Brussels has called into question whether the French government’s economic
plan can bring the country’s deficit back into line with tough EU budget rules,
suggesting Paris must make further cuts in welfare and healthcare spending to
achieve compliance.
The recommendations form part of the European Commission’s annual review
of EU national budget plans ... (The report) notes that “sizeable short-term
savings cannot be achieved” unless France significantly cuts increases in
social security spending. It also says healthcare and pension costs must
be cut further, noting reforms adopted in December still left France’s
pension programme in deficit. So the EU controls and approves the budgets of member states, even the
most mighty ones. And France at least has representation in Brussels. And at
least Brussels checks the budgets of all members. And the euro zone has many
members so it is much less asymmetrical (in distribution of power and risk) than
the pound currency union would be. On the other hand, iScotland will have NO representation in Westminster,
and will have a currency union with one, ten times larger, very dominant
neighbour.
What would the Scottish yes supporters say if in the future Westminster
demanded that due to the pound currency union, iScotland has to make additional
cuts to welfare, health care, pensions? I suspect they would say all those
things which they are saying about Westminster now. And of course, it is ridiculous to even imagine that Westminster would
reciprocally send the rUK's budget for approval to Holyrood. So, you see, such a
currency union would be a one-way street, with Westminster ruling over
iScotland. Yet, this is what the SNP want, and they claim that this is
'independence'.
No comments:
Post a Comment