The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

Listening to PMQ's - Charlie Kennedy & Dave conspiring to repeat the lie that Juncker has stated it would be at least 5 years before Scotland could join EU.

Desperate stuff.

[eFestivals]

I'm afraid the only nuance I can see is you trying to have your cake & eat it.

Says Scotland that is planning to spend the oil money three times over.

Scotland runs a massive deficit. Fact. It is therefore supported by money from Westminster.

Scotland also gets more money per individual than individuals in rUK get - therefore pushing poverty onto those rUK people to benefit people in Scotland.

They're both true. If you or any yes-er thinks they're not, you're in for a big surprise if you win.

[LJS]

I've never said that, but Spain has.

You know, the same Spain that will be required to allow Scotland's EU entry.

I've simply stated what the EU rules say - which say something very different to what Alex claims they say.

Nope, it merely says that that statement is not a specific statement about Scotland.

Everything else you've made up out of nothing.

It only becomes a lie when there are facts to be measured again.

On the same basis you're calling BT a liar over their EU claims, you can call Alex a liar too.

Are you calling Alex a liar, or are you used warped criteria for your 'liar' analysis?

Alex may be a tad optimistic on the ease with which Scotland will enter the EU.

He is a politician after all.

[eFestivals]

Listening to PMQ's - Charlie Kennedy & Dave conspiring to repeat the lie that Juncker has stated it would be at least 5 years before Scotland could join EU.

Desperate stuff.

You mean more desperate than refusing to accept there could be any truth in three clear political statements, and instead deciding that all truth is contained within a statement by someone unknown that happens to coincide with the view you've been told to believe by your glorious leader on the basis of self-serving principles only?

What part of "both sides lie" have you been having problems with for so many months?

While both sides lie, the impact of the lies can only hit down on one place in any different manner to what exists now.

[eFestivals]

Alex may be a tad optimistic on the ease with which Scotland will enter the EU.

He is a politician after all.

More than just a tad. Almost all that he says is contrary to everything the EU has ever done.

No new member has ever got a single opt-out, for example.

And Macedonia is currently refused entry because it does not comply with the basic EU requirement of an effective central bank within that member state.

I've never denied the possibility of an EU kludge for iScotland (you can read back and see for yourself), but I do guarantee that the other member states will extract a price from iScotland for granting it that kludge if it happens.

[LJS]

You mean more desperate than refusing to accept there could be any truth in three clear political statements, and instead deciding that all truth is contained within a statement by someone unknown that happens to coincide with the view you've been told to believe by your glorious leader on the basis of self-serving principles only?

What part of "both sides lie" have you been having problems with for so many months?

While both sides lie, the impact of the lies can only hit down on one place in any different manner to what exists now.

I have never denied that both sides tell lies although I think exaggeration & use of selective material is more common than outright lying.

More than just a tad. Almost all that he says is contrary to everything the EU has ever done.

No new member has ever got a single opt-out, for example.

And Macedonia is currently refused entry because it does not comply with the basic EU requirement of an effective central bank within that member state.

I've never denied the possibility of an EU kludge for iScotland (you can read back and see for yourself), but I do guarantee that the other member states will extract a price from iScotland for granting it that kludge if it happens.

There is no precedent for Scotland's situation, just as there was no precedent for east Germany joining the EU through the reunification of Germany. In many ways that was more significant in that unlike Scotland east Germany had not previously been a member.

Edited July 16, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

PS: at very minimum, that price will be Scotland's share of the UK's rebate.

[eFestivals]

There is no precedent for Scotland's situation, just as there was no precedent for east Germany joining the EU through the reunification of Germany. In many ways that was more significant in that unlike Scotland east Germany had not previously been a member.

Not true in the slightest. You've fallen for the bullshit yet again/

West Germany always included the east in its constitution (in the same way that Ireland used to include the north in its own), and therefore a reunited Germany was always an EU member in law. Scotland has never been an EU member state.

On top of that, nothing of the East 'joining' the EU altered anything of the EU for other member states - no member state's sovereignty within the EU was diluted by the addition of a further member, as would happen if Scotland were to try to be a member.

That dilution of sovereignty is *very* important for every member state.

How would Scotland like to be told that from now on its importance and influence within the UK is less in all legal senses than it was yesterday?

I suspect that if such a thing happened, it would scream and shout and vote to leave the UK, because dilution of Scotland's importance is not anything anyone in Scotland would stand for.

Funny that, eh?

Scotland insists that others will do what Scotland would not.

[eFestivals]

There is no precedent for Scotland's situation

That can also be written as "the only rules for Scotland's situation are contained in the current rules".

That's actually a much more truthful way to put things, because there's far more reason to believe the current rules apply by their very existence than to assume the rules will be changed on the basis of only hope.

[LJS]

Not true in the slightest. You've fallen for the bullshit yet again/

West Germany always included the east in its constitution (in the same way that Ireland used to include the north in its own), and therefore a reunited Germany was always an EU member in law. Scotland has never been an EU member state.

On top of that, nothing of the East 'joining' the EU altered anything of the EU for other member states - no member state's sovereignty within the EU was diluted by the addition of a further member, as would happen if Scotland were to try to be a member.

That dilution of sovereignty is *very* important for every member state.

How would Scotland like to be told that from now on its importance and influence within the UK is less in all legal senses than it was yesterday?

I suspect that if such a thing happened, it would scream and shout and vote to leave the UK, because dilution of Scotland's importance is not anything anyone in Scotland would stand for.

Funny that, eh?

Scotland insists that others will do what Scotland would not.

waht a load of bollocks. Whether east Germany was in the German constitution or not is irrelevant. So if Scotland joins the EU and our constitution claims that the South Shetland Islands are part of Scotland that makes the South Shetland Islands part of the EU.

The FACT is that East Germany was not in any practical or meaningful way part of the EU. The FACT is that Scotland (as part of the UK) has been in the EU for years.

East Germany was not required to clear all the hurdles any normal applicant would have been required to clear.

The reunification increased the size of the EU & led to an increase in the number of German MEPs.

Scotland Joining the EU will leave it exactly the same size but with one more member.

Edited July 16, 2014 by LJS

[LJS]

Hey I've just come up with the prefect solution.

rUK just needs to write a constitution & put in it that Scotland remains for all time an integral part of the sovereign realm of the United Kingdon Of GB & NI & hey presto we'll be in the EU without as much as a hiccup on the way.

Yes Neil, that is how crazy your argument is!!!

[eFestivals]

waht a load of bollocks. Whether east Germany was in the German constitution or not is irrelevant.

from every legal angle of the EU, there's nothing that is more relevant.

And from every legal angle of the EU, the next most important part is the effect onto the sovereignty of other member states - which was precisely zero (not the case for iScotland).

There was no reason why any EU member might object to a reunified Germany (not that they could anyway in any legal manner, reason already given), as there was no negative impact onto them, there was only the gain of a bigger market to sell to.

So if Scotland joins the EU and our constitution claims that the South Shetland Islands are part of Scotland that makes the South Shetland Islands part of the EU.

If the South Shetland Islands are *actually* under iScotland's control, yep.

You do know that the EU already extends all around the world with its territories, don't you?

EU member acceptance includes the EU's acceptance of that member's constitution. It accepted Ireland's claim to Northern Ireland.

However, that *acceptance* doesn't result in effect. Only when the member state has actual control of the claimed territory does the effect happen.

The FACT is that East Germany was not in any practical or meaningful way part of the EU.

And the fact was also that East Germany's incorporation into 'Germany' (which 'west Germany' always was anyway) didn't change anything about the existing membership.

The FACT is that Scotland (as part of the UK) has been in the EU for years.

And the fact is also that iScotland's incorporation into 'the EU changes a lot of things for the existing membership.

East Germany was not required to clear all the hurdles any normal applicant would have been required to clear.

East Germany was not becoming a member.

If the IoM (not currently within the EU) were to fully incorporate itself in the UK, do you think the UK would require to re-apply for membership? Cos it's nothing different to what happened in Germany.

Members don't have to become members. They're already members.

The reunification increased the size of the EU

No it didn't. The number of EU members didn't change.

... & led to an increase in the number of German MEPs.

Yep, the members were happy to let Germany have them after a negotiation process - tho they extracted a price from Germany for their cooperation.

At that time the parliament meant little anyway. It gave away nothing of consequence.

Scotland Joining the EU will leave it exactly the same size but with one more member.

which dilutes the sovereignty of every other member.

iScotland wants it's sovereignty, it doesn't want to give it away.

Why does iScotlad expect others to do what iScotland wouldn't?

Edited July 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Hey I've just come up with the prefect solution.

rUK just needs to write a constitution & put in it that Scotland remains for all time an integral part of the sovereign realm of the United Kingdon Of GB & NI & hey presto we'll be in the EU without as much as a hiccup on the way.

Yes Neil, that is how crazy your argument is!!!

sorry mate, but there's naff all crazy with my argument.

I'm working from the facts and from EU law (as it was then, and now) - rather than making up from nothing what sounds best for what I'd like to be the case.

Making up bollocks is what BT and yes do. Outside of the bollocks is the truth.

And unfortunately, your scenario doesn't work for iScotland - because iScotland would not be a member via that, just as the EU did not impact into East Germany despite what the 'West' German constitution said.

Really, you're so very far wrong about this that you need to never listen to who told you it ever again.

Edited July 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

The Admission of the GDR is in fact a very good example of the pragmatism of the EU, when it wants or needs to do something, it does it & the treaties & rules can catch up later.

What is very clear is that you have oversimplified the process of the GDR entering the EU through German reunification at least as much if not more than anyone is oversimplifying the process for Scotland

Confronted with this fait accompli, the European Commission had no choice but to take on the

onerous and unprecedented task of putting before the EP and Council, on time, the package of

measures for the gradual introduction of EC law in the former GDR. This task was completed

on 21 August 1990, but despite the sterling efforts of the Commission, the European institutions

realised that the package could not be implemented before German unification. Faced with

this unprecedented problem, the commission came up with a solution that was unique in the

history of the european community. it proposed a set of temporary measures that, owing to

time constraints, were to be applied before their adoption by the community legislative authority.

This step involved a major delegation of power to the Commission. The EP finally accepted this

exceptional proposal, but only after including a number of amendments designed to curb the

commission’s powers.

owing to the exceptional circumstances, the presidents of the various european institutions met

on 6 September and arrived at an institutional agreement declaring that ‘Parliament [would] be

consulted on all legislative measures proposed, irrespective of the legal basis, and … the legislative

package [would] be considered and adopted in its entirety after Parliament [had] given its views

at two readings on the individual measures and the package as a whole’. 40 The ep’s involvement

in the process of merging the Gdr into the federal republic of Germany was thus ensured.41

The institutional agreement brought further innovations and simplifications to the process of

cooperation between the council, commission and parliament concerning, for example, the ep’s

processing of provisional measures within a week, the deadline for submitting amendments before

official receipt of Commission proposals and the explanatory statement in oral form following a

first reading in plenary.42

Aside from questions of how unification would take place, the committee’s work also concerned

the need to amend the EC Treaties. The latter issue was directly linked to the former and an

assessment was necessary to ascertain what method of German unification would necessitate

revision of the Treaties. The GDR would be able to join the EC much more quickly if no revision of

Treaties was necessary. an in-depth analysis of the legal context was thus of the essence. it should

be added that the various bodies consulted within the EP sometimes gave conflicting opinions.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/cardoc/23369_CARDOC_Reunification_EN_WEB.pdf

[kaosmark2]

I take it your accusation that rUK will be worse off after independence means you are now accepting Scotland will be better off. You can't have it both ways!

Actually you can. Both could end up worse off as a result of an impact on sterling's value, as well as the startup/transfer costs of various shit.

[eFestivals]

The Admission of the GDR is in fact a very good example of the pragmatism of the EU, when it wants or needs to do something, it does it & the treaties & rules can catch up later.

What is very clear is that you have oversimplified the process of the GDR entering the EU through German reunification at least as much if not more than anyone is oversimplifying the process for Scotland

I might have over-simplified it (after all, I didn't attempt to document everything), but I'm still broadly accurate, and your crock of shite wasn't.

I've already said, and only said, that I expect an EU kludge for iScotland - or at least an attempt at one. The problem is that the "Scotland problem" is not the EU's decision, it's the decision of the member states. There is no legal way around this.

That's totally unlike the Germany situation. Just as the EU and its member states have no say over the UK shirking its territorial area if Scotland were to leave, the EU and its member states also have no say* if any member state wishes to expand its territory (as Germany did).

(* that might not be true in all instances, but it definitely applied with Germany where the EU already accepted 'West' Germany's territorial claim to the East within its constitution).

If iScotland joins the EU, that dilutes the sovereignty within the EU of the other member states, by the fact of an extra member having a vote.

Do note that wasn't the case with Germany. For any sovereign nation, nothing is more important to them than their sovereignty.

The first rule of sovereignty (if you don't want nation states to start blowing ther shit out of each other) - which yes-ers including you still have to grasp (and why I say Scotland is not yet politically mature enough for indy) - is that every state's sovereignty is equal.

Salmond is claiming that other states simply give up their sovereignty, not because they agree to anything iScotland wants, but "just because" Salmond says they should.

It doesn't get any more ridiculous. It shows that even Salmond is not emotionally or intellectually ready for the task you want him to take on.

(you can't go claiming you're not voting to empower Salmond, he is your only negotiator for this).

Edited July 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Aye going from 1 in 28 to 1 in 29 is deal breaker sovereignty wise.

[eFestivals]

Aye going from 1 in 28 to 1 in 29 is deal breaker sovereignty wise.

it's still 28 member states giving up a chunk of their sovereignty.

If sovereignty means fuck all, care to tell me why we're both posting here?

[eFestivals]

Have you not considered the real-world fact that iScotland will be in support of some policies that other EU members will not be (and vice-versa)?

Now, tell me again that's not important.

Edited July 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Have you not considered the real-world fact that iScotland will be in support of some policies that other EU members will not be (and vice-versa)?

Now, tell me again that's not important.

So what? Are you saying the other 28 are all be in favour of everything? I think we are likely to be a more constructive member than rUK who want the eu on a pick-n-mix basis.

[LJS]

here's a multiple choice question for you all

How many votes for the No campaign will this video achieve

a: 5

b: 7

c:-20

If any of you no voters on here have experience making videos or campaigning -please get in touch with better no together thanks -they need your help

Edit : perhaps unfair not to post the finished video

Hmm

Edited July 16, 2014 by LJS

[eFestivals]

So what? Are you saying the other 28 are all be in favour of everything? I think we are likely to be a more constructive member than rUK who want the eu on a pick-n-mix basis.

Nope, i'm saying that an iScotland in the mix will mean one or more member states will not now get a policy they're wanting, because iScotland's extra vote will change the result.

Because iScotland is going to be costing them something, they're as sure as hell going to make sure they get a pay-back in one form or another (not necessarily directly from iScotland; might be via some EU horse trading).

The only point I'm really trying to make here is the one point that matters....

It matters to the other member states for them to lose influence via the EU expanding with iScotland as a new member.

It's not the nothing you're brushing it off as.

[eFestivals]

here's a multiple choice question for you all

How many votes for the No campaign will this video achieve

like so many people, you're making the mistake of thinking this is only about who has the better marketing.

[LJS]

like so many people, you're making the mistake of thinking this is only about who has the better marketing.

You're making the mistake of making up what I am saying

I'm just taking the piss out of the no marketing when it is awful.

You do a great line in accusing people of stuff they have never said - I will concede it does make it easier - when you can base your arguments on stuff you wish your opponent had said.

Like that time you said Scotland would not be allowed to breathe English air.

Now, pay attention.

[LJS]

Nope, i'm saying that an iScotland in the mix will mean one or more member states will not now get a policy they're wanting, because iScotland's extra vote will change the result.

Because iScotland is going to be costing them something, they're as sure as hell going to make sure they get a pay-back in one form or another (not necessarily directly from iScotland; might be via some EU horse trading).

The only point I'm really trying to make here is the one point that matters....

It matters to the other member states for them to lose influence via the EU expanding with iScotland as a new member.

It's not the nothing you're brushing it off as.

Never said it was nothing - we do get off track a bit sometimes - so just a reminder of where this all started months ago.

All I am saying is there are informed & expert views that suggest it may not be as hard for iScotland to get into the EU as the no campaign says.

I have never said it will be a cakewalk.

My personal view is that it will probably be relatively painless but, unlike you I am not a world renowned expert in talking out of my arse oops EU laws & treaties so what would I know hey!