NYboro
Well-known member
I'd be surprised if you could find any differences.I don't think the staunchest pro EU advocate would argue that the EU is less bureaucratic than the UK.
But I have feeling someone will tell me otherwise
I'd be surprised if you could find any differences.I don't think the staunchest pro EU advocate would argue that the EU is less bureaucratic than the UK.
But I have feeling someone will tell me otherwise
From everything I've seen that's being proposed in terms of replacement commercial regulations, the 'UK regs' are going to make the EU regs (we're used to being governed by) look light touch.I'd be surprised if you could find any differences.
"If they continue using Sterling, their main bank is the Bank of England. How can that be independence if a foreign bank is setting monetary policy?"The SNP have pulled a blinder convincing people Scotland is run by the Tories. Everything except defence is organised, ran and decisions made in Edinburgh. Any policy mess or government failure is the SNP, but they dodge critics by blaming Westminster.
If another referendum is held, I just don't see how the SNP can solve the biggest issue last time; currency. If they continue using Sterling, their main bank is the Bank of England. How can that be independence if a foreign bank is setting monetary policy?
In addition, the SNP creating a narrative that Scottish Oil would create some utopia. That was based on a long gone price of Brent at approximately $90.
Plenty of countries use the US dollar as their de facto currency. Doesn't mean they slavishly follow US monetary policy."If they continue using Sterling, their main bank is the Bank of England. How can that be independence if a foreign bank is setting monetary policy?"
You are describing the situation for all Eurozone members. Joining the Euro means the end of independence.
That's a good point and I did think of that, but Sterling/BOE was an argument the SNP lost badly last time.Plenty of countries use the US dollar as their de facto currency. Doesn't mean they slavishly follow US monetary policy.
If they genuinely use the US dollar as their de facto currency then they can no more run monetary policy independent of the Fed than Scotland can run monetary policy independent of the Bank of England.Plenty of countries use the US dollar as their de facto currency. Doesn't mean they slavishly follow US monetary policy.
Hence the UK already had the best of both worlds. Out of the EURO and Schengen but part of the biggest economic area in the world."If they continue using Sterling, their main bank is the Bank of England. How can that be independence if a foreign bank is setting monetary policy?"
You are describing the situation for all Eurozone members. Joining the Euro means the end of independence.
The Irish government put the Treaty of Lisbon before the Irish people. The Irish people rejected it. The Irish government asked their MPs to find out why it was rejected. The Irish MPs duly asked their constituents the question. The constituents told their MPs what they wanted. The MPs went back to the Irish government with the feedback. The Irish government then went back to the EU and told them what the Irish people had said. The EU amended the Lisbon treaty to reflect the views of the Irish people. T Irish government then put the amended proposed treaty to their people. The people accepted the amendments and voted for the new treaty.
Ireland is a sovereign nation and exercised their sovereignty in this instance. That is something any EU memberhas a right to do.
When the Lisbon treaty was proposed the then British PM (Major?) , when pressed, refused point blank to have a referedum. That's it in a nutshell.
So you agree it's a fact that the EU ploughed on with a version of the constitution despite it being rejected by voters and that only the Irish got to have a vote on Lisbon (my main points to Lefty). In your previous post you stated the the EU made the Irish vote again, then in your last post you stated that the Irish only voted again because of their constitution . There seems to be a contradiction there. Anyway.................................So you agree it's a fact that the EU ploughed on with a version of the constitution despite it being rejected by voters and that only the Irish got to have a vote on Lisbon (my main points to Lefty).
The Irish people didn't get to vote on Lisbon due to the benevolence of their government it was because of their constitution, they had no choice. I would hazard a guess that if it hadn't been forced on them the Irish government would have denied their electorate a vote just like the rest. The French and the Dutch rejected the EU constitution and opinion polls in this country indicated we would so why would the politicians risk asking the people about Lisbon.
The text of the Lisbon treaty was never changed the Irish just got a few guarantees, a protocol on tax and they got to keep their commissioner.
The biggest change in reasons for voting yes from the first Lisbon referendum to the second had nothing to do with the above but was the economy which saw a jump from 3% thinking it was important to 20% . Not a surprise really considering their economy was collapsing by 2009 & the Irish government used a version of project fear.
Gordon Brown was prime minister at the time the Lisbon treaty was ratified. It was his decision not to hold a referendum & I would guess that was because he was pretty sure he would loose it.
In your previous post you stated the the EU made the Irish vote again, then in your last post you stated that the Irish only voted again because of their constitution . There seems to be a contradiction there.
The revisions were about guaranteeing neutrality, tax laws, family laws, labour and social guarantees. These are the parts that the Irish people had concerns about and wanted concessions enshrined in law before they voted for the treaty. These were the parts that the EU then guaranteed and placed it bindingly within the treaty before sending the treaty back to Dublin for ratification.
You are correct about it being part of the Constitution ( oh to have one of those) and you are also correct about Brown being PM.
I'll certainly agree with that! We'll never get that deal again, I'm afraid. If we rejoin at some future date it will be on worse terms.Hence the UK already had the best of both worlds. Out of the EURO and Schengen but part of the biggest economic area in the world.
Whereas Scotland will all be sweetness and light I take itvindictive, insulting and combative in their approach.
"Don't let the facts get in the way" - to quote youDifferent personal circumstances?
At least there is honesty in your conclusion."If they continue using Sterling, their main bank is the Bank of England. How can that be independence if a foreign bank is setting monetary policy?"
You are describing the situation for all Eurozone members. Joining the Euro means the end of independence.
I don't think the staunchest pro EU advocate would argue that the EU is less bureaucratic than the UK.
But I have feeling someone will tell me otherwise