How to Join the EU in 35 'Simple' Steps

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

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.....

The acquis, which is "not negotiable" apparently, covers quite a lot of ground, and there are a lot of things in it which Scotland isn't doing at the moment. Of course, Scotland is not doing those things because it doesn't need to, the UK is doing them; but the EU will need to ensure that Scotland is capable of doing them without the UK.

N1AK wrote: »

...Scotland joining Europe is going to be a far more political issue than beaurocratic. .......

On the contrary, it will be very bureaucratic, as the EU Commission staff work their way through the detail of the 35 chapters of the acquis.

N1AK wrote: »

....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).....

Unless the EU are 'bluffing' when they say that the acquis is "not negotiable", it is difficult to see how being part of a currency union with the UK would be compatible with the requirement "to adopt the euro in due course after accession".

And 'agreeing to adopt the euro' is not that simple. First you need a currency, a central bank, ....

N1AK wrote: »

..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.

I suspect that might depend on to what extent the Scottish negotiators understand the meaning of the phrase "not negotiable".:)

N1AK

antrobus wrote: »

On the contrary, it will be very bureaucratic, as the EU Commission staff work their way through the detail of the 35 chapters of the acquis.

I suspect that might depend on to what extent the Scottish negotiators understand the meaning of the phrase "not negotiable".:)

It is perfectly possible that this is exactly the reasoning that will be followed. What I don't know is whether it is blinkered thinking, or an attempt to scare No voters, that leads people to assert that there is no possibility that it won't be. Scotland is currently in the EU as a part of a semi-devolved member state; that is inherently a very different situation to Iceland for example. I wouldn't bet it would be treated differently, but I am open to the possibility that it will.

antrobus wrote: »

And 'agreeing to adopt the euro' is not that simple. First you need a currency, a central bank, ....

It's exactly this type of example I don't get. The idea that Scotland would have to imagine up a currency to be allowed to then move to the Euro seems fanciful at best.

A solution based on Scotland remaining in a currency union until it moved to the Euro would be eminently viable if the political will to support it is there; which I doubt.

Generali

N1AK wrote: »

It's exactly this type of example I don't get. The idea that Scotland would have to imagine up a currency to be allowed to then move to the Euro seems fanciful at best.

A solution based on Scotland remaining in a currency union until it moved to the Euro would be eminently viable if the political will to support it is there; which I doubt.

The Euro treaty would have to be renegotiated in this case. You're meant to spend a period (2 years I think) in 'convergence' with the Euro as part of ERM II.

That's not to say it's impossible; according to a couple of posters, the EU is going to crap itself at the thought of another tiny Northern European non-entity not being fully engaged with Europe and let them join seamlessly upon leaving the Union.

It's almost worth seeing a Yes vote to watch the fun and games. From afar of course.

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

It is perfectly possible that this is exactly the reasoning that will be followed. What I don't know is whether it is blinkered thinking, or an attempt to scare No voters, that leads people to assert that there is no possibility that it won't be. Scotland is currently in the EU as a part of a semi-devolved member state; that is inherently a very different situation to Iceland for example. I wouldn't bet it would be treated differently, but I am open to the possibility that it will....

Exactly, Scotland is in a "very different situation to Iceland". For example, Iceland currently posses the administrative capability to levy and collect VAT. Scotland does not. It relies on the UK to do that. The EU commissioners would therefore be keen to establish that this Scotland would indeed have the necessary administrative capability.

The point I was making was that since Scotland currently is not an independent state, it doesn't currently have some of things that an independent state would have, but that it would need to have in order to meet the accession criteria. Therefore it could be argued that the process of ensuring compliance with the acquis would actually take longer.

N1AK wrote: »

....It's exactly this type of example I don't get. The idea that Scotland would have to imagine up a currency to be allowed to then move to the Euro seems fanciful at best.

A solution based on Scotland remaining in a currency union until it moved to the Euro would be eminently viable if the political will to support it is there; which I doubt.

Fanciful or not, it appears to be what is specified by the acquis. And the EU does say that the acquis is "not negotiable". The accession criteria do seem to be based on the idea that a candidate country must have its own central bank, and that it must commit to joining the Euro. It's difficult to see how a country could go through the whole convergence/ERM II process using somebody else's currency.

.string.

Scotland has no track record as a viable economic entity separate from the United Kingdom, no economic figures apart from those which derive from the United Kingdom of which Scotland is a part and whose support has produced mutual prosperity in these Islands.

The SNP optimistic claims for future and instant prosperity are the moment just aspirations; empty shells constructed to win a Referendum.

At the same time Salmond and the SNP have stated many times how they will not honour debts which arise from their Separation from the United Kingdom and face an uncertain negotiation with the rUK should they achieve a "Yes" result, a negotiation that is very unlikely to be quick and to give all, if any, items on the SNP wish list.

In line with SNP policy, Scotland has no currency of its own, nor a Central Bank capable of sustaining its economy; further in negotiation with the EU (if that can happen at all before Separation which I doubt) expects to acquire all the goodies achieved after many years of repeated negotiation by the UK, a country with a fair degree of clout.

How on Earth can an EU, trying to drag itself out of a financial crisis where indisciplined states have been unprepared or unable to get their financial houses in order without subsidies from Germany, be expected to admit an unproven state which has not proved itself, threatens not to pay its debts, and which is in the throes of what may well be a very tough and prolonged negotiation with a Member State.

It is entirely understandable why the top officials in the EU have said already that the accession of Scotland to the EU will be long and difficult, if not impossible.

A Separated Scotland will have to await its turn and then it will have to join the EU, if it still wants to, under the conditions imposed on any new member and at a time which is of the choosing of the EU, not Scotland.

That's tough, but it's the way of real life, not the SNP fantasy land.

Slamond may think he can con the Scottish People into believing his blather (I don't) but Europeans have no special place for Scotland in their Hearts and their decision will be based on cold hard facts, not wishful thinking.

edit: By the way, Scotland has a Population of just over 5 Million; the rUK would have a Population of about 58 million and the EU has a Population of about 500 million. It makes one think about the relative bargaining power (both Salmond and Cameron take note).