[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

Why do you think the question of democracy for the Scots needs powerful arguments?

Surely the concept of democracy stands on its own feet?

Apparently not. Every single opinion poll, as far as I'm aware of, has shown the Yes camp to represent a minority point of view. I have seen no evidence to show this to be grossly inaccurate.

The problem the No campaign is not addressing is that most Scots do not believe that their vote has any value because it is outnumbered by the SE vote.

But you have failed to convince "most Scots" so far.

If the case presented by the Yes camp is so overwhelming and needs so little explaining then why with only 6 months to go, ffs, don't the overwhelming majority of Scots support it ?

Now personally I think that Yes Scotland will [i]probably[/i] win on the day, but no one knows for sure. One thing we can absolutely sure about is that there is not, and there won't be, overwhelming support for independence, despite the people of Scotland literally having had their entire lives to think about it.

Why is that, if the case is so watertight and needs so little explaining ?

.

And btw your claim that this is all just about democracy falls seriously short. Firstly the politically system being offered is not in any significant way different to the existing one. The gap between politicians and those they purport to represent will be just as wide as before - lack of confidence and satisfaction in politicians and their ability to respond to the needs of the people is not a uniquely Scottish phenomenon, it exists in all countries with simular systems of governments.

Secondly, far from extending the influence of Scottish voters over affairs which effect their lives this alleged independence will diminish their direct involvement.

And finally I simply can't take seriously anyone who will happily hand over sovereignty to unelected foreign bureaucrats when they claim to want to have, not just more democracy, but more national/local democracy.

I'm all in favour in self-governing autonomous societies but I don't see how voting yes in September will be a step in that direction.

[quote=seosamh77 ]We have proportional representation, the tories of scotland are better represented in the scottish parliament than they are in westminster. 15/129 MSP are tory.

I'm not quite sure that's what you meant, but in any case, I thought the argument was "The problem the No campaign is not addressing is that most Scots do not believe that their vote has any value because it is outnumbered by the SE vote." - well looking at the general election result, 61% of Scottish voters voted Labour or LibDem, and they have 315 out of 650 seats in parliament. ISTM that the Scottish voters have far more power in the UK parliament than the Southern Scots do in the Scottish parliament.

ninfan - Member
"The problem the No campaign is not addressing is that most Scots do not believe that their vote has any value because it is outnumbered by the SE vote."
Where does that argument stop though?

you only need to look at the Scottish parliament election results for 2011

You'll always get that, but by bringing the govt closer to home it's more likely to work for you.

Anyhow, the Conservatives in Scotland expect to do quite well out of independence. Their current low standing is because the electorate has never forgiven Thatcher and the "nasty party". After independence they start with a clean slate and will be able to stand on their own merits. Don't be surprised to see them in a coalition govt in Scotland.

[url= http://www.wealthynation.org ]Conservatives for independence[/url]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-new-poll-shows-yes-shift-1-3350563

Or is it only a denial of democracy when you're not getting what you want?

Ditto with the deceitful one

[quote=whatnobeer ]Personally I'm opposed to ever killing other humans

Oh, so "If in the hypothetical situation of total 100% guilt with no chance of reform then, yes, death would be the best thing" was just a "negotiating position" then? 😀

piemonster - Member

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-new-poll-shows-yes-shift-1-3350563

Still no overwhelming support for Scottish independence eh ?

Not yet, but the gap is narrowing

ernie_lynch - Member
...Apparently not. Every single opinion poll, as far as I'm aware of, has shown the Yes camp to represent a minority point of view. I have seen no evidence to show this to be grossly inaccurate....

Since returning to Scotland 10 years ago, just about every pre election poll I have seen has forecast disaster for the SNP.

Yet somehow they keep increasing their vote. Makes one question whether there may be a teeny bit of bias in the poll mongers, or if they are simply incompetent.

There is only one poll that counts, and that's the ballot box.

Democracy, a wonderful thing.

[quote=epicyclo ]Democracy, a wonderful thing.

Ah, so [b]you[/b]'re in favour of the death penalty.

Still no overwhelming support for Scottish independence eh ?

That Lord BS of eck, despite THM's constant criticism, seems to be doing rather better than the No campaign what with increasing his support whilst their reduces.

Will it be enough not yet but at the vote who knows?

Not yet, but the gap is narrowing

The gap is narrowing that's why come September I think Yes Scotland will [i]probably[/i] win.

But tell me...... why is that up until now less than half of all Scots have been convinced that independence is a good idea ?

Personally I would have thought that if it was such a good idea, and more importantly doesn't even need explaining, that a huge majority of Scots, I dunno - two thirds ? would support it.

All is not as it seems.

aracer - Member
seosamh77 » We have proportional representation, the tories of scotland are better represented in the scottish parliament than they are in westminster. 15/129 MSP are tory.
I'm not quite sure that's what you meant, but in any case, I thought the argument was "The problem the No campaign is not addressing is that most Scots do not believe that their vote has any value because it is outnumbered by the SE vote." - well looking at the general election result, 61% of Scottish voters voted Labour or LibDem, and they have 315 out of 650 seats in parliament. ISTM that the Scottish voters have far more power in the UK parliament than the Southern Scots do in the Scottish parliament.

That may not change in an IS, I know, but if it is going to change to it'd be much easier in a smaller grouping.

Essentially the belief is that the smaller the democratic grouping, the more democratic it will be, potentially*

*i understand politicians being ****s will still be prevalent in an IS, but it'll be easier to chase them.

That's the crux of the matter for me tbh. Nothing to do with nationalism, which I dislike. To sum up, imo westminster is democratically bankrupt, time for a change.

Democracy, a wonderful thing

Is it? Like currency options, it has pros and cons. Unlike a CU between iS and rUK, democracy is better than the alternatives but it is far from perfect or wonderful. There is always the danger that the views of the majority will rule roughshod over those of the minority. Have we heard that concern somewhere....?

1. the politically system being offered is not in any significant way different to the existing one. The gap between politicians and those they purport to represent will be just as wide as before....

2. ... far from extending the influence of Scottish voters over affairs which effect their lives this alleged independence will diminish their direct involvement...

3. .....I simply can't take seriously anyone who will happily hand over sovereignty to unelected foreign bureaucrats when they claim to want to have, not just more democracy, but more national/local democracy.

Blimey its nice, if rare, to be able to go +1 Ernie!!

I would have thought that if it was such a good idea, and more importantly doesn't even need explaining, that a huge majority of Scots, I dunno - two thirds ? would support it.

[quote=seosamh77 ]Well that's fairly easy to reconcile, we don't particularly believe westminster politicians represent anyone bar business.
that's may not change in an IS i know, but if it is going to change to it'd be much easier in a smaller grouping.
Essentially they belief is that the smaller the democratic grouping the more democratic is has potential*
*i understand politicians being **** will still be prevalent in an IS, but it'll be easier to chase them.

I certainly admire your optimism in the face of reality.

But tell me...... why is that up until now less than half of all Scots have been convinced that independence is a good idea ?

More than half are "better informed" and/or have actually read the BoD, perhaps?

This works just as well as a "question" re the Union

I was asked :

Why do you think the question of democracy for the Scots needs powerful arguments?

Surely the concept of democracy stands on its own feet?

The evidence suggests this is not the case.

1. the politically system being offered is not in any significant way different to the existing one. The gap between politicians and those they purport to represent will be just as wide as before....

2. ... far from extending the influence of Scottish voters over affairs which effect their lives this alleged independence will diminish their direct involvement...

3. .....I simply can't take seriously anyone who will happily hand over sovereignty to unelected foreign bureaucrats when they claim to want to have, not just more democracy, but more national/local democracy.

You have no evidence what so ever of points 1 and 2 and 3 is exactly what the current system looks like, but with Scottish interests being represented by the UK who don't really have much interested in keeping us happy. Just look at how pissed off out fisherman have been with the UK Government at their fishing rights negotiations.

Oh, so "If in the hypothetical situation of total 100% guilt with no chance of reform then, yes, death would be the best thing" was just a "negotiating position" then?

I chuckled, but, it was a hypothetical as I said, not representing my own views.

More than half are "better informed", perhaps?

More than half are scared of change no matter what it might bring? More than half enjoy clinging on to the past?

I honestly can't believe the idea from some here that an iScotland would have [b]too much democracy[/b]. 🙄

aracer - Member
I certainly admire your optimism in the face of reality.

I'm well aware that it won't happen overnight, but I also believe that if democracy stands still, it ultimately becomes undemocratic. So my long term hope(and I know that's all that they are) is that there could be innovation in the democratic structures under an IS.

The argument for me isn't about specifics or details that I'm continually told are supposedly important, it's very much about what ifs.

More than half are scared of change no matter what it might bring? More than half enjoy clinging on to the past?

You need to come up with some powerful arguments 💡

This democracy everyone talks about, doesn't exist does it, it really means 'middle class swing voters'. The irony of the SNP quote in that Scotsman poll article, is that he mentions Westminster only appeals to 'Middle England' swing voters, yet look at the independence polling and the demographic that the SNP needs to be convinced to vote Yes is you guess it the Scottish Middle classes.

You need to come up with some powerful arguments

True, but there are some people who you'll never convince. Look over at the majority of people going to Ibrox every other weekend. There's not many of them (or not many will admit it anyway) who will vote Yes and as a rule they hate AS and love the Union. I'm sure there are other examples as well.

I do think that you're right though. Lots of people want more powers and bigger voice but are either don't think independence s the way to do it because of the risk involved, some because of the cost involved and others are just a bit apathetic.

Apathy may prove the deciding factor

piemonster - Member
Apathy may prove the deciding factor

[quote=seosamh77 ]I'm well aware that it won't happen overnight, but I also believe that if democracy stands still, it ultimately becomes undemocratic. So my long term [b]hope[/b](and I know that's all that they are) is that there could be innovation in the democratic structures under an IS.
The argument for me isn't about specifics or details that I'm continually told are supposedly important, [b]it's very much about what ifs[/b].

What a persuasive argument for independence.

Once again, it amazes me how many people on here seem against the whole idea of democracy.

[quote=whatnobeer ]I honestly can't believe the idea from some here that an iScotland would have too much democracy.

You seem to have missed the thrust of the recent argument on here, that the problem isn't one of [b]too much[/b] democracy with iS.

[quote=epicyclo ]Once again, it amazes me how many people on here seem against the whole idea of democracy.

Now I'm really confused. Are you suggesting that those pointing out iS will have less democracy are anti democracy?

aracer - Member

What a persuasive argument for independence.

I would go into them, but to be honest, youse are all far too anal on here to have a conversation like that.

You seem to have missed the thrust of the recent argument on here, that the problem isn't one of too much democracy with iS.

It was from someone with all the "so you support the death penalty" type stuff.

Sure, you join the EU you put up with the treaties and the bureaucrats that come with it in exchange for the benefits it brings. At the same time though we get a more representative government and we get rid of the unelected House of Lords. Doesn't sound like less democracy to me.

Sure, you join the EU you put up with the treaties and the bureaucrats that come with it in exchange for the benefits it brings.

Hardly makes for '[i]a more representative government'[/i]

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-scotland-were-independent-do-you-think-it-should-join-the-eu

Apathy may prove the deciding factor

If Scotland votes yes then it really needs to decisive. If Better Together scraps in then nothing much will happen (other than possibly devo max if Labour are returned in Westminster) and everyone will stay calm and carry on and the whole issue will not be raised again for a very long time.

If Yes Scotland scraps in then it will be a nightmare for the Scottish government as they try to negotiate without a clear, unambiguous, and decisive mandate. Add to this the fact that will have to carry with them the goodwill of almost half of the electorate that didn't vote for independence, and those who did that will understandably have high expectations, and you have a very messy situation fraught with some very serious problems.

An overwhelming Yes vote would at least give the Scottish government the excuse that whatever problems might arise they will simply be carrying out the clear wishes of the Scottish people and therefore ultimately aren't to blame.

whatnobeer - Member

Sure, you join the EU you put up with the treaties and the bureaucrats that come with it in exchange for the benefits it brings. At the same time though we get a more representative government and we get rid of the unelected House of Lords. Doesn't sound like less democracy to me.

These islands would also get more representation in the European parliament with 2 states.

[quote=seosamh77 ]I would go into them, but to be honest, youse are all far too anal on here to have a conversation like that.

Is that a variation on the Edinburgh defence?

but there are some people who you'll never convince.

Are you suggesting that those pointing out iS will have less democracy are anti democracy?

How is it lesser?
Just saying it will be less democratic does not make it true anymore than stating your opinion makes it true [ though of course we all agree on Lord BS of eck 😉 ]

I agree with Ernies idea that it should be a significant majority that decide either way.
I also think that votes like this should have a mininimum turnout 60% and 60% for a result to be binding.
Though the Australian system of mandatory voting is also looking appealing to stop the apathy in general elections.

[quote=Junkyard ]1. Scotland did not vote for the current govt and will always vote for the govt they get in iS

It doesn't appear the borders and northern islands will ever get the government they voted for in iS.

[ though of course we all agree on Lord BS of eck ]

You and me maybe, I have my suspicions that some on here love him though.

aracer - Member
Is that a variation on the Edinburgh defence?

Nope, just a suspicion that youse are incapable of the abstract thought required and a belief that it would descend into tedium.

Pretty much like how the thread is going. I've no wish to add another layer.

There's 82 pages on the question of Scottish independence but you've decided to keep your [i]"persuasive argument for independence"[/i] to yourself ?

You're such a tease.

Junkyard - lazarus

2 They are in the EU now and after so that is no change

[s]If[/s] once you have gained membership of the EU it will be on tottaly different terms to those that the (r)UK has. You will have had to sign up to the full fiscal treaty/monetary policy (or whatever it's called), taken the Euro, you won't have a Veto vote, and a much smaller proportion of MEPs. iS would be a much smaller fish in a bigger pond.

So there will be significant changes in your ability to steer/influence the policy making which affects you.

You forgot the VAT exemptions that as a new EU member state Scotland will no longer have michaelbowden.

michaelbowden - Member

take the Euro,

Never been true, been debunked a million times, people keep repeating it...

ernie_lynch - Member

You forgot the VAT exemptions that as a new EU member state Scotland will no longer have michaelbowden.

Sorry didn't know about that. Probably other stuff too.

ernie_lynch - Member
There's 82 pages on the question of Scottish independence but you've decided to keep your "persuasive argument for independence" to yourself ?

You're such a tease.

You have read the thread, aye? Youse canny even argee that there is a degree of ambiguity on the EU question ffs! 😀

Northwind - Member

michaelbowden - Member

take the Euro,

Never been true, been debunked a million times, people keep repeating it...

Not by anyone who will actually have to decide on the matter. Where as several that would be deciding have (as does the EU constitution) stated a new member will have to take the euro. I do accept that there maybe a time scale to be negiotiated.

Youse canny even argee that there is a degree of ambiguity on the EU question ffs!

I thought it was Yes Scotland who were refusing to accept that the EU question was anything other than clear cut ?

Admittedly they might have changed their minds - what's the latest thing they're saying now ? More spectacular u-turns/change of mind ?

michaelbowden - Member
Northwind - Member
michaelbowden - Member

take the Euro,

Never been true, been debunked a million times, people keep repeating it...
Not by anyone who will actually have to decide on the matter. Where as several that would be deciding have (as does the EU constitution) stated a new member will have to take the euro. I do accept that there maybe a time scale to be negiotiated.

The rumblings from the likes of Barosso about having to join as a new member, are just rumblings intended to be heard by their respective home countries, in particular to spain with, Catalonia and the basque country. Who don't have mutual consent for their planned referendum, therefore are illegal.

The Scottish referendum is not illegal.

But carry on, continue to blank that point.

ernie_lynch - Member
I thought it was Yes Scotland who were refusing to accept that the EU question was anything other than clear cut ?

seosamh77 - Member

michaelbowden - Member
Northwind - Member
michaelbowden - Member

take the Euro,

Never been true, been debunked a million times, people keep repeating it...
Not by anyone who will actually have to decide on the matter. Where as several that would be deciding have (as does the EU constitution) stated a new member will have to take the euro. I do accept that there maybe a time scale to be negiotiated.
you completely ignore the fact that scotland isn't leaving the uk on it's on, it would be by mutual consent. So if Scotland is a new member, rUK will also have to apply as a new member.(It won't come to that both would be accommodated.)

The rumblings about having to join as a new member, are just rumblings intended to be heard by their respective home countries, in particular to spain with, catalonia and the basque country. Who don't have mutual consent for their planned referendum, therefore are illegal.

The Scottish referendum is not illegal.

But carry on, continue to blank that point.

I can't be bothered to find it but somehwere in the 82 pages someone quoted from the EU constition. Where it basically said if one part of a member state (iS) splits from the Member (UK), the Member(rUK) would contine to be a member(rUK) and the part that split off(iS) would be considered to be a new state and therefore would have to apply to join the EU as a new state.

No one at a EU decision making level has said (as far as I am aware) otherwise. And the split may be by mutual consent, but you (iS) are still leaving the member state.

So if Scotland is a new member, rUK will also have to apply as a new member.

Wow, someone needs to tell the Europeans that. You should have this added to the BoD as well. It's about as true as most of the stuff in there.

It's becoming clearer where these concepts of fighting with fear, the 3Bs and negativity come from. No wonder these words slip so readily off AS's tongue.

I can't be bothered to find it but somehwere in the 82 pages someone quoted from the EU constition. Where it basically said if one part of a member state (iS) splits from the Member (UK), the Member(rUK) would contine to be a member(rUK) and the part that split off(iS) would be considered to be a new state and therefore would have to apply to join the EU as a new state.

No one at a EU decision making level has said (as far as I am aware) otherwise. And the split may be by mutual consent, but you (iS) are still leaving the member state.

The Uk wouldn't have to re-apply again, when Germany was reunited it became a new state and didn't have to re-apply so the UK wont, Scotland probably wont have to either.
But as it's looking like both Scotland and Wales want to stay in the EU, maybe they should and then England can leave if they don't want to be in it 😉 But that's a different discussion 🙂

pelaton - Member
The Uk wouldn't have to re-apply again, when Germany was reunited it became a new state and didn't have to re-apply so the UK wont, Scotland probably wont have to either.

michaelbowden - Member

Not by anyone who will actually have to decide on the matter. Where as several that would be deciding have (as does the EU constitution) stated a new member will have to take the euro.

Nope. The EU constitution and treaties, not to mention proven precedent, are all absolutely clear on this- Scotland is required to commit to join the Euro, and would be set criteria to do so and a timescale. But it cannot and may not join until it's fulfilled all of those, whatever they may be and including but not limited to the Maastricht criteria.

However, there is no penalty for failing to meet those criteria in those timescales. So remaining outwith the Euro is a simple matter of not conforming to the criteria.

None of these points are in dispute at all. And just in case you're wondering how difficult Scotland would find it to follow this strategy; the [i]UK[/i] apparently doesn't currently meet 4 of the 5 maastricht criteria.

It would actually be impossible for Scotland to join on day one even if we wanted to. And no doubt, if we did want to join the euro, the No campaign would never stop telling us we couldn't possibly do so. But because we don't want to, we have to be told that we must, even though we can't. It is a nice wee microcosm of the debate really.

you're going to have to show me that.

It's in the letter linked below, in direct response to the official request for information from Christina McKelvie. It seems that the EU would answer the question and there really wasn't any need for the UK government to ask after-all 😉

It's in the letter linked below, in direct response to the official request for information from Christina McKelvie.

Yes but it's not very clear cut is it, I mean what do they mean by this ?

[i]When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that state, e.g. because that territory becomes a independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.[/i]

Junkyard » 1. Scotland did not vote for the current govt and will always vote for the govt they get in iS
It doesn't appear the borders and northern islands will ever get the government they voted for in iS.

2 [b]They are[/b] in the EU now and after so that is no change
[b]If once you[/b]

It's becoming clearer where these concepts of fighting with fear, the 3Bs and negativity come from. No wonder these words slip so readily off AS's tongue.

It's in the letter linked below, in direct response to the official request for information from Christina McKelvie.

Yes but it's not very clear cut is it, I mean what do they mean by this ?

When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that state, e.g. because that territory becomes a independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory.

Its just a negotiating position

[img] [/img]

😆

However the only ones who can ask at present are the UK and they will not ask. It is definitely not because they fear the answer and is certainly because they are honourable people unlike wee eck etc.

Really? because as proved above, when a SNP MP asked a direct question about an iScotlands position within the EU, the EU supplied a direct answer.

and as you well know the Yes campaign have stated in their own document that the right time to negotiate with the UK and the EU is following a yes vote,

"[b]Following a vote for independence in 2014[/b], agreements will be reached between the Scottish and UK Governments, in the spirit of the Agreement, setting the parameters for Scotland’s transition to independence. These agreements would establish:

the process and timetable for the negotiation and conclusion of the agreements which will form the final independence settlement"

(my bold)

the EU supplied a direct answer.

Well that's the problem - why have a direct answer when what we really want is an ambiguous answer which fudges the issue and leaves everyone guessing ?

You can never trust the EU to do anything properly.

Article 2 The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail

Article 49 U*** Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union. The European Parliament and national Parliaments shall be notified of this application. The applicant State shall address its application to the Council, which shall act unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by an absolute majority of its component members. The conditions of eligibility agreed upon by the European Council shall be taken into account. The conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded, which such admission entails, shall be the subject of an agreement between the Member States and the applicant State. This agreement shall be submitted for ratification by all the contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements

Ernie, you are on a roll today!

and as you well know the Yes campaign have stated in their own document that the right time to negotiate with the UK and the EU is following a yes vote,

Actually on reflection they both probably like it as it allows one side to play fear/uncertainty/change and the other to promise the moon on a stick if they think it will win votes. The beauty of it is none of know so we can easily debate it for at least a year possibly two

Looking into what the European journal is wiki suggests

Only legal acts published in the Official Journal are binding.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Journal_of_the_European_Union

I can't find the euro journal. But anyone know if the extracted quote from it forms part of a legal act?

If it is I'm willing to accept it. But if not. Well that letter doesn't prove much.

Anyone know?

Only AS can answer the clarion call for truth now 😀

[quote=Junkyard ]you mean we are going over the same issues again and again

Well how else will we ever get to 100 pages?

Junkyard - lazarus
Only AS can answer the clarion callfor truth now

It is still the case that only member states can apply to the EU commission for its definitve advice as opposed to the offices of the president or the various vice presidents. From the eu journalism fellowship blog

A European Commission spokesman said the matter could only be discussed with an EU member state, which in this case would be the UK Government as Scotland is an EU region.

Mr Barroso’s comments are not a definitive judgement on the issue of EU membership, since the union’s response to Scottish independence would be decided by member nations rather than the commission.
The president also did not comment on the legal and political implications of denying EU membership to Scotland, which would be likely to have far-reaching effect on EU citizens studying, working or doing business there.

only member states can apply to the EU commission for its definitve advice

So why is an SNP politician requesting advise then - of what possible use is it to her ? Specially as she must have read the EU journalism fellowship blog which you quote - I take it SNP politicians do their research on matters concerning independence and the EU ?

And why is the EU Vice-president and commissioner responsible for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, giving advice which isn't for her to give ? Why is the EU tolerating this ?

It all smacks of serious incompetence on the part of the SNP, the EU, and EU Vice-president and commissioner.

Unless of course the advise given was sound ? Which I suspect it probably was.

I think it comes down to there being no precedent for the EU to follow,for a current member state seperating.
[url= http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/scottish-independence-and-eu ]Prof Michael Keating[/url]

But why is an SNP politician asking for advise which you claim is useless ?

Or is it only useless because the EU Vice-president and commissioner responsible for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, gave the "wrong" answer ? And had she given the "correct" answer then it would have been very useful indeed ?

Article 21 1.Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the measures adopted to give it effect. X** 2. If action by the Union should prove necessary to attain this objective and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may adopt provisions with a view to facilitating the exercise of the rights referred to in paragraph 1

I dont claim that seeking advice from legal experts is useless, nor indeed that seeking endorsement from the likes of Barroso is useless. I just find it curious that the formal official position of the EU commission could be made available to the UK govt as the member state and they have chosen not to get that advice.

with the act of kicking my country out of the EU.

Nobody's kicking you out

You're leaving!

No country will be kicked of the EU, the UK will remain a member state. If however Scotland withdraws from the UK and forms a separate sovereign state then a new country will exist. This new country will need to apply for membership. All fairly obvious I would have thought.

No country will be country will be kicked of the EU, the UK will remain a member state. If however Scotland withdraws from the UK and forms a separate sovereign state then a new country will exist. This new country will need to apply for membership. All fairly obvious I would have thought.

Interesting documents those treaties. Wonder if they have anything to say about stripping 5 million people of their EU citizenship that you seem so confident they can do?

ninfan - Member
with the act of kicking my country out of the EU.
Nobody's kicking you out

You're leaving

Our referendum is only to do with leaving the union of the united kingdom.

Which is part of the EU.

You leave us, you leave the EU

Thats how it works

do you get it yet?

Its like leaving your job, but expecting to keep your free BUPA membership and access to the company gym 😆