Scotland's independence will create a situation for which there is no real precedent, and no clarity or certainty in European law or EU history. We have the farcical situation that a Tory Party that shows a distinct wish to leave Europe are arguing against Scotland's independence on the basis that the rUK would be in and Scotland out. There is also the fact that a significant number of Scots, including many nationalists, would be delighted to be out of Europe too ...
I have never doubted that one of the many complex questions raised by Scotland's independence would be the terms of its EU membership, and that it would have to be negotiated. Since a YES vote in 2014 does not confer independence, but only fires the starting gun for negotiations to achieve it, the very earliest date for conclusion of the core negotiating issues would be 2016, with the formal independence date well beyond that, during which time both the UK and Scotland/UK membership would still be in force.
Since the incompetent UK parties can't forecast what will happen to the economy and the currency in the next three months, I lose no sleep over Scotland's ultimate membership of the EU in say, 2017, if indeed the EU still exists by then! But if it does, Scotland will be in - the idea of them being out, or being blackballed is risible historically.
First we had the leaked – but never sent – letter, and now we have Barroso's latest public statement
Here's my view, informed and assisted by invaluable help from my Danish friend Troels who is expert in EU law, and keenly interested in an independent Scotland.
Barroso talks of "a part of a country that wants to become an independent state", i.e. analogous to Catalonia (something he's deeply worried about) not a "union state" being dissolved and two successor states emerging. His use of the phrase "a part of a country" indicates that Barroso is rather confused on the history and structure of the United Kingdom.
He seems to perceive "Britain" as a country (like Spain or Portugal) and not as a unitary union state, which it what it is. This is evident from the end the television clip, where he clearly believes that the UK will still exist after Scottish independence like, say, Spain after Catalan independence, or Denmark after Greenlandic independence, where the old state continues to exist, but a part of its territory becomes independent.
In fact, in the case of the UK, it would be the union state dissolving, and at least two successor states emerging, very much akin to Czechoslovakia.
Barroso's view is poles apart from the kind of opinion that the European Court of Justice would give. It is worthy of note that Barroso, speaking for the EU Commission only, offers no legal arguments or references that can be debated or be refuted.
In other words, his statement is self-serving and purely political - a piece of realpolitik gamesmanship. There's a lot of that about - and there will be a lot more of it before 2014. The old order is breaking down, and like all ancien regimes, it doesn't like it.
Posts
Drew Scott's comments bang on the money & rightly call into question Barroso's judgement, indeed his position as chief EU bureaucrat.
ReplyDeleteI can't for the life of me understand why both SG & the Yes campaign don't make more of the constitutional underpinnings of the unitary state - it would despatch the 'secessionist' & regionalist painting of Scotland and use the Treaty of Union as a club to bash those wishing to deny Scotland her repatriated sovereignty. It also has the benefit of being easily understood by a large segment of the population.
Thanks for posting!
Deleteregards,
Peter
I agree the whole thing is perverse. The population in the UK as a whole is probably in favour of withdrawal from the EU, Scotland too. Those in favour of independence are no doubt as likely to want out as those against. Why then all the concern about what Barroso says? The answer lies in the SNP strategy of suggesting that not much would change with independence, for if rUK were in the EU while Scotland were out, or vice versa, many things would change, at least in theory. The EU debate is not about the EU at all, but about our relationship post independence with our former fellow citizens of the UK. If unionists could convince Scots that they would lose the rights that they have at present in the rest of the UK, then Scots would never vote for independence. But these rights are contingent on both rUK and Scotland being in the EU.
ReplyDeleteNone of know what would happen in the event of independence, but it's worth remembering that the EU project would collapse if too many secessionist movements came out of the woodwork in South Tyrol, Flanders, Catalonia, Upper Silesia etc etc. Expect therefore some discouragement directed at a newly independent Scotland if only to avoid encouraging the others.
Pertinet points, Effie - thanks ...
ReplyDeleteregards,
Peter
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteInteresting article as always.
Just to pick up one of Effie's points, as most of the other issues have been done to death in the MSM during the last few days. (Though it does feel like weeks!).
If we were to take Barosso's OPINION (that is all it is - there is NO formula for 'expelling' or denying citizenship, as yet) then in the event of some/all of these independence seeking 'regions' voting for Independence, it he really suggesting that the most economically viable regions in Spain, France, Germany etc., would be removed from the EU family?
Apart from anything else, the EU finances NEED all the nett contributions it can get. This will be a realpolitik decision, and IMHO, no one will cut off their noses, their own countries financial stability would require an acceptance of the "new" nations.
This is a storm in a teacup, but should have been rather better thought through by the SNP. I think they have taken their eyes off the ball here. Hopefully it is a wake up call that their detail needs to be more precise.
Regards to all
Tony
Thanks, Tony
ReplyDeleteregards,
Peter