Quillan Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I don't know if anyone watched his interview with José Manuel Barroso this morning but some of the points Marr raised with him were quite interesting.Renegotiation of Britain's membership. So far no topics have been put forward officially by the UK for renegotiation.Freedom of movement. This is not negotiable as it is at the core of the EU treaty. If the UK was to put a cap on EU immigration the it would not be in keeping with the EU treaty that it signed and the EU would have to limit UK immigration within other EU member states. This would also affect UK businesses that have offices in other EU countries including the UK financial services. BUT many other countries other than the UK have expressed concern about immigrants who are a 'social burden', basically move to another country and do not work. This is something that falls outside the remit of freedom of movement Barroso said. He also said it was something the EU is currently looking into and there was a working group on this issue.UK leaving the EU. Currently the EU is worth £90bn a year to the UK (his number not mine) in business, which is he said would be put in jeopardy should the UK leave.Scotland. He confirmed that if Scotland left the union they would also automatically leave the EU. Interestingly he said that for them to join they would need all 27 members to agree. That was nothing new but he finished that then moved directly on to Spain and Catalonia and the situation there. When you put the two together what he is indirectly implying was that Spain would vote against Scotland becoming a member which is something I often thought might happen.I thought it was quite an interesting interview which nailed down some specific points like Scotland, cap on EU immigration and the fact that the UK had not even put one word on the table about what they want to renegotiate. For a 'politician' his answers were very clear and concise I thought. If it turns up on IPlayer (and if you can watch it) it is worth a watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCCMB Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 What seems not to be mentioned in discussions regarding "freedom of movement" are often the barriers (explicit or implicit) that countries such as France erect to prevent members of other EU countries gaining access to jobs. As I've mentioned before, the UK isn't innocent in this regard, either, placing hurdles such as the requirement for GCSE passes in English, Maths and Science as a fixed criterion for entry into the teaching profession for EU nationals, yet letting people from Canada, Australia, the USA and South Africa become teachers in the UK. Same with nursing. OK, there's also the language requirement for those from non English-speaking countries, but I'm not sure why (assuming the language requirement is met) there needs to be a requirement for other qualifications to be re-taken or whatever.The UK is less to blame in the private sector, where it's easier for appropriately-qualified people to get jobs. I don't know the situation in countries other than France, but experiences mentioned on this forum over the years seem to indicate that it's somewhere between difficult and impossible for qualified people to break into most professions in France if they aren't being moved by an employer. Surely, that flies in the face of the concept of "freedom of movement", and probably exacerbates the problem of people arriving in other countries and then having to fall back on the support of the welfare system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 The EU provides the opportunity to move round in order to seek work or to settle if and only if those involved can support themselves.France has reserved huge areas of employment for French nationals solely, including the whole of the State sector. This it is able to control the labour market better and control such things as wages. The perversion of this system is now seen in the bankruptcy of such firms as Mory Ducros, the second boiggest transport company, which was largely chased out of business by drivers from the newer European nations being employed at rock bottom wages(ie those of their home country) whilst effectively working full time in France.Personally, I see no reason why workers should not be employed on a contract only basis and be asked to return to their home countries after the job is done, or until they have had another six months to find work. And not be eligible for benefits.Europe is not ready for a completefree and open labour market, nor can it cope with large numbers of workers moving from country to country to suit their needs. There has to be a level of control.In the case of UK, no job, you return from whence you came, no benefits for five years, no support for families who are left in the home country (far too open to fraud).Immediate expulsion for illegals; right to a family life in your home country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 Betty, I was thinking about you yesterday. Off topic I know but what with all the current weather etc I hope you are OK.Back on subject, I agree with most of your comments. I think in most cases people are sent by their company to another state to work. There are a smaller percentage that arrive looking for work. All I do know is that a couple I know who went to the UK (from France) both found work within a week but then they were not choosy on what they did initially while they looked for the jobs they really wanted. This initial period was excellent experience for them in getting to grips with the language so they didn't consider working in bars etc initially a disadvantage even if the wages were very low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Regarding Scotland: if they leave it should be on the understanding that if it all goes wrong they cannot come back and be bailed out..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanH Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 One of the barriers that the French erect is the system of 'concours' which have to be taken for state posts.I have A Master's degree, a post-graduate teaching qualification, have qualified teacher status in the UK and have TEFL qualifications but of course I hadn't passed the 'concours' to be an English teacher when I arrived here so couldn't be considered for a full time job. As the concours is written at least half in French (for teachers of English) I would have had problems in passing it, even though I certainly understood the language of the set texts (such as Anthony and Cleopatra at that time ) better than many of the French candidates This didn't prevent the Rectorat from exploiting me by throwing crumbs of hourly-paid or very short term work at me, but it did mean I had several years of 'precarity'. It always seemed hypocritical to say I wasn't good enough to be in the classroom, unless there was no-one else, when suddenly I was quite OK.Later I found work in the Higher Education sector which was more flexible.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judith Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 NormanH, Your experience reflects a friend's - now here teaching English privately, and in some degree with the Maision de la Formation locally which fully understand her qualifications, experience etc, but are unable to do more than that, much though they would love to do so. She was Head of Modern Languages back "home", teaching French, German and other languages, and who was more highly qualified than most French teachers at the same level, but refused to re-qualify so she could teach in state schools. Even though the assessors agreed that she was better qualified than they (!), she refused to cow-tow and is now more than fully occupied, and earning well enough without entering the state sector.Their loss, others gain, but a perfect example of the hoops the French put in the way of highly experienced and qualified teachers (who can speak the language perfectly - she has also acted as interpreter on occasion, which shows her skills), to eliminate competition. So much for free movement of labour.Now I wouldn't mind for other subjects, but when it comes to the teaching of English - our mother tongue - which is so badly done here, if they at all wanted to help their kids in the 21st century, they would be delighted to have highly qualified mother-tongue trained teachers to teach the kids English! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I heard a scottish MP or a bloke with some such post on the telly this afternoon saying that Scotland had been a member for the EU for 40 years and so should not be treat like a newcomer.I am sure that even in Scotland, people know what divorce entails and that, for better or worse, it is a new start with new rules. So if they want a divorce so be it. Ofcourse, if the £ no longer exists as daily currency in Scotland and Scotland is not a member of the € either they will have to have a new currency. Would we have a proper border again at Berwick and would there be a new Hadrian's Wall, maybe a very new Cameron's Wall............oops, that sounds rather scottish to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 Well Salmond seems to think that the Bank of England, Cameron and all the other leaders are wrong about Scotland keeping the pound. Even if the 'new' UK decided to stop them they would simply not pay their portion of the national debt which I believe they see as a way of blackmailing Westminster and the B of E. Well thats my impression. What I think is also strange is not that long ago Salmond was talking about the Euro, member states and monetary union being a bad thing in general yet now he wants monetary union but with the pound.Likewise Salmond seems to think Barroso is also talking rubbish and that Scotland would continue to be a member of the EU from the day it becomes independent. I would like to think that Barroso with respect to the EU knows what he is talking about on this issue.Personally I think the only person talking rubbish is Salmond and whilst I have no axe to grind with the Scots in general (I wish them the best of luck whatever way they vote) I think they deserve somebody better to lead them. It seems to me that Salmond is only interested in his place in history as the man who gave Scotland independence (at any price).Idun your point from a technical point of view is interesting. The UK is not a member of the Schengen agreement and if Scotland left the UK it would not be either. This means the UK needs a border between it and Scotland. The reality is of course is that will probably not physically happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard51 Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 [img]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-M7DdiVoBGco/UwD4zoNuaYI/AAAAAAAABUc/mZ-IiU7WU3I/w526-h394-no/MrsBrownsBoys.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbie Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It seems that Salmond is not alone in thinking Barroso may be wrong. This view is shared by a former EU judge. See this link for another perspective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gardengirl Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 As someone with Scottish blood running in my veins, I was very offended years ago when holidaying in Scotland and saw sprayed signs telling the English to get out of Scotland. Yes, maybe they were yobs, possibly Salmond in his younger days, but I felt very unwelcome. When Scottish independence came up and seemed to be reasonably well-supported, I thought - fine, if you want it, do it, but thought it a stupid idea, still do.However, if independence should come about and the Scots refuse to pay their share of debts, how on earth would they ever expect to take out the loans they would need? - no country would trust them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted February 16, 2014 Author Share Posted February 16, 2014 [quote user="gardengirl "]However, if independence should come about and the Scots refuse to pay their share of debts, how on earth would they ever expect to take out the loans they would need? - no country would trust them. [/quote]I seem to remember that this is exactly what the current chairman (whose name escapes me at the moment) of the B of E said in his non-political speech said. He also said the same about Scotland keeping the pound without agreement with the UK. The money would have a value equal to the rest of the UK but not being part of the UK they could never borrow against it as it is not their money. Likewise London would set interest rates which rather defeats part of the object of being independent. As my dad always said if you smack somebody on the nose the memory fades over time, have control of their pocket and you control them for life and they always remember who the boss is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 How on earth did one man come to have so much say over such an important decision for the peoples of Scotland ?..The man from what I have read about him seems to be in denial that his dream of being a "President " of Scotland is slipping away from him . All party leaders the head of the Bank of England and now the EU have all pointed out that his statements regarding what he is saying WILL happen will NOT happen. Yet he thinks he is so powerful he can convince the Scots he can control them all . As for threatening not to pay Scotland's debt share unless he get's his way .. He is like a kid running off the field with the ball saying "its mine " determined to ruin the game for all.... He has not been appointed to the post of no doubt what will turn out to be " Dictator " for Scotland yet and lets hope he never is .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbie Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 While I am not in favour of Scottish independence and would vote "No" if I had the vote I am a bit surprised by the strength of feeling being expressed. When you compare how Ireland was treated after a violent campaign to achieve independence - Used the pound from 1919 to 1978, Open borders with the UK, Able to be MP at Westminster even if only holding an Irish passport., Not taking any share of the National Debt , Being baled out by the UK in the recent euro crisis with the harsh measures proposed both on this forum and by official sources perhaps Alex Salmond was mistaken in following the democratic route and should have gone for a more violent one instead. I for one am glad that he did choose the democratic option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 [quote user="Rabbie"]It seems that Salmond is not alone in thinking Barroso may be wrong. This view is shared by a former EU judge. See this link for another perspective[/quote]I wonder if Salmond and Swinney have actually read article 48 of the Lisbon treaty? Article 48 is about amending the treaty and an overview of how it is done can be found HERE. This is another reason why the Scots deserve better than Salmond who claims it would only take a maximum of 18 months to sort out using article 48. Firstly has anyone ever seen the EU move that fast? Secondly it wouldn't do him any good because again all 27 member states have to agree with the amendment after it has been voted on in individual state parliaments, MEP's, Members council etc, etc ,etc. All that time what about Scotish businesses, farmers etc?The problem I guess many have with Salmond is he does not ask he tells and when somebody says NO he behaves like a petulant child. His second problem, in this case I actually agree with Osbourne, is he has no plan B. I actually feel quite sorry for the Scots because I believe they will only get one shot at this and if they want independence and get this wrong because of some plonker who dreams of being president at any price it will be a golden opportunity that has been lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thibault Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I may be cynical, but I wonder if Mr Salmond's game is not to achieve independence as such, but to obtain a close vote, so that he can wring more concessions out of Westminster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 [quote user="Thibault"]I may be cynical, but I wonder if Mr Salmond's game is not to achieve independence as such, but to obtain a close vote, so that he can wring more concessions out of Westminster.[/quote]I did wonder if he was playing a game I must admit although not the one you had in mind. I thought he was trying to antagonise the British public so he could say to his fellow Scots "Look see, they English really don't like us, we are better off on our own.". Your idea or mine either way it is a bit childish and one hopes the Scots see through it all.I also thought it funny that he is now accusing the British government of being bullies after they announce he couldn't have the pound. I suspect him saying that what Borroso said was preposterous means a letter will be on its way to the EU telling them they are bullies also. Bet they can't wait for that to arrive, there will be a few laughs in the EU bar on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCCMB Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I think it's a bit rich to accuse anyone of bullying the SNP, given that they keep making veiled threats about the consequences of not bending to their will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbie Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 On the grounds that some facts are better than none here is a link to a presentation based on UK Government stats that puts forward the economic situation in Scotland now and in the future.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W8cKHcZn60#t=95 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Surely if the powers that me in every party say the Scots could not have the pound, no matter what the arguments he's not going to get it..so let him argue away...just time wasting.Strikes me he has assumed an awful lot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 Its a bit long but I have struggled through.It is not neutral at all but that is not an issue really as I guess somebody else has done the same thing from the other perspective.There was one small flaw which he didn't make clear and nobody asked. He references Scotland to the UK but does the UK stats not also include Scotland?One thing he mentioned from a negative point about the UK was Embassies abroad which costs a lot. Well if Scotland becomes independent that's yet another thing they will have to fund i.e. their own embassies. Only a trivial thing but another expense.There are also a lot of other things they will need which don't seem to come up. Scottish passport office and the replacement of every Scottish passport. Car numberplates and driving licences, national grid, train lines, there is a whole list of things if you sit down and think about. All this little things add up and they are an extra cost Scotland has to pay for if it is independent. Policing Scotland is subsidized due to it geographics, not by much but it is still extra money it needs to find. Personally I don't care one way or another, I am quite neutral really, but all these things need to be put down and discussed which both sides have failed to do. At least the chap was honest in saying you need to get back to the basic numbers as people can make statistics look how they want them to look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 [quote user="idun"]I heard a scottish MP or a bloke with some such post on the telly this afternoon saying that Scotland had been a member for the EU for 40 years and so should not be treat like a newcomer.I am sure that even in Scotland, people know what divorce entails and that, for better or worse, it is a new start with new rules. So if they want a divorce so be it. Ofcourse, if the £ no longer exists as daily currency in Scotland and Scotland is not a member of the € either they will have to have a new currency. Would we have a proper border again at Berwick and would there be a new Hadrian's Wall, maybe a very new Cameron's Wall............oops, that sounds rather scottish to be honest.[/quote]Which raises the point .....If your money is with a bailed out bank with its HQ in Scotland..............Would you close your account and switch to one with its HQ in England if they vote yes ? Then there is this ..................... another thing the SNP say "will never happen " http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-rbs-would-quit-edinburgh-1-3295676 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idun Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 A birdy tells me that some banks are moving important offices back into England from Scotland. My bank is 'chinese', so I it won't affect me, I don't think, IF I had an account with a bank with an HQ in Scotland then I would be thinking of changing now, just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 [quote user="Frederick"][quote user="idun"]I heard a scottish MP or a bloke with some such post on the telly this afternoon saying that Scotland had been a member for the EU for 40 years and so should not be treat like a newcomer.I am sure that even in Scotland, people know what divorce entails and that, for better or worse, it is a new start with new rules. So if they want a divorce so be it. Ofcourse, if the £ no longer exists as daily currency in Scotland and Scotland is not a member of the € either they will have to have a new currency. Would we have a proper border again at Berwick and would there be a new Hadrian's Wall, maybe a very new Cameron's Wall............oops, that sounds rather scottish to be honest.[/quote]Which raises the point .....If your money is with a bailed out bank with its HQ in Scotland..............Would you close your account and switch to one with its HQ in England if they vote yes ? Then there is this ..................... another thing the SNP say "will never happen " http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish-independence-rbs-would-quit-edinburgh-1-3295676[/quote]The link is not opening for some reason THE Royal Bank of Scotland and the 3200-strong workforce at its Gogarburn headquarters were today at the centre of the latest row over independence after Business Secretary Vince Cable claimed the bank would “inevitably” relocate its HQ to London after a ‘Yes’ vote. Mr Cable told a committee of MPs that RBS, founded in Edinburgh in 1727, would want to be in the same country as the lender of last resort – the Bank of England.But the SNP has branded his comments “ridiculous”.RBS was bailed out by taxpayers after it came close to collapse in the 2008 banking crisis and is still 80 per cent publicly-owned. It employs 12,000 staff in Scotland,At Westminster’s business innovation and skills committee, Glasgow North East Labour MP Willie Bain asked what RBS might do if the Bank of England was no longer its “lender of last resort”.Mr Cable replied: “I think if you were managing RBS you would almost certainly want to be in a domicile where your bank is protected against the risk of collapse.“I think they already have a substantial amount of their management in London and I would have thought that inevitably they would become a London bank.”Edinburgh Western SNP MSP Colin Keir dismissed the comments as “another example of the usual scare stories”.He said: “Even once the UK Government in finished with it, RBS will be a global player. Its headquarters are here, it does a lot of business in London and all around the world. There is no reason for it to shift its headquarters.“Vince Cable is a Liberal Democrat and a unionist – he will paint the darkest picture possible for anything. But their doom and gloom stories are one of the reasons the ‘Yes’ campaign is picking up momentum.”Edinburgh West Lib Dem MP Mike Crockart said if an independent Scotland were able to agree a full monetary union with the rest of the UK, there would be no reason for RBS to move headquarters. But he said different banking regulations north and south of the border could force its hand. Mr Crockart said: “There would be a pull for banks in Scotland to move their headquarters south, where they will gain from the stability of the regulatory system that’s already in place.”An SNP spokesman said: “Vince Cable’s ridiculous comments are at odds with the common sense remarks from RBS’s chief executive, who last week said that if they had to operate in 39 countries around the world rather than 38, that is exactly what they would do.“Mr Cable has unwittingly highlighted exactly why polls show the vast majority of people in the rest of the UK would expect the Westminster Government to agree to a currency union with Scotland.”RBS said: “We don’t support political parties or political movements. We will respond to what voters decide and governments agree.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now