Who's Been Running The United States?
News1 min ago
No Diff-Dep-Ref2 ...........
112 Answers
https:/
Better call Mel Gibson!
Better call Mel Gibson!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Oops, re. "...universal qualifier for the acquisition of national status ....": I forgot about the UK which specifically does not accept birth in the UK as an automatic qualification. But then, unlike countries which set a balance between duties and rights, the UK also specifically does not bother with such "refinement" - you can be bound to pay taxes while being excluded from universal health care. The right to healthcare according to need is NOT free to all taxpayers at the point of demand. Just another myth about the (not) world's best health service in the world's best country.
If you can face it, here's something from the Morning Star of yesterday;
https:/
https:/
//The UK as a whole voted to leave the EU but Scotland did not.
Why is that not reason enough to allow a second vote? Do you not think Scotland being forced out the EU will not add to the turmoil?//
I have it on good authority that Acacia Avenue, round the corner from me, also voted to remain. Unfortunately for them, they are part of the UK as well. Scotland is not being forced out of the EU any more than Acacia Avenue is. The UK is leaving of its own volition and Scotland is part of the UK. The turmoil that ensued following the referendum was caused by a section of both Parliament and the wider population refusing to accept the result and doing all they could to reverse it. Had that section of the country simply accepted the result and used their best endeavours to ensure it was implemented as far as possible to the UK’s advantage, much less turmoil would have resulted. Scotland seeking independence (and continued membership of the EU) will simply reignite that turmoil.
//"have a day off they'll demand it as a condition of entry and that'll be least of your worries"
Where is the evidence for that?//
They won’t have to demand it. It is written into the Lisbon Treaty. Here’s a passage from the EU’s official website (www.ec.europa.eu):
”All EU Member States, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. To do this they must meet certain conditions known as 'convergence criteria'.
An accession country that plans to join the Union must align many aspects of its society – social, economic and political – with those of EU Member States. Much of this alignment is aimed at ensuring that an accession country can operate successfully within the Union’s single market for goods, services, capital and labour – accession is a process of integration. Adopting the euro and joining the euro area takes integration a step further – it is a process of much closer economic integration with the other euro area Member States. Adopting the euro also demands extensive preparations. In particular, it requires economic and legal convergence.”
The legal basis for this is here. from Part One of the Lisbon Treaty (Treaty on European Union):
//3.4. The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.//
There are no “opt outs” for any accession nations. They must comply with the convergence principles outlined above. Article 140 of the Lisbon Treaty provides for regular “health checks” on member states to ensure they comply with the conditions of membership of the single currency (if they are already using it) or to ensure they are making progress with their “convergence” if they are not. An independent Scotland will be no exception this this and since its economic state at the moment is nowhere near robust enough for euro membership, it would face some considerable changes to achieve it. The population of Scotland has, no doubt, been made fully aware of this by Ms Sturgeon.
Why is that not reason enough to allow a second vote? Do you not think Scotland being forced out the EU will not add to the turmoil?//
I have it on good authority that Acacia Avenue, round the corner from me, also voted to remain. Unfortunately for them, they are part of the UK as well. Scotland is not being forced out of the EU any more than Acacia Avenue is. The UK is leaving of its own volition and Scotland is part of the UK. The turmoil that ensued following the referendum was caused by a section of both Parliament and the wider population refusing to accept the result and doing all they could to reverse it. Had that section of the country simply accepted the result and used their best endeavours to ensure it was implemented as far as possible to the UK’s advantage, much less turmoil would have resulted. Scotland seeking independence (and continued membership of the EU) will simply reignite that turmoil.
//"have a day off they'll demand it as a condition of entry and that'll be least of your worries"
Where is the evidence for that?//
They won’t have to demand it. It is written into the Lisbon Treaty. Here’s a passage from the EU’s official website (www.ec.europa.eu):
”All EU Member States, except Denmark and the United Kingdom, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. To do this they must meet certain conditions known as 'convergence criteria'.
An accession country that plans to join the Union must align many aspects of its society – social, economic and political – with those of EU Member States. Much of this alignment is aimed at ensuring that an accession country can operate successfully within the Union’s single market for goods, services, capital and labour – accession is a process of integration. Adopting the euro and joining the euro area takes integration a step further – it is a process of much closer economic integration with the other euro area Member States. Adopting the euro also demands extensive preparations. In particular, it requires economic and legal convergence.”
The legal basis for this is here. from Part One of the Lisbon Treaty (Treaty on European Union):
//3.4. The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.//
There are no “opt outs” for any accession nations. They must comply with the convergence principles outlined above. Article 140 of the Lisbon Treaty provides for regular “health checks” on member states to ensure they comply with the conditions of membership of the single currency (if they are already using it) or to ensure they are making progress with their “convergence” if they are not. An independent Scotland will be no exception this this and since its economic state at the moment is nowhere near robust enough for euro membership, it would face some considerable changes to achieve it. The population of Scotland has, no doubt, been made fully aware of this by Ms Sturgeon.
Interesting that many above think that Scots who have forsaken their hoime nation should also get the vote. I'll make 2 points:
1) Generally I do not think that people who do not live in a country should not have a say.
2) not withstanding 1) I have never met a Scot outside of Scotland that thinks different dependence is a good idea.
So the diff dep anti English brigade would not want it anyway.
1) Generally I do not think that people who do not live in a country should not have a say.
2) not withstanding 1) I have never met a Scot outside of Scotland that thinks different dependence is a good idea.
So the diff dep anti English brigade would not want it anyway.
//NJ, which countries do you consider not to be 'accession' nations?//
At present there are five official candidate nations to join the EU (Albania, the Republic of North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey). So technically I would say that every other country apart from those and the 28 current members are not accession nations.
//Also, slightly bigger, London - population 9 million, GDP £700B - voted to remain.//
Indeed. And I don’t see signs of any vigorous campaign for London to gain its independence and apply to join the EU.
//NJ, good try but Sweden has no opt-out from the Euro yet they joined in 1995 and are not using the Euro.//
Yes I know. Sweden has deliberately avoided joining the ERM, which it must do for two years before it can consider adopting the euro. It considers that joining the ERM is voluntary. Sweden is still obliged to adopt the euro when it has met the convergence requirements and Swedish politicians, in the main, are keen for the country to do so. One of two things will happen: either the Swedes will join of their own volition or the EU (if it survives long enough to see its other major problems put to bed) will finally tire of their errant member and force the issue. Either way, there is no way that an independent Scotland will be granted an opt-out from adopting the euro should they apply to join the EU (which I thought was the point under debate).
//None of us has left our home nation, which is the U.K.//
Absolutely spot-on.
At present there are five official candidate nations to join the EU (Albania, the Republic of North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey). So technically I would say that every other country apart from those and the 28 current members are not accession nations.
//Also, slightly bigger, London - population 9 million, GDP £700B - voted to remain.//
Indeed. And I don’t see signs of any vigorous campaign for London to gain its independence and apply to join the EU.
//NJ, good try but Sweden has no opt-out from the Euro yet they joined in 1995 and are not using the Euro.//
Yes I know. Sweden has deliberately avoided joining the ERM, which it must do for two years before it can consider adopting the euro. It considers that joining the ERM is voluntary. Sweden is still obliged to adopt the euro when it has met the convergence requirements and Swedish politicians, in the main, are keen for the country to do so. One of two things will happen: either the Swedes will join of their own volition or the EU (if it survives long enough to see its other major problems put to bed) will finally tire of their errant member and force the issue. Either way, there is no way that an independent Scotland will be granted an opt-out from adopting the euro should they apply to join the EU (which I thought was the point under debate).
//None of us has left our home nation, which is the U.K.//
Absolutely spot-on.
Still nary a shred of evidence from anyone that Mr Salmond or Ms Sturgeon ever "promised" they would not raise the matter of another Scottish Independence Referendum for 35 years or so (generation) or 70 years or so (lifetime).
Consequently, it seems to have been pretty-well shown here that Boris Johnson was just "making it up" when he accused them of doing so. (I'm trying to be polite by avoiding the 'L-word', though I'm not really sure why, given that that, too, has been adequately evidenced in connection with the man!)
Consequently, it seems to have been pretty-well shown here that Boris Johnson was just "making it up" when he accused them of doing so. (I'm trying to be polite by avoiding the 'L-word', though I'm not really sure why, given that that, too, has been adequately evidenced in connection with the man!)
I note that wishing the EU ill fortune frames some of the comments on here. That aside, I get the impression in this thread and also previously that, as a currency, some deem the Euro unsuitable for adoption by any country, not least an independent Scotland. If this impression is correct, can someone on here explain what is undesirable (bad) about the Euro as a currency compared with, say, the Pound ?
