How to Join the EU in 35 'Simple' Steps

BobQ

So when would the clock start on the admission of Scotland? Would it be the date of the independence vote or the date on which independence formally happens?

Might the EU's first question be: when are you joining the Euro?

zagubov

The EU's biggest question is how fast its northern flank is haemorrhaging, as if its northern side has Ebola.

Iceland. Not that fussed about joining as Antrobus says.
Norway, thought about it so much they sidestepped it completely.
Sweden, jumped in but sorry just missed getting the Euro.
Denmark, jumped in, but no intention whatsoever of the euro.
The UK, jumped in, but no intention whatsoever of the euro, showing increasingly skepticism about the whole thing.

Yep they'll be in a really strong position to play hardball with Scotland. Especially if the Scots get their act together and offer a referendum on EU membership.;)

How quickly did they accept the GDR despite it being Warsaw Pact nation occupied by the Soviets and with a Warsaw Pact army, and a massive secret police network infiltrating the EU. Of course it was "completely integrated" into the FRG instantly wasn't it, so it was "instantly" accepted?

Three years my 4rse. The EU won't notice Scotland's absence from the EU at all. Because they won't dare let it's "absence" last even a nanosecond. :rotfl:

vivatifosi

Zag, if Scotland wants to vote for independence then that's up to them. In terms of currency though, do you not think it is at least an unknown?

Scotland may well be fast tracked into the EU, but are you not even slightly concerned that the country may be used as an example by other countries in the EU who don't want their independence movements getting ideas? Pretty much everyone here, irrespective of their views on Scotland would like to see an EU with more of an eye on economics and less on politics, but that isn't the case. So why think Scotland won't face any problems?

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

The EU's biggest question is how fast its northern flank is haemorrhaging, as if its northern side has Ebola.

Iceland. Not that fussed about joining as Antrobus says.
Norway, thought about it so much they sidestepped it completely.
Sweden, jumped in but sorry just missed getting the Euro.
Denmark, jumped in, but no intention whatsoever of the euro.
The UK, jumped in, but no intention whatsoever of the euro, showing increasingly skepticism about the whole thing.

Yep they'll be in a really strong position to play hardball with Scotland. Especially if the Scots get their act together and offer a referendum on EU membership.;)

How quickly did they accept the GDR despite it being Warsaw Pact nation occupied by the Soviets and with a Warsaw Pact army, and a massive secret police network infiltrating the EU. Of course it was "completely integrated" into the FRG instantly wasn't it, so it was "instantly" accepted?

Three years my 4rse. The EU won't notice Scotland's absence from the EU at all. Because they won't dare let it's "absence" last even a nanosecond. :rotfl:

As far as I can see GDR didn't join EU, it joined FDR which was already a member.
The situation here is the exact opposite: a small section of the UK wants to leave and become 'independent'.


However I do see that Scotland has one significant advantage : it is, according to SNP and all the YES posters here, enormously rich.
So the EU might welcome the Scotland massive contribution to their budget with open arms and fast track their application (a bit like FIFA with a few back handers to the poorer EU states).




Still don't understand why the SNP supports don't want to be told about Plan A or B means.

ash28

zagubov wrote: »

The EU's biggest question is how fast its northern flank is haemorrhaging, as if its northern side has Ebola.

Iceland. Not that fussed about joining as Antrobus says.
Norway, thought about it so much they sidestepped it completely.
Sweden, jumped in but sorry just missed getting the Euro.
Denmark, jumped in, but no intention whatsoever of the euro.
The UK, jumped in, but no intention whatsoever of the euro, showing increasingly skepticism about the whole thing.

Yep they'll be in a really strong position to play hardball with Scotland. Especially if the Scots get their act together and offer a referendum on EU membership.;)

How quickly did they accept the GDR despite it being Warsaw Pact nation occupied by the Soviets and with a Warsaw Pact army, and a massive secret police network infiltrating the EU. Of course it was "completely integrated" into the FRG instantly wasn't it, so it was "instantly" accepted?

Three years my 4rse. The EU won't notice Scotland's absence from the EU at all. Because they won't dare let it's "absence" last even a nanosecond. :rotfl:

I think you're dreaming if you think Scotland will see an immediate and seamless membership of the EU.

From Viviane Reding, the vice president of the European Commission, Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship to Christina McKelvie MSP on 10 March 2014.

The Commission's position on the issue that you raise has been stated on a number of occasions since 2004. The Treaties apply to the Member States. When part of the territory of a Member State ceases to be a part of that State, e.g. because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that territory. In other words, a new independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the Union and the Treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply anymore on its territory.

"Under Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, any European state which respects the principles set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union may apply to become a member of the EU. If the application is accepted by the Council acting unanimously after consulting the Commission and after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, an agreement is then negotiated between the applicant state and the Member States on the conditions of admission and the adjustments to the Treaties which such admission entails. This agreement is subject to ratification by all Member States and the applicant state."

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/Inquiries/Letter_from_Viviane_Reding_Vice_President_of_the_European_Commission_dated_20_March_2014__pdf.pdf

And on 3 June 2014

I have taken good note of the views and concerns you express. The commission would like to refer to its previous reply on the upcoming referendum in Scotland and their possible implications.

As far as EU citizenship is concerned, this is not an autonomous status, but is dependent on national citizenship. In accordance with Article 20 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), only persons holding the nationality of a Member State are EU citizens. EU citizenship is additional to and does not replace national citizenship.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EuropeanandExternalRelationsCommittee/2014_06_04_Viiviane_Redding_to_Convener.pdf

There are two ways for Scotland to join the EU....the hard way Article 49... the one mentioned in the letter to the Scottish government by Viviane Reding. Article 49.

And the easy way Article 48....a treaty amendment. Usually used for things like the bailout mechanism, not membership, and Scotland's preferred route. That means Scotland would want to negotiate its membership by changing the rules of entry.

However, the current position of the commission seems to be the hard way...and for all the bluff and bluster, ultimately the decision on Scotland's entry lies outside Edinburgh and outside London and Brussels - it lies with 28 member states.

The GDR was a bit different - it handed its sovereignty over to West Germany who were already members....it didn't apply to join in its own right. Reunification meant the expansion of the existing FDR and not the creation of a new state.

Generali

ash28 wrote: »

The GDR was a bit different - it handed its sovereignty over to West Germany who were already members....it didn't apply to join in its own right. Reunification meant the expansion of the existing FDR and not the creation of a new state.

So an independent Scotland could meet 2 of its prime economic goals (use of the Pound and EU membership) by.........................joining the UK!:rotfl:

.string.

michaels wrote: »

I also seem to have heard that Scotland is committed to keeping the pound?

I catch the irony, but to enhance it would just add that keeping the Pound is just wishful thinking by Salmond and the SNP who are not "Scotland" who have yet to vote in September. Keeping the Pound will only happen with a "No thanks" vote.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

So an independent Scotland could meet 2 of its prime economic goals (use of the Pound and EU membership) by.........................joining the UK!:rotfl:

I do wonder if, following a marginal yes vote, the numerous practical problems that emerged in the following year might see a Unification ticket in which the elections for the 2016 Scottish Parliament had the Scottish Labour, Liberal and Conservative candidates all promising to support re-joining the UK.

.string.

BobQ wrote: »

I do wonder if, following a marginal yes vote, the numerous practical problems that emerged in the following year might see a Unification ticket in which the elections for the 2016 Scottish Parliament had the Scottish Labour, Liberal and Conservative candidates all promising to support re-joining the UK.

It could happen, but by then irreparable damage would have been done to the Scottish economy and to UK / Scotland relationships; I would expect that within a year the Scottish financial sector would have fled south, Navy contacts for new warships would have been relocated to a resurgent Southampton and Portsmouth, investment into Scotland would have dried up, mutual trade would have been damaged and much else, including job loss to the uRK. All the while, of course, the SNP would be blaming every setback on the English, ignoring the fact that they had been warned years about walking away from the Union, and making rapprochement less likely.

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you know of a single state that has joined the EU in 18 months?

I think 18 months is optimistic, but I'm not sure comparing to more recent members joining is all that informative. Scotland is currently part of Europe, unlike Latvia etc, it only has to commit to continuing to do the same things it is already doing when it becomes independent.

Scotland joining Europe is going to be a far more political issue than beaurocratic. I could honestly see Scotland, almost, instantly becoming an EU nation if it agreed to adopt the €, or potentially if it kept the pound in a full currency union, and agreed to pay its full share of EU fees (sans equivalent of UK discount). However, politics mean that a number of nations may want to make the process more ardous than that and a new currency and/or using the pound without currency union would make things more complex.