[Closed] UK in the EU. Japan warning!

ninfan - Member

"An independent Scotland would not have possession of or allow nuclear weapons in Scottish territory."

Maybe I should have explained the "danish position" but since you posted about it I thought you'd have read your own link. The agreement there is that nuclear weapons are forbidden, but as NATO vessels/craft do not declare the presence of nuclear weapons they are still welcome (officially this is for strategic and security reasons, in practice probably largely for diplomatic reasons). It is a fudge but an established and respected one.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

ohnohesback - Member
...whos'....who's...

or even whose? 😉

I'd need to consider leaving the UK if we leave the EU. I work in a global company as a European point of contact for the European market. Would be a good excuse to move near some French mountains I guess.

Me too, we were taken over by a huge German company and work with them on high-tech stuff which gets sold to german/french customers on a regular basis. Anything that makes that even slightly more difficult isn't good news. I suspect they'd close our small office and offer us positions in Germany.

But this is just a guess.. what happens in situations like this if we leave the EU? Good news? Bad news?

We keep straying into Scottish independence. Something I'm an enthusiast of. Rather selfishly so I can send my kids up for a university education at your expense. Oh and I don't think that you should be using the pound if you are really independent.

Back to the EU

So it seems that the anti EU stance is "of of course we'll stay in the free trade area just stop paying our subs". Is that really an option? Switzerland and Norway may have a position that we envy but that doesn't mean that the same position is available to us?

Because leaving the

But this is just a guess.. what happens in situations like this if we leave the EU? Good news? Bad news?

What happens? The likes of you and I bugger off and take a decently paid job into the EU, I'd guess.

I don't think my own position is particularly unique. In my case my company relocated a job from the US to the EU and I was the beneficiary. If it's no longer sustainable for that job to be in the UK, then it'll get shifted to mainland Europe, no bother at all.

Hence we lose the tax take on jobs like this, and I've yet to see that impact factored into any of the "out" camp's calculations. It's all just narrow-minded "we get back less than we pay in", without a single consideration of externalities.

Hence we lose the tax take on jobs like this, and I've yet to see that impact factored into any of the "out" camp's calculations. It's all just narrow-minded "we get back less than we pay in", without a single consideration of externalities

Plus all the money form you spending money...

Yes that seems to be the focus of the whole argument, yet we seem to get lost in the distractions of fruit size/shape regulation.......

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course. Mine is that you'd have to be something of a blithering idiot not to see the benefits of our current role of being an Anglophone member of the EU, with such close trade ties to the United States.

Anyway, this just reminds me to work on my French.

Maybe I should have explained the "danish position" but since you posted about it I thought you'd have read your own link. The agreement there is that nuclear weapons are forbidden, but as NATO vessels/craft do not declare the presence of nuclear weapons they are still welcome (officially this is for strategic and security reasons, in practice probably largely for diplomatic reasons). It is a fudge but an established and respected one.

Brilliant, so we can keep using Faslane, job jobbed!

I don't know why I even bother tbh... is it so hard to understand the difference between visiting and permanent stationing?

ninfan - Member
...Brilliant, so we can keep using Faslane, job jobbed!

It'll be a Scottish base, so you'll just be visiting.

You'll still have to base your submersible nuclear targets somewhere in England. I suggest London so they are close to your decision makers so they can enjoy the consequences of their use.

That's if you haven't already dumped the nuclear weaponry. I'm sure the prospect of having it based near a large English population will motivate folk down there to reconsider their love for holocaust weaponry.

Maybe my irony detector is malfunctioning, or have you really missed the news this week? Almost 2/3rds of it's populations moved out and the City's just filed for bankrupcy!

No Didn't miss the news I followed a lot of it before it was on the cards to file for chapter 9 ,how they said Detroit would arise from the ashes ,the next generation of young entrepreneur etc making it work ,being smarter ,new industries of design etc etc

much of this is being said right here and by similar types of people

It seems theres no easy ride ,survive it and rebuild it from the ground up seems to have been the mantra in NZ and now in Detroit, how long will it be before we are in the same boat ?

That's if you haven't already dumped the nuclear weaponry. I'm sure the prospect of having it based near a large English population will motivate folk down there to reconsider their love for holocaust weaponry

Maybe I should have explained the "danish position" but since you posted about it I thought you'd have read your own link. The agreement there is that nuclear weapons are forbidden, but as NATO vessels/craft do not declare the presence of nuclear weapons they are still welcome (officially this is for strategic and security reasons, in practice probably largely for diplomatic reasons). It is a fudge but an established and respected one.

Have you bothered reading that quote from Lord Robertson I gave up there yet? Denmark was a founder member of NATO. Just like rejoining the EU, you get different conditions to existing members.

So it seems that the anti EU stance is "of of course we'll stay in the free trade area just stop paying our subs". Is that really an option?

Of course it is. Possibly not in exactly the same form as we have now, or in the way Switzerland or Norway have, but we are actually quite an important trading partner for the rest of the EU. As pointed out up thread it's not like we'd stop paying subs entirely - we'd just pay subs for the single market bit.

aracer - Member

Have you bothered reading that quote from Lord Robertson I gave up there yet?

Oh go on, instead of general rudeness, why not tell me what you think I'm missing?

Nothing in that quote provides a problem. Scotland has [i]already[/i] accepted this strategic concept, and in fact had done so before Lord Robertson posed the question (The scottish government position is clear and on the record, and the Yes campaign have no policy of nuclear exclusion).

It is just typical anti-independence scaremongering. What's that you say, Lord Robertson pro-union? That's astonishing! The truth is that while the suggestion we'd automatically enter was nonsense, there are no convincing barriers to Scotland entering NATO and many reasons why we would be welcomed.

Switzerland and Norway have to pay import duties on exports to the EU, but with economies based on oil and dodgy banking this hasn't been much of a blow to them so far. However as the oil supplies dwindle in Norway and international agreements squeeze the Swiss dodgy banking sector, they may well wish they were more "in" rather than sitting on the fence.

Scotland has already accepted this strategic concept

Has it? You said "Alex Salmond is on the record that an independent scotland would use the exact approach of Denmark with regard to visiting vessels and craft" - which is somewhat different, as you explained above, and not apparently one which is acceptable for new members.

Switzerland and Norway have to pay import duties on exports to the EU

Wrong.

I am not sure that that is strictly correct MSP. The Swiss have a number of bilateral trade agreements that in effect give them the same status as other members in specific industries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

aracer - Member
"Scotland has already accepted this strategic concept"
Has it? You said "Alex Salmond is on the record that an independent scotland would use the exact approach of Denmark with regard to visiting vessels and craft" - which is somewhat different, as you explained above, and not apparently one which is acceptable for new members.

That's in the life of his government post independence.

We'll probably be electing other parties thereafter, so basically the position on nuclear will be whatever we vote for then. Strange thing democracy... 🙂

The Swiss have a number of bilateral trade agreements that in effect give them the same status as other members in specific industries.

But it's still a right bugger dealing with the separation in some industries like IT, take it from me

Relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) are framed by a series of bilateral treaties whereby the Swiss Confederation has adopted various provisions of European Union law in order to participate in the Union's single market.

So this is exactly what UKIP want then

I look forward to quoting it back to you as the referendum gets closer

aracer - Member

Has it? You said "Alex Salmond is on the record that an independent scotland would use the exact approach of Denmark with regard to visiting vessels and craft" - which is somewhat different, as you explained above, and not apparently one which is acceptable for new members.

Care to spoil us with a source for that? NATO has no requirement that non-nuclear nations allow foreign nuclear weapons to be stationed permanently on their shores.

Care to spoil us with a source for that?

er, http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/uk-in-the-eu-japan-warning/page/2#post-5174877 😕

Well aracer I thought I'd do some googling on this easy transition to free trade area only

This ones great. I love this quote

"Norway

It is important to understand how special a case Norway is. Norway is the one of the largest exporters of oil and gas in the world, selling over two million barrels of oil a day overseas. Norway derives so much income from energy that the Norwegian government has established a fund – now valued at $525 billion – to invest the proceeds abroad in order not to distort the Norwegian economy and so as to be prepared for the exhaustion of its energy reserves. Although oil production has been declining for several years, Norway is still the world’s third largest exporter of crude oil and natural gas production has expanded through the exploitation of new fields.

Approximately 70 per cent of Norway’s exports go to the EU and over 80 per cent of her imports come from those countries. Over half of Norway’s exports are in the form of energy; EU countries import almost 100 per cent of Norway’s natural gas exports. "

any way in the interest of balance can some one find me an informed article on how we might move to free trade area only?

I already posted it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area

You'll note that we're already a member of that and that you don't need to be an EU member to belong. I can't see any logical reason why we'd need to leave the EEA if we left the EU.

i think the EU will decide who is their club and who is not.
We are no longer members of EFTA and are in the free trade area by being in the EU so we would need new mebership.
I doubt the EU will just flip the membership so that we no longer pay and still trade so we would need to ask to join their club.

Whatever happens surely we can agree it wont be carry on trading but just dont pay. I doubt either side will press the nuclear option of no trade agreement but no change is a very naive viewpoint. Like scottish devolution , as the negotiations have not taken place, no one can say with any certainty but no change seems the least likely outcome of leaving or why are we leaving?
We do of course need to harmonise still and we then dont have a say in the rules [ beyond a consultation] which is not the core reason for leaving iirc.

What a predictable response. Read the link carefully - we are members of the EEA in our own right, not as part of the EU. Nobody is suggesting we would be a member of the EEA without paying anything.

So my predictable response is one you agree with then - ie we will need to renegotiate with them for payments - not really getting why you bothered with scorn on tbh 😥
As for we are a member of course we are, we are in the EU but we will have voted to leave, so, we wont be.

The European Economic Area (EEA) comprises the member states of the European Union (EU), except Croatia,[3] plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.[4] It was established on 1 January 1994 following an agreement between the member states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the European Community (which became the EU)

What part am I missing ?
We would not be a members of the EU.
We are not currently members of EFTA
You accept payments would need to be discussed but its not a renegotiation of our membership

your link also includes this which i doubt will be part of the Core message of the yes campaign though the message is catchy

Same laws less say -

The EEA is based on the same "four freedoms" as the European Community: the free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital among the EEA countries. Thus, the EFTA countries that are part of the EEA enjoy free trade with the European Union.

As a counterpart, these countries have to adopt part of the Law of the European Union. These states have little influence on decision-making processes in Brussels.

The EFTA countries that are part of the EEA do not bear the financial burdens associated with EU membership, although they contribute financially to the European single market. After the EU/EEA enlargement of 2004, there was a tenfold increase in the financial contribution of the EEA States, in particular Norway, to social and economic cohesion in the Internal Market (€1167 million over five years).

EFTA countries do not receive any funding from EU policies and development funds.

Legislation[edit]

The non EU members of the EEA (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) have agreed to enact legislation similar to that passed in the EU in the areas of social policy, consumer protection, environment, company law and statistics. These are some of the areas covered by the European Community (the "first pillar" of the European Union).

The non-EU members of the EEA have no representation in Institutions of the European Union such as the European Parliament or European Commission. This situation has been described as a “fax democracy”, with Norway waiting for their latest legislation to be faxed from the Commission.[36][37]

What happens if we vote to leave no one knows with a high degre eof certainty but change is inevitable and a renegotiation. We could hypothesise widely on what this would be but neither of seem to be denying it would take place

aracer that link looks clear cut and until you click the Talk tab. Then it looks like a colander

What will the 2017 ballet paper say

Please tick one of the below

1. Remain in EU
2. Leave EU and go it alone
3. Leave EU and then hope we can wangle some sort of trade deal

the problem with the trade deal ids you still need to harmonise your laws and we dont have a say so nothing has changed re their influence it is just we now have less influence on these laws.

If you want to leave and plough your own field then fine but it is highly unlikely they will let us stop our payments, let us ignore their laws and still let us free trade with them.

I'm with you on that Junkyard. To me it seems to be in or out. My worry is that people will be duped into voting out on the basis that some sort of magic deal is just round the corner

aracer, so your best source on NATO policy is NINfan? No wonder you're getting it wrong.

aracer, so your best source on [s]NATO[/s] Salmond's policy is [s]NINfan[/s] Northwind? No wonder you're getting it wrong.

Returning to the original subject of Japan and the matter of car production and our membership of the EU, it seems slightly odd Japan threatening us like that, seeing as how their car production in the UK over the last year or two has been dramatically reduced, workers hours cut, and the factory in Swindon cutting production for long periods, because of the downturn in demand for Honda cars in the Eurozone. If Honda can't sell cars in Europe, surely where they're built is irrelevant, if they can't sell the damn things. Personally, I think it's a hollow bluff, the Swindon factory is huge, with billions invested in it, and it's engine plant, so going abroad would mean writing off those billions and having to invest even more billions in new plant, to build cars that they have no buyers for.

[quote=CountZero ] Personally, I think it's a hollow bluff
What motive would the Japanese have for bluffing in this fashion?

aracer, you've claimed that NATO won't accept the Danish approach from a new member, and you've not been able to support that. Why not give it a go instead of turning to playground games, since your whole argument depends on it?

Returning to the original subject of Japan and the matter of car production and our membership of the EU, it seems slightly odd Japan threatening us like that, seeing as how their car production in the UK over the last year or two has been dramatically reduced, workers hours cut, and the factory in Swindon cutting production for long periods, because of the downturn in demand for Honda cars in the Eurozone. If Honda can't sell cars in Europe, surely where they're built is irrelevant, if they can't sell the damn things.

they do sell cars in Europe. The market may not be growing, or even contracting, but they do sell cars in Europe

To me its simple. one of the reasons japan builds cars here is that they can sell them easily through out the EU. If we end up with no free trade agreement with Europe then they won't instantly shut up shop

Personally, I think it's a hollow bluff, the Swindon factory is huge, with billions invested in it, and it's engine plant, so going abroad would mean writing off those billions and having to invest even more billions in new plant, to build cars that they have no buyers for.

well I don't suppose that it will happen over night. But if Britain is no longer in a free trade zone then they'll take that into account when they need to re invest for a new model. I'd say having 5% import tax on cars for sale in Europe will mean that they are less likely re invest here.

Also what do they gain in this bluff?

aracer, you've claimed that NATO won't accept the Danish approach from a new member, and you've not been able to support that.

No, the former secretary general of NATO and UK defence secretary claimed so!

And lets not forget that for the past 30 years, the SNP said they wouldn't join NATO, then when they changed their mind Salmond told everyone that they would be able to automatically become members, till NATO said that wasn't true - funnily enough, exactly what he claimed about EU membership, till they said it wasn't true. So, I'd suggest that his assertions aren't really worth relying on!

ninfan - Member

No, the former secretary general of NATO and UK defence secretary claimed so!

He really didn't, NINfan. I don't know what else to say to you... In fact he didn't mention it at all in that article you quoted.

er,

Lord Robertson, the former Nato secretary general and Labour defence secretary, said : "Does the SNP accept this unambiguous acceptance of the nuclear umbrella? I supervised the entry of seven new members to Nato in 2002 and every one of them had to accept the strategic concept. If the SNP cannot accept the Nato strategic concept then it will simply not get in."

if you need a bit of help, the Danish approach doesn't accept the strategic concept.

aracer - Member

the Danish approach doesn't accept the strategic concept.

What is your source for that? You're repeating yourself here, but not answering the question.

ninfan - Member
...Salmond told everyone that they would be able to automatically become members, till NATO said that wasn't true - funnily enough, exactly what he claimed about EU membership, till they said it wasn't true. So, I'd suggest that his assertions aren't really worth relying on!

What's the obsession with Salmond? He's not going to be king after independence, and all those relationships will be negotiated by whatever government we elect after independence (and not necessarily a govt lead by him).

Most Scots put those relationships in a lower priority than independence. That can all be sorted out later,

He's not going to be king after independence

He will be in the market for a new job.

aracer, [b]you've claimed that NATO won't accept the Danish approach from a new member,[/b] and you've not been able to support that

Northwind, tell you what - you point us to any support for your assertion that Scotland could join NATO, given their position on Nuclear weapons

I'll stick with George Robertson, (former NATO sec gen) saying, and this is a quote:

[i]"It is however, in relation to Nato, the world's most successful defence alliance, that [b]the champions of the secession of Scotland really undermine their case for a Denmark-type defence policy.[/b] Similar-sized countries rely on being part of Nato's collective defence. Territorial defence is no defence against today's threats. Nato's collective shield is crucial to all nations in the alliance.

Of course the Nationalists say they are now in favour of being in Nato. By a hair's breadth conference majority they unconvincingly said they would sign up. But in an alliance which says in its strategic concept: "As long as nuclear weapons exist, Nato will remain a nuclear alliance", [b]the unilateralism of the SNP places an unacceptable condition on Nato. [/b]They actually propose to disarm their neighbouring country by removing the deterrent, and thousands of jobs, from Faslane."[/i]

I seem to remember reading something about a time where Japan we're kind of in the EU and we definitely weren't - didn't end well.

ninfan - Member

Northwind, tell you what - you point us to any support for your assertion that Scotland could join NATO, given their position on Nuclear weapons

NATO haven't commented either way at this point, so all we have from them is article 10, the open door policy would support Scotland's desire to join, and the fact that Scotland has not proposed anything to obstruct that. But you know what? It's you that's making the assertions, it's up to you to back them up.

Robertson's suggestion that Scotland would be disarming the UK is just absurd- the UK government has stated that they would continue the nuclear deterrant, but in either case that would be their choice not ours. His "concern" on that has no crediblity at all. It's pretty disappointing from him, but then that's politics I suppose. But all that aside, he does not speak for NATO.

so all we have from them is article 10, the open door policy would support Scotland's desire to join, and the fact that Scotland has not proposed anything to obstruct that.

Open door?

[i]The Parties may by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.[/i]

Can you guide me to any suggestion whatsoever anywhere that anyone has any intention of inviting scotland to join?

What Scotland wants is irrelevant, they have to be invited!

bit like with the eu and free trade dont you think aracer or are we still proven to be a member from your link?

the reality is , as with lots of these issues we just dont know what will happen and certainly NATO is not getting involved at this moment in time in giving a definitive answer.

The solution is simple. We are currently in NATO. Vote No next year and we will remain in NATO.

You have it backwards, the invitation is the final part of the process. The new member advises NATO of their interest in joining, is evaluated and joins the MAP if need be (it seems to be the case that everyone goes via the MAP, so it's pretty safe to assume Scotland would have to as well, but that would be NATO's call and they might choose to bypass it) and if satisfactory is invited to join.

Re open door- NATO is committed to enlargement- article 10 of the treaty, it's an absolute fundamental. "NATO’s new Strategic Concept, adopted at the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, reaffirmed the Allies commitment that NATO’s door remains open to any European country in a position to undertake the commitments and obligations of membership, and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area."

[b]the invitation is the final part of the process[/b]. The new member advises NATO of their interest in joining, is evaluated and joins the MAP if need be

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm

[i]Accession process
Once the Allies have decided to invite a country to become a member of NATO, they officially invite the country to begin accession talks with the Alliance. [b]This is the first step [/b]in the accession process on the way to formal membership.[/i]

😆

Oh dear, hoisted by your own link again... Not only are you wrong, but your link explains why you're wrong.

Accession is the final stage on the road to joining, as I explained, and only happens after NATO has decided whether a new country's application to join should be accepted, after you express your interest and after your application has been considered.

Being invited to join is the final step in the accession process, which is the final step in the joining process. (well, in fact the invitation is step 5 of 7- step 6 being you accepting the invite, and step 7 being a big party with a free bar).

This is all explained in the 2 sections immediately above the section you quoted, on the same page- "support from aspirant countries" and "1995 study on enlargement". I won't quote in full but it's pretty straightforward, as I explained above- countries express an interest in joining, are considered for eligibility, go through a MAP if need be, and then and only then are you invited to join- once your acceptance has been agreed.

> http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm

Re open door- NATO is committed to enlargement- article 10 of the treaty, it's an absolute fundamental. "NATO’s new Strategic Concept, adopted at the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, reaffirmed the Allies commitment that NATO’s door remains open to any European country in a position to undertake the commitments and obligations of membership, and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area."

Unfortunately Wee Eck has stated that he won't undertake the commitments and obligations of membership. At this point in time he's all we have - have any of the other potential post-independence controlling parties stated their case on this?

Most Scots [b]who are in favour of independence[/b] put those [s]relationships[/s] practicalities in a lower priority than [b]the romance of[/b] independence. That can all be sorted out later,

aracer - Member

Unfortunately Wee Eck has stated that he won't undertake the commitments and obligations of membership.

Round in circles again- Salmond has stated that Scotland [i]will[/i] allow visiting nuclear weapons should his party be in power. So, care to support your claim that this doesn't meet the commitments and obligations?

Oh, just to return to an earlier point quickly- you said earlier that the "Danish approach" wouldn't be allowed for a new member, and that they are an exception due to being a founder. So, I give you Spain, who negotiated a complete nuclear exclusion before joining- I didn't know that. Scotland isn't going so far as that. Course, Spain joined a long time ago but NATO has been moving away from nuclear since then.

[img] [/img]

Salmond has stated that Scotland will allow visiting nuclear weapons should his party be in power.

Has he? Reference if you please?

So the EU then aracer ...where were we ..poor form sir.

Ah, thought I already did. On the BBC, confirming the Danish approach:

“The issue about visiting warships, etc., no country ever confirms the existence of nuclear weapons on its warships – that is well known. This is an issue all non-nuclear countries have to face up to within NATO and out of NATO and we will do exactly the same thing.”

Personally I think it's a splitter's option, really not a fan- it's basically don't ask/don't tell, which is hypocritical- though pragmatic. We should be going conventional only, like Spain... And to be fair that would be the SNP's choice, [i]if[/i] they get to make it, but it's good to have alternatives in place.

The reality is, NATO doesn't need its new members to be nuclear- the existing nuclear powers guard their arsenal pretty jealously, naval deterrants are designed for long patrols and by definition avoid spending time tied up outside of home ports, land-based weapons don't travel in this way, air-based we're not needed. But we've got more to offer to NATO than plenty of other members- a strategically useful location, existing early warning infrastructure etc, and would still have more of a military force than Iceland, Albania etc (and Albania are one of the most recent additions)

If NATO rejected Scotland, we are then in an exposed position and it may be necessary to seek an alliance directly with a big friend to protect us against the NATO countries.

After all, Scotland's location means that the only people likely to invade us are our neighbours who are all NATO members. If we have a neighbouring country with a right wing govt facing bankruptcy because of an over expenditure on military projection we might look like a good diversion for its woes.

I'm sure Russia would see some benefit in having an ally in Scotland's strategic position, and Scots are great believers in having allies on the flanks of potential enemies.

Nice big market and it would make some of our left wing so deliriously happy that they would overlook a few nuclear missiles on friendly visiting ships. 🙂

Aye, sounds like a load of bollocks, doesn't it? So does NATO not wanting Scotland as a member.

So the EU then aracer ...where were we ..poor form sir.

Sorry, JY. I started writing a reply to your latest, but then realised we were simply rehearsing all the same old arguments we'd done before and decided I CBA. You can take that as a win if you like, though in reality I think we're actually a lot closer in our thoughts on this than we have been before. FWIW if leaving the EU would also mean leaving the single market I'd vote to stay - though I don't believe it would (and reckon it would be in our interests to pay less money in and to get rid of stuff like the CFP).

Far more fun to argue about something I don't really care very much about 😉

Ah, thought I already did. On the BBC, confirming the Danish approach

I thought we'd already established the Danish approach wasn't viable for new entrants - Wee Eck has to agree that he's happy for ships with nuclear loads to come visiting (otherwise he leaves open the option to turn away ships he knows are carrying such weaponry - it's not like he has to be told what sort of armaments certain boats are carrying). I don't think Spain can be described as a new entrant by any stretch of the imagination.

aracer - Member

I thought we'd already established the Danish approach wasn't viable for new entrants

Do you really? That's interesting, because every time you've suggested this is the case, I've asked you to provide something to support it, and you never have. The closest you came was saying "the Danish approach doesn't accept the strategic concept." but again, when challenged you didn't provide anything to support [i]that[/i] either.

So no, you have not established it. But here is another opportunity 😉

Well I found this, not sure how reliable the source is: "The agreement there is that nuclear weapons are forbidden, but as NATO vessels/craft do not declare the presence of nuclear weapons they are still welcome". The thing is, accepting the strategic concept includes explicitly accepting nuclear arms, which clearly isn't the case if "nuclear weapons are forbidden".

Therefore, we will: ... ensure the broadest possible participation of Allies in collective defence planning on nuclear roles, in peacetime basing of nuclear forces, and in command, control and consultation arrangements

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f394fe62-f375-11e2-b25a-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fgooglenews%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz2ZtKz0e9U

bentley are investing

Sorry aracer, but there's a wee bit of a hole in that. NATO policy since 1996 is that new members will not be [i]allowed[/i] to host alliance nuclear weapons, let alone be required to. Non-nuclear members can still fulfil the planning, command and control duties (even Spain sits on the NPG). But all NATO members are required to commit fully to nonproliferation, which specifically outlaws either transferring or receiving nuclear weapons.

Scotland would also almost certainly be bound by the NPT, since there seems little doubt we would sign up- and all other new members to have joined in recent years are similarly bound. So NATO has already taken on many new members who can never be a base for nuclear weapons in peacetime.

The big picture is that no member has become a new nuclear host since the 60s, and several have withdrawn. Germany is in the process of fully withdrawing and will completely withdraw in 2015. The US have stated that hosting their weapons in Europe has "no military value". You said earlier that you thought Spain wasn't a useful example as it's 25 years old, but that's still 25 years more recent than the last time a NATO member became a nuclear host- this is ancient Cold War history stuff, described by Germany as a relic that serves no military purpose.

The strategic requirement to ensure the "broadest possible participation in peacetime basing of nuclear forces" has to be viewed against this backdrop. It would be a huge reach to suggest that "ensure the broadest possible participation" equates to "make mandatory" even without those restrictions, but taken in context it's clearly not an issue.

To be blunt, the fact that there's no explicit requirement for a member to be a nuclear host should be clear enough, but I hope this removes any doubt that the strategic concept requires it.

Just out of curiosity.

But how tough is it to live and work in Japan. The Internet suggests an unemployment rate of 4.1%. Which doesn't seem too dire tbh.

On your average Japanese, what have the implications been on their daily lives of Japan's economic performance over the past 20 years.