BCal Dc10 wrote:
Yes, but one big difference, Scotland wants to join (or remain) in a much bigger union.
I said I wouldn't quote anything, but as I enjoy debating interesting points with Dutchy, your quote makes me think of lots of things.
The problem is - and I have thought much about this in recent days - how to formulate a response and I think the fact that most reasonable people with a degree of intelligence (me a masters in Mechanical Engineering, Commerce and French) - see how hard the arguments are. And they are so complex. Or you wouldn't all get your panties in a bunch about this, as much as you all do.
Scotland has an issue of being in a Union (with the rest of the UK). It wants full control over its economy, its defense, its home controls, police, social security benefits, I assume its borders, its immigration, healthcare, its domestic spending. Etc etc - A view from being a member of the UK union.
So by leaving the United Kingdom, in the short term it becomes its own singular country with control over EVERYTHING! Congrats Scotland. You are independent nation. Crack on. Do your best. But then she says - och aye we want to be in the EU!! (As a full member I assume)
So my question is - what does an independent member country - like Scotland, theoretically in the future, give up to be a member of the EU. There are pro's and con's. Access to the single market is obviously a massive benefit to a country like Scotland. There are probably downsides. So what are they?
So I ask all forum members to be honest, (and polite) and say what are the downsides to EU membership for a country joining? And please don't say there aren't any, because if there were no downsides, countries wouldn't want to leave. So what freedoms does a country give up, and what costs does it bear, to gain access to the EU group of 28 (27 after March 2019)?? Do those costs (financial and otherwise) outweigh the benefits?
That is a very difficult thing to answer, the benefits and cost will differ for each and every country. I think it has more to do with your worldview, then any rational arguments. And thus that will differ from person to person.
In central and eastern Europe they were occupied for 50years and wanted some protection and a better live in general, and I think that is still valid.
Larger economic market without any restrictions --> make the pie bigger instead to redistribute it
Shared general set of rules and thus control mechanism, you don't need to do everything times 28
Joined research projects
For every country --> have more power in the world
Shared values and a shared justice system and thus protection for the individual, the EU will enforce it, if necessary, see the Hungary case
A mechanism for countries to settle their differences other than war, bare in mind that there hasn't been a weaponised conflict within the EU since its conception --> Europe is the most bloody continent, everybody fought everybody each and every time.
You give up some sovereignty, as you do with all international treaties to which you commit.
Another bureaucratic layer
Slow progress, lots of countries must agree
Can't react quickly if a situation calls for: refugee-crisis, Euro-crisis
As with everything, there are winners and losers, with countries, among the population.
As for Scotland, the UK members are far more qualified to answer that one, but let me give it a try.
As far as I understand it, besides the strong national identity, Scotland is more Labour orientated and thus more social than Westminster and that is a source for conflict. And, as the referendum results have shown, they want to remain part of the EU.
Now I am going to speculate: the UK population hasn't really got over the fact that Britania doesn't rule the waves anymore. From the world power where the sun never sets to an Island nation of the coast of Europe. If you look what has happened during the rule of Queen Elisabeth II, the empire got dismantled. The Scottish seems to be more Europe orientated.