. They never have been. Neither are they part of the United Kingdom. They are self-governing British Crown Dependencies. That's right those places are not part of the UK. The people there are full British citizens though, and by extension EU citizens too although they don't necessarily have freedom of movement (working, living) within the EU - their freedom of movement is dependent on having somne connection with the UK. This is a different situation than for Scottish people who as UK citizens have full freedom of movement in the EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 If Scotland vote for independence and assuming they aren't allowed into the EU will Scottish people working in the UK have to apply for visas to be working here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 It's one of life's great paradoxes that those most obsessed with the EU know the least about it. States that wish to become EU members have to be accepted by existing members and MEPs. In other words nation states and their directly elected MEPs decide, not the Commission which is only consulted. Barrosso was only alluding to Spain possibly vetoing secessionist nations in order to frighten off Catalonia from going independent and trying to stay in the EU. Spain doesn't want a precedent and so it would be a nation state that is being rotten and anti-democratic. "The candidate state informs the European Parliament and national parliaments of the Member States of their intention to accede to the EU. The Council must agree unanimously on accession, after consulting the Commission and receiving assent by qualified majority of the European Parliament." http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/member_states_accession_en.htm So the President of the European Commission is interfering in Spanish domestic issues and also trying to head off potential independence bids from the Catalans. What business is it his to interfere in such things as European Commission President, trying to exert influence over a nation state's domestic issues? Like I say, rotten and anti-democratic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 If Scotland vote for independence and assuming they aren't allowed into the EU will Scottish people working in the UK have to apply for visas to be working here? It's very unlikely they wouldn't be part of the CTA we share between the UK and Ireland. For a start I'm not sure either country would want to fund a guarded border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.