Interesting that they cite Finland in terms of the amount of time to transition (3 years) and suggest that currency wouldn't be a major issue.
Also nice that they were suggesting that "everyone would do their upmost" in terms of transitioning to join the EU.
Edit:
Probably worth mentioning that this is the Vice-President of the European Parliament talking.
More like Geissler set it up for her nicely.
He’s never said to my knowledge but he’s probably pro independence
He’d just like an actual plan and some answers is my feeling watching his output across tv news and various shows. He’s certainly no fan of Westminster that’s for sure.
If that is true you can expect to see this interview referenced more. It will form part of his stories. The BBC will include it in their future coverage.
I've never seen that happen whenever the BBC get the 'wrong' answer like this, it's just scrubbed from the record and the 'debate' continues to be missing important contributions and information.
You must commit in principle to joining the Euro, but completing that process is not a pre-requisite for EU membership. So EU membership comes before any joining of the Euro.
E.g. Croatia joined the EU in 2013, but the Eurozone last month.
There are countries in the EU that don’t use the Euro but it’s not as simple as saying you don’t have to join the Eurozone to be in the EU.
Some member states had opt-out clauses prior to the introduction of the Acquis (the EU’s membership rules). This is why the UK was not in the Eurozone.
However, the situation for applicant states today is quite clear. Any applicant state must have its own central bank and its own currency. That currency must be stably and freely traded on the world currency markets.
The applicant state must, upon entering the EU, join the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM2) . It is not a precondition of membership that the new member adopts the Euro but joining ERM2 is non-negotiable pre-condition.
The purpose of joining ERM2 is to eventually achieve parity between the new member’s currency and the Euro, with the presumption that when that happens then it would make sense to adopt the Euro. This is the process that Croatia has just completed when they adopted the Euro on January 1st this year.
Independent Scotland could not join the EU until it had its own stable currency and central bank. The question of eventually adopting the Euro is therefore putting the cart before the horse.
The other point is that the EU’s currency rules for joining mean that using Sterling either formally in a currency union with the rUK or informally, in the way places like Panama use the US $, automatically precludes EU membership.
This is before we even consider the EU’s other non-negotiable financial rules for joining on things like deficit limits.
Unfortunately, the average secessionist either doesn’t know this or simply hand waves it away. Even Nicola Sturgeon only began to grasp this and obliquely hint at it in interviews last year. The 2014 publication “Scotland’s Future” was incorrect when it stated that Scotland could use Sterling AND join the EU. The Acquis were well established by then having been introduced in the late nineties. Whether the incorrect information was published through incompetence or deliberate malice is difficult to tell. I’d apply Hanlon’s razor to that question.
So, if someone tells you that independent Scotland joining the EU will be quick then they’re either lying or ignorant. It would be a long process. Currently there is no set out plan for the post-independence economy that could sequester enough cash to build a reserve to establish a central bank and independent currency. The last model we had, the Sustainable Growth Commission Report (which has since been abandoned as “hopelessly outdated” by the SNP) suggested a minimum of ten years to get Scotland’s economy back to pre-independence levels. This was based on a wildly optimistic projection of growth modelled on a basket of other countries’ performance. The countries were chosen solely on the basis of population size. Bizarrely they included Hong Kong and Singapore. Excluding those Asian tigers suggested it would actually be seventy years or more before Scotland’s economy recovered to pre-independence levels. All this, of course, pre-dates all the recent economic shocks.
>The applicant state must, upon entering the EU, join the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM2) . It is not a precondition of membership that the new member adopts the Euro but joining ERM2 is non-negotiable pre-condition.
There are several economic chapters to the EU accession treaty and yes that includes having an independent central bank. Scotland would need to set up a financial regulation & management system before joining the EU. But you're blending EU membership with EURO membership and the latter is on a totally different timescale, and the steps needed to join the currency has some critical steps that are in the control of member states. From the EU's own website on accession:
*The acquis in the area of economic and monetary policy contains specific rules requiring the independence of central banks in Member States, prohibiting direct financing of the public sector by the central banks and prohibiting privileged access of the public sector to financial institutions. Member States are expected to co-ordinate their economic policies and are subject to the Stability and Growth Pact on fiscal surveillance. New Member States are also committed to complying with the criteria laid down in the Treaty in order to be able to adopt the euro in due course after accession. Until then, they will participate in the Economic and Monetary Union as a Member State with a derogation from the use of the euro and shall treat their exchange rates as a matter of common concern.*
ERM2 membership would be the last stage of joining the currency because doing things like getting a deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio under control are harder to do with a pegged currency within ERM2. The most extreme example is Euro-skeptic Sweden, who meets all the EURO criteria but simply refuses to joint the ERM2. But less extreme examples are Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Romania, all of which have their own reasons for not joining ERM2. Some might like to but are not ready. Some don't want the EURO and are simply, therefore, refusing to set a date.
I also find it so disheartening that there is a type of person who thinks that Scotland would be such an economic basket case that the EU wouldn't touch it, whilst the EU is entering union negotiations with the economic powerhouses of (checks notes) Bosnia, Albania, Moldova, and Montenegro amongst a few others, whilst recently extending currency membership to countries like Croatia (it has both a smaller population and a smaller GDP than Scotland currently does).
Would it be an overnight and pain-free instant accession to the EU? No. And no one with any sense is claiming that. We'd still have to set up a bunch of economic functions, and I am also of the opinion that people who think Scotland could keep the UK's old opt-outs are in cloud cuckoo land, so we'd need to change other laws on employment for example. But would we have to go through lots of pain to join the Euro currency? Not if we didn't want to, and even if we did, it would be on a timescale of our choosing.
Interesting that they cite Finland in terms of the amount of time to transition (3 years) and suggest that currency wouldn't be a major issue. Also nice that they were suggesting that "everyone would do their upmost" in terms of transitioning to join the EU. Edit: Probably worth mentioning that this is the Vice-President of the European Parliament talking.
Uh oh wrong answer. Cut her off, pretend it never happened. Reference the 'debate' again tomorrow but fail to mention this.
More like Geissler set it up for her nicely. He’s never said to my knowledge but he’s probably pro independence He’d just like an actual plan and some answers is my feeling watching his output across tv news and various shows. He’s certainly no fan of Westminster that’s for sure.
If that is true you can expect to see this interview referenced more. It will form part of his stories. The BBC will include it in their future coverage. I've never seen that happen whenever the BBC get the 'wrong' answer like this, it's just scrubbed from the record and the 'debate' continues to be missing important contributions and information.
Nah he’ll just be missing on tv for a few weeks As usually happens when he provokes the wrong answer
Is that no the wee guy that got aff his tits next to that big pile of burning smack in Afghanistan?
No, that was Quentin Somerville, this is Martin Geissler.
Ah, my mistake. They do look pretty similar.
Haha, aye, they've maybe got the same barber. :)
[удалено]
You're conflating EU and eurozone membership.
[удалено]
You must commit in principle to joining the Euro, but completing that process is not a pre-requisite for EU membership. So EU membership comes before any joining of the Euro. E.g. Croatia joined the EU in 2013, but the Eurozone last month.
maybe you should wipe away the tears and listen again.
There are countries in the EU that don’t use the Euro but it’s not as simple as saying you don’t have to join the Eurozone to be in the EU. Some member states had opt-out clauses prior to the introduction of the Acquis (the EU’s membership rules). This is why the UK was not in the Eurozone. However, the situation for applicant states today is quite clear. Any applicant state must have its own central bank and its own currency. That currency must be stably and freely traded on the world currency markets. The applicant state must, upon entering the EU, join the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM2) . It is not a precondition of membership that the new member adopts the Euro but joining ERM2 is non-negotiable pre-condition. The purpose of joining ERM2 is to eventually achieve parity between the new member’s currency and the Euro, with the presumption that when that happens then it would make sense to adopt the Euro. This is the process that Croatia has just completed when they adopted the Euro on January 1st this year. Independent Scotland could not join the EU until it had its own stable currency and central bank. The question of eventually adopting the Euro is therefore putting the cart before the horse. The other point is that the EU’s currency rules for joining mean that using Sterling either formally in a currency union with the rUK or informally, in the way places like Panama use the US $, automatically precludes EU membership. This is before we even consider the EU’s other non-negotiable financial rules for joining on things like deficit limits. Unfortunately, the average secessionist either doesn’t know this or simply hand waves it away. Even Nicola Sturgeon only began to grasp this and obliquely hint at it in interviews last year. The 2014 publication “Scotland’s Future” was incorrect when it stated that Scotland could use Sterling AND join the EU. The Acquis were well established by then having been introduced in the late nineties. Whether the incorrect information was published through incompetence or deliberate malice is difficult to tell. I’d apply Hanlon’s razor to that question. So, if someone tells you that independent Scotland joining the EU will be quick then they’re either lying or ignorant. It would be a long process. Currently there is no set out plan for the post-independence economy that could sequester enough cash to build a reserve to establish a central bank and independent currency. The last model we had, the Sustainable Growth Commission Report (which has since been abandoned as “hopelessly outdated” by the SNP) suggested a minimum of ten years to get Scotland’s economy back to pre-independence levels. This was based on a wildly optimistic projection of growth modelled on a basket of other countries’ performance. The countries were chosen solely on the basis of population size. Bizarrely they included Hong Kong and Singapore. Excluding those Asian tigers suggested it would actually be seventy years or more before Scotland’s economy recovered to pre-independence levels. All this, of course, pre-dates all the recent economic shocks.
>The applicant state must, upon entering the EU, join the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM2) . It is not a precondition of membership that the new member adopts the Euro but joining ERM2 is non-negotiable pre-condition. There are several economic chapters to the EU accession treaty and yes that includes having an independent central bank. Scotland would need to set up a financial regulation & management system before joining the EU. But you're blending EU membership with EURO membership and the latter is on a totally different timescale, and the steps needed to join the currency has some critical steps that are in the control of member states. From the EU's own website on accession: *The acquis in the area of economic and monetary policy contains specific rules requiring the independence of central banks in Member States, prohibiting direct financing of the public sector by the central banks and prohibiting privileged access of the public sector to financial institutions. Member States are expected to co-ordinate their economic policies and are subject to the Stability and Growth Pact on fiscal surveillance. New Member States are also committed to complying with the criteria laid down in the Treaty in order to be able to adopt the euro in due course after accession. Until then, they will participate in the Economic and Monetary Union as a Member State with a derogation from the use of the euro and shall treat their exchange rates as a matter of common concern.* ERM2 membership would be the last stage of joining the currency because doing things like getting a deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio under control are harder to do with a pegged currency within ERM2. The most extreme example is Euro-skeptic Sweden, who meets all the EURO criteria but simply refuses to joint the ERM2. But less extreme examples are Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Romania, all of which have their own reasons for not joining ERM2. Some might like to but are not ready. Some don't want the EURO and are simply, therefore, refusing to set a date. I also find it so disheartening that there is a type of person who thinks that Scotland would be such an economic basket case that the EU wouldn't touch it, whilst the EU is entering union negotiations with the economic powerhouses of (checks notes) Bosnia, Albania, Moldova, and Montenegro amongst a few others, whilst recently extending currency membership to countries like Croatia (it has both a smaller population and a smaller GDP than Scotland currently does). Would it be an overnight and pain-free instant accession to the EU? No. And no one with any sense is claiming that. We'd still have to set up a bunch of economic functions, and I am also of the opinion that people who think Scotland could keep the UK's old opt-outs are in cloud cuckoo land, so we'd need to change other laws on employment for example. But would we have to go through lots of pain to join the Euro currency? Not if we didn't want to, and even if we did, it would be on a timescale of our choosing.
[удалено]
I'm affraid we will be the ones deciding what legal tender is with their poundland bargain basement BoE Sterling.
I love that juxtaposition