Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Owlbread]

I suspect it's a lot less formal than we've been led to believe, given Sweden's lucky break. I'd like to find out more about that. Generally though there isn't really any issue with Scotland keeping the pound (as is the current plan) when we become independent because the Bank of England is not a national institution, rather it is independent of the British government. It is technically the "Bank of Britain", though without any real connection to government. We have as much of a right to use the pound as England or Wales or any other province.

Why though would it be impossible for Scotland to negotiate some kind of opt out?

[XXSockXX]

Why though would it be impossible for Scotland to negotiate some kind of opt out?

The only legal opt-outs, by the UK and Denmark, predate the adoption of the common currency.  A lot of concessions were made to the notoriously EU-sceptic UK in the 90s, to get them to join. Denmark got the Edinburgh Agreement, to get them to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. New members are not allowed to negotiate new conditions, since they have to ratify the Maastricht Treaty to join in the first place.

It looks like Sweden intentionally avoids meeting the criteria by refusing to join ERM II. This is tolerated by the ECB, but will not be tolerated for newer Union members. Technically Sweden will have to join at some point.

[10ebbor10]

The only way to get an opt-out is to enter a chance in what amounts to the constitution of the European union. Last time we changed that, negotiations took 10 years. I'm afraid Scotland doesn't have political power, (having half the population of Belgium), economical or historical power to press for it's own exception.

[Owlbread]

The only way to get an opt-out is to enter a chance in what amounts to the constitution of the European union. Last time we changed that, negotiations took 10 years. I'm afraid Scotland doesn't have political power, (having half the population of Belgium), economical or historical power to press for it's own exception.

What do you mean by political, economic and historical power? Please define those terms.

Also, a rather important event is taking place in Belgium as we speak, but I will allow our many Belgian users to enlighten us, rather than reporting on the subject myself.

Fake edit:

Seeing as nobody is responding yet, I will just say - The king is abdicating.

Also, in Scotland, we are scrapping the right to buy council houses. I think it's a good thing - back in the olden days people did suffer under the poor management of their homes by the local councils (e.g. council contractors who'd do a worse job than private ones) and it did give a lot of families a fresh start, the problem was Mrs. Thatcher didn't try to build more houses to replace the ones that were being lost in the right to buy scheme. Housing prices soared enormously, now we're suffering from that. In Scotland our worsening housing shortages need to be addressed. It's also another little example of how Scotland is going in a very different direction from England.

[10ebbor10]

Political power: Scotland would have less than 10 seats (out of 700 something) in the EU's parliament
Economical: Simple. You're not really a major trading partner, or anything.
Historical: You weren't there in the beginning to get away with inserting exceptions for yourself.

Also, people sleep, you know.

And yeah, Albert's abdicating on the 21^ste of July. To be replaced by Philip. (Belgian monarchy operates via male succession only.) Not that spectacular, abdicating happened before. They're doing it this year because the next has major elections for pretty much every electoral level, and they're expecting the NVA (separtistic party, and not that happy with the King) to win majorly. (They did in the previous elections, but thanks to coalitions don't participate in the federal government.)

[scriver]

What I don't understand is that if you're going through all this trouble to get away from London, why would you want to move your overlords to Brussels? They're even further away and gives even less of a damn about you than the UK.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What I don't understand is how they've gone all this time without switching to Agnatic-Cognatic Elective. Though least it isn't Gavelkind.

[XXSockXX]

What I don't understand is how they've gone all this time without switching to Agnatic-Cognatic Elective. Though least it isn't Gavelkind.

Crown Authority is too low I guess. Or they can't take the relations hit with the vassals.

Historical: You weren't there in the beginning to get away with inserting exceptions for yourself.

That's the most important point. The time to get major concessions was before Maastricht '92. Getting the UK in was worth some exceptions, but I don't see any potential new member getting any.

What I don't understand is that if you're going through all this trouble to get away from London, why would you want to move your overlords to Brussels? They're even further away and gives even less of a damn about you than the UK.

Technically Brussels is their overlord already, as the UK is a member. Also the EU isn't as tight a union as the UK, to the point even that it makes no sense to compare them.

[scriver]

Who cares how supposedly "close" the union is on paper? It's yet another group who doesn't represent you telling you what you can and can't do and what laws you can or can't pass. Only difference is that when it comes to the EU, you don't, in practice, even have any say at all in who gets to lord over you, because the tiny group of people you actually get to put there amounts to a drop in the ocean. Isn't that exactly the biggest issue the Scottish separation movement have with the UK? So why join the EU and make it worse?

(Also, as one of the biggest voices in the EU, joining it would effectively mean bowing to UK superiority. Only now they don't even have to pretend to care about you any longer.)

[10ebbor10]

The UK only has 73 parliament members, of which they would lose 10 to Scotland.

[XXSockXX]

Who cares how supposedly "close" the union is on paper? It's yet another group who doesn't represent you telling you what you can and can't do and what laws you can or can't pass. Only difference is that when it comes to the EU, you don't, in practice, even have any say at all in who gets to lord over you, because the tiny group of people you actually get to put there amounts to a drop in the ocean. Isn't that exactly the biggest issue the Scottish separation movement have with the UK? So why join the EU and make it worse?

(Also, as one of the biggest voices in the EU, joining it would effectively mean bowing to UK superiority. Only now they don't even have to pretend to care about you any longer.)

Well, I'm personnally unhappy with the state of EU organisation and I'm not a big advocate of Scottish independence (sorry Owlbread, don't shoot me), but clearly Scotland would have a lot more self-determination as an independent state with EU membership than as a part of another country.

You seem to have a misconception about how influential the EU is. Sure it could be less influential for my taste and/or more democratic, but it isn't as bad as you seem to think. It's just a loose federation and it's going to remain that way for a long time. I doubt it will become similar to a federal country in my lifetime.

Also don't overestimate the UK's influence within the EU. That would also shrink a bit with an independent Scotland.

[Sheb]

The UK traditionally have quite a lot of influence in the EU, leading a group of mostly Eastern European pro-market countries. Just because Cameron shot himself in the foot again and again doesn't mean another leader couldn't get the UK to have more influence again.

Also, Belgium is actually full cognatic primogeniture now. Was changed a few years ago, and now the next in line is Princess Elizabeth of Belgium.

By the way, this totally confirm my theory that Belgium, as a country, is just a cheap copy of the Netherlands. They legalized cannabis? We do some weird stuff where you can own weed, but not buy it or sell it. They were the first country in the world to legalize gay marriage, and we only made seconds.

Now, their monarch abdicated, so we had to do the same thing, except our parties will suck and no one really seems to give a damn.

[XXSockXX]

The UK traditionally have quite a lot of influence in the EU, leading a group of mostly Eastern European pro-market countries. Just because Cameron shot himself in the foot again and again doesn't mean another leader couldn't get the UK to have more influence again.

Of course. But the question was how much influence the UK would have over an independent Scotland within the EU. And my guess is: not that much.

Does the transition on the Belgian throne have any political impact? I sometimes read things like "the monarchy is the only political institution that keeps Belgium together". I guess that is an overstatement, but symbolic institutions can have a certain power.

[Sheb]

Phillipe is disliked by the Flemish-speaking part I've heard (apparently his Dutch sucks), which could boost the NVA (nationalist) polling somewhat.

The King is also moderately useful when politicians have trouble forming a governing coalition, as they have to appoint people to try to stitch the coalition together. Having a noob on the throne may cause problems, since recently our politicians are terribad at making coalitions (Took 541 days for the last, and 196 for the one before that. Needless to say, we all felt stupid when the UK pulled a coalition in 3 days)

[Dutchling]

I thought the Belgian monarchy was Flemish o.O?

By the way, this totally confirm my theory that Belgium, as a country, is just a cheap copy of the Netherlands. They legalized cannabis? We do some weird stuff where you can own weed, but not buy it or sell it.

Most of the cannabis industry is still "illegal" here though. Coffeeshops are only allowed to sell weed, not to buy it