Some brief facts about the EU
Unionists are very excited this afternoon about the latest development in the EU membership debate. A BBC interview with European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso repeated the assertion (or rather, the deduction from an implication) that an independent Scotland would have to apply for entry to the European Union as a new state. We’ll limit ourselves to a few factual observations.
1. The interviewer sought Barroso’s opinion on a hypothetical and non-specific proposal about a part of a member state becoming an independent country, and he answered the question he was asked. The question was a leading one based on the premise that Scottish independence would be an act of secession, and that England (and Wales and Northern Ireland) would retain “UK” status.
2. Scotland will not, however, be “leaving the UK” if it votes for independence. The UK was formed by the 1706/1707 Acts Of Union, the results of a treaty between two notionally equal partners, and it will cease to exist if and when those Acts are revoked. If you get divorced you don’t “leave” a marriage. Your (ex-) partner does not remain married. Either you’re both married or neither of you are.
There are simply no legal or political grounds on which Scotland could be regarded as a new state and the rUK as a continuity state, and contrary to media assertions Senor Barroso did not say that there were. He was asked for, and expressly gave, a general view about a scenario which is in fact not applicable to the specific constitutional entity of the United Kingdom.
3. Jose Manuel Barroso’s second term as EC President ends in September 2014. No EC President to date has ever served more than two terms.
4. The people of Scotland are currently EU citizens. No mechanism exists in European Union law for depriving them of that status – even were there to be the will to do so – unless an independent Scotland specifically votes to leave the EU.
5. Any attempt at “expelling” Scots would result in unimaginable chaos, as every citizen of any other EU member nation resident in Scotland and all Scottish citizens resident elsewhere in the EU – totalling millions of people – were cast into a nightmarish bureaucratic limbo which would paralyse the courts and the continent for years or decades. Would an English person living in Perth become an illegal immigrant? Would a Scot working in Berlin be deported?
6. Of course, if Scotland was indeed an entirely new state completely unrelated to the UK, inheriting none of its rights or obligations, it would follow that Scotland was not responsible for any of the UK’s debt, which is currently in excess of £1 trillion and rising.
The bottom line is that regardless of the loaded nature of the BBC questioning, Senor Barroso’s opinions are essentially irrelevant. Scottish membership of the EU would be a political decision, not a legal one, and it’s one that’s unlikely to concern Senor Barroso anyway by the time the referendum takes place. An independent Scotland would remain a member of the EU without interruption. We’ll take any bet you care to make on it, and that offer goes for Senor Barroso too.
@Rev Stu.
I heard BBC Scotland radio news on this. They did not point out any of the points you gave. They sounded very happy with the comments.
Another point worth making relates to the status of existing treaties. Given the nature of the union between Scotland and England, the UK Government has effectively signed those treaties with the EU – and other international organisations – on Scotland’s behalf. Everybody (I think) agrees that some negotiation on detail would be required post-independence. The question is, what would be the starting point for such negotiations?
Formal international treaties cannot be arbitrarily and unilaterally rescinded. Scotland is effectively a signatory to all treaties entered into by the UK. When pro-independence people talk of post-independence re-negotiation we know we are talking about relatively minor matters such as representation in the European parliament. What are unionists talking about?
They would have us believe that these treaties simply cease to apply. Not only that, but they cease to apply selectively. And always selectively in favour of the British nationalist position or, to put it another way, to Scotland’s severe disadvantage. But, for all their wittering about “international law”, no unionist has been able to explain how this selective rescinding of treaties would work in practice.
Think about the matter rationally and there is only one possible conclusion. The starting point for post-independence (or post-referendum-yes) negotiations would have to be the status quo, i.e. all existing treaty rights, obligations and responsibilities remain in place until they have been renegotiated. There is no other viable way forward. There is no “year zero” option. And there is no way to define a position between the non-existent “year zero” and the status quo. Who would say which provisions of what treaties still applied and which did not? That would be to pre-empt the (re-)negotiations and/or get into an infinite regression of pre-pre-pre-preliminary talks.
As is so often the case, on examination the unionist argument simply makes no sense.
Help …Are they still banging on about this hogwash?? Basically this is exactly the same answer given to the same question put by David Martin, which they and the Scotsman have been banging on about…The question is flawed in relatiion to Scotland nad soes not apply!!! HAve they got mince for brains??
The following is what I wrote about it originally.
http://auldacquaintance.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/eu-have-got-to-be-kidding/
When we vote for independence one day we don’t immediately get independent next day. We start negotiations with our partners in the UK and the EU – Still in both unions. After negotiations and then independence day only one of those unions will remain. UK is toast of course.
No one yet has said what actually happens when the founding Treaty of Union 1706 is no longer in effect. Incredible. This is a treaty in international law. It covers the creation of one unified parliament -the same place that passed the 1800 Act. I want to hear it from someone like David Walker. Just keep the English lion facing the Scots unicorn as usual, will we?
http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-6/1004238.aspx
I think people are tiring of this Unionist EU hokey hokey thing, in the final analysis, I don’t believe it’ll figure highly in how people vote.
Its a double edged sword anyway, its as likely to make people vote yes as it is no.
What is always entertaining (albeit in a bit of an anorakish way) is the enthusiastic conniptions unionist commentators go into trying to spin this (and many other things) to suit their argument.
I think those unionist twists and turns are becoming more and more obvious to undecided voters and is ultimately highlighting how disingenuous the unionists are being about this and a great many other things.
Trying not to laugh at this unionist rubbish – seems that they don’t wish us to pay off any of the UK’s deficit and then enter into negotiations to join the EU. Obviously, that in their minds means border controls, having to join the Euro (by way of having our own currency first!)
I think if the unionists saw what they were advocating and costed the implications for for rUK, then they would see how much damage that they would inflict upon rUK.
I watched this on BBC News. Barrosso appeared to be replying in general terms about “part of a country” becoming independent which, as Rod Macfarlane points out above, is essentially the response given by Barrosso to MEP Martin and which was a reaffirmation of an original statement by Prodi in 2004 which related to Algeria which, last time I checked, was in Africa.
However, the BBC interviewer pressed him on the specific case of Scotland and he replied by saying that an independent Scotland would have to apply for EU membership. She then asked what would happen to the the rest of the UK and he replied that the remaining UK would continue as a member. This clip was announced by the BBC announcer as a blow to Alex Salmond.
I think Barrosso will regret having allowed himself to be pushed on this. We have been told repeatedly that the EU will only respond to a direct question on this subject from the government of an EU state, in this case the UK Government, and that it will not give a response to the devolved Scottish Government. Curious then that the BBC has been provided with a response.
So at least the phoney war is now over. I think the Scottish Government would now be justified in requesting that Mr Barrosso justify his statement.
Well, the way it´s being reported will certainly focus the minds of those from other EU countries (including EWNI) who are normally resident in Scotland and who are eligible to vote in the referendum.
Maybe this is the “implicit policy and reasoning” of the MSM et al when reporting on this aspect of the referendum debate.
Or am I being unreasonably paranoid about the mainstream media?
No, thought not…
Ps, Since the referendum is in 2014 and there´s about 2 years after this before independence “officially begins” then it´s a bit of a storm in a teacup. I don´t know why the YES campaign don´t highlight this fact.
If Scotland leaves the union, will the rUK continue to call itself ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’ whilst keeping the union flag? That’s be kinda funny; everyone in the EU parliament etc would giggle behind their backs etc.
Set against a backdrop of the main UK parties all talking about a referendum on the EU for the UK, this whole Scotland in-oot shenanigans is hilarious. As if it will make a blind bit of difference in 2014.
I say to hell with them! Chuck out all the spanish trawlers, send all non-scottish TOTAL, Shell, BP etc staff home as they’d have no visas, ergo off goes the oil and gas, plunging the UK – and so indirectly the EU – into economic turmoil!
Or maybe just work something out amicably; would probably be more sensible.
I think there’s a clue in the word Kingdom viz a viz UK.
Once the unionist supporters figure it out they’ll no doubt argue that it’s not valid as Betty is a Queen and no a King!
In 2014/15 we’ll be in the middle of a deep economic depression or we’ll be enduring massive inflation, at the VERY best we’ll still be in recession with unemployment still rising. Any thought that Scotland can walk away from its share of UK debt would very likely cause a revolution down south.
When Ireland left Britain it was as a result of an armed revolution, yet negotiations were reasonably amicable. To the extend that its still enshrined in English law today that Irish isn’t deemed to mean foreign, in fact its explicitly stated that Irish pertaining to the former Eire cannot be deemed foreign. Freedom of movement between Ireland and the UK has been in place since that time.
The approach to Scotland from Westminster will be the same, diplomats and politicians know that pragmatism gets things done. Scotland has plenty to negotiate from, there will need to be co-operation on many shared administrative aspects e.g. DVLA,East Kilbride Tax office etc etc. I’d expect my government to be strong but to want to get the job done. There needs to be co-operation on both sides.
The EU entry will require negotiation but as has been said elsewhere, we haven’t just landed from Saturn. We’re already in the EU and trying to extract us would require a feat of administration probably beyond even the EU.
The argument I see most is “It requires a full vote of all members” to get Scotland in and many countries would resist this so as not to feed their own internal independence movements. That argument of course works both ways, if all it takes is some EU wrangling to get out of the UK, I’d take it. I’m sure more Catalan’s or Basques would too. The EU is the easy part.
If we were members of the EU as Great Britain and Northern Ireland, then his statement would be relevant for Scotland?
I like how Barroso said ‘ “Look, I did not comment on specific situations of member states because I very much respect that it is their right, their sovereign right to decide about their organisation.’ and then went straight on to do just that.
I’ve always been a supporter of the EU but even I’m getting fed up of the games that they’re playing with our future. I’m am EU citizen but my EU government refuses to inform me of the consequences of my actions. It doesn’t sound like democracy in action.
Doesn’t it all rather depend on whether what becomes of the present UK (when Scoltand gains independence) is a RUK or a FUK.
If it is a FUK (former United Kingdom), then the Union will have been dissolved and two new countries, Scotland and EWNI, will be the successor states, with the same rights and duties (pro rata as far as debts, liabilities and assests are concerned). So also EWNI will have to negotiate its membership of the EU and other bodies, or, given the current antipathy, just not bother as far as the EU is concerned.
If on the other hand, given the UK government’s undoubted wriggling ability, it is agreed with an exiting Scotland that there is a Rump, Remaining, Residual UK (on the basis that there is also the Union of Great Britain and Ireland – and they could conceivably argue this, whether it’s right or not is another matter), then Scotland will leave this definition of UK, but will not be required to shoulder any of the debt, and starts off carte blanche as a new state (sorry, old country, new state). Scotland would then have to negotiate with the EU if it wanted entry.
In Scotland’s best interests, is it better to have a RUK or a FUK? The final decision is political, as Stu says.
erm ….Greenland anyone? 😀
As I read a post recently when Greenland won its Independence from Denmark, a member of the E.U., the people of Greenland voted to leave the E.U. Now from what I’ve read it would appear that despite the Greenlanders vote they did not leave the E.U. immediately after their historic vote. Oh no. it took another TWO years before Greenland was allowed to leave the E.U.
So if it took Greenland two years to voluntarily leave the E.U. after its Independence from Denmark why would Scotland gaining its Independence from UK result in, according to unionists, IMMEDIATE expulsion from the E.U. Hmm…….
The EU is going to have to provide clarity about its position on the dissolution of a member state and secession from a member state. As citizens of the EU, the people of Scotland and Catalonia (and the other countries to follow) are entitled to know where the EU stands on their constitutional future. It’s also in the EU’s own interest to act for the stability of the EU. At least the Scotsman and the BBC are creating the conditions in which the EU’s current avoidance is becoming untenable.
Greenland isn’t independent.
It’s status is as an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark.
The transcript is interesting, specifically this bit:
Interviewer: “What about the rest of the UK that is effectively left behind by Scotland’s independence….”
Jose Manuel Barroso: “That is the principle of the continuity of the state, in that case if a….
Interviewer: “Would it have to renegotiate its terms?”
Jose Manuel Barroso: “No, no in principle no.”
In principle. Not in practice, in principle.
In reality, of course, he’s speaking nonsense. In the 2014 EU elections, France (pop. 65 million) will have 74 MEPs, the UK (pop. 62 million) and Italy (pop. 60 million) will have 73 MEPs, and Spain (pop. 47 million) will have just 54 MEPs.
Once we become independent, rUK will have a population of around 57 million, putting it almost right in the middle of France and Spain. In that situation, how could it possibly be argued that rUK is deserving of just 1 less MEP than France, but 19 more than Spain? There are also issues with the number of votes for each country in the Council of the EU, because with France having 29 votes and Spain 27, it would make sense rUK should only have 28 and not continue with 29.
More pertinently, the UK is one of the few EU states that splits its MEPs into constituencies. Spain is a single constituency, so even if Catalonia becomes independent, Spain could argue that they are not entitled to any of Spain’s 54 MEPs. Not so for the UK, as 6 of the 73 UK MEPs are SPECIFICALLY elected by a constituency that would no longer exist – how ridiculous would it be for Alyn Smith and Ian Hudghton of the SNP to continue being UK MEPs in the event of Scottish independence?
So it all comes down to the fact that this will not come down to “principle”, it will come down to politics. And that would favour Scotland remaining in the EU.
Folk like Barroso need to watch out though – if they dick us around, we might just say “fair enough, off we go.” The last thing they want is to start making “the positive case for the EU” start to look as enticing as the positive case for the union…
Perhaps we should petition the EU Parliament and demand clarification on our citizenship rights upon independence or complain to the European Ombudsman that Barroso and the Commission are guilty of maladministration.
Ignoring Point 2 of the article is the cause of all the fud.
All coverage simply turns a blind eye to the constitutional change that an independent Scotland precipitates.
That’s why interviewers go on asking questions as though Scotland were simply a region of some country that decided to split, and why all the ‘hypotheticals’ seem to predicated on it.
I’d like to think that Barrosso has this context and just got himself cornered in the interview. Then again, maybe not.
I appreciate that bringing the unique constitutional make-up of the UK into frame may be a difficult one, but we seem to take quite a lot of punishment all off the back of the no campaign getting away with framing independence as simple, run of the mill, separation rather than the dissolution of the treaty which creates the UK.
@Doug D.
The last thing they want is to start making “the positive case for the EU” start to look as enticing as the positive case for the union…
Ha ha. Aye. What’s it with ‘unionists’ eh!
If the EU get too uppity, Scots will want out. To do that, they need to vote for independence from the UK….
I think all the major nations of Europe, as well as the governing body of the EU can see what looks like Armageddon on the horizon. This isn’t just about Scotland.
Let’s look at the ‘Host’ nations, and the nations that want to secede from their host
United Kingdom – Scotland (in future – possibly Wales and NI if not England !!)
England (for a laugh) – Devon, Cornwall, Berwick and maybe Cumbria if it wants to join Scotland !!
Italy – Venetia, South Tyrol, Sardinia, Sicily …in fact…just about everywhere !!
Germany – Bavaria, Frissia, possible Prussian State
Spain – Catalonia, Basque Country, Navarre, Andalucia ….and many, many more
Belgium – Wallonia, Flanders
France – Corsica, Basque Country, Brittany, Savoy, Alsace, Occitania, Nice
Czech Republic – Moravia …which then just leaves Bohemia and the Sudetenland
Poland – Upper Silesia, Prussia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe
I could go on…it’s scary how many peoples there are in Europe. I know my history and geography, but there are regions I never heard that wanted independence. Spain and France look like they wouldn’t exist if every state was allowed to break away. No wonder Barrosso is bricking it.
Scotland will be the benchmark. If Scotland is to be declared a new state, and has to apply, then we can tell Westminster ‘ta-ta’ …enjoy the debt we will leave you…we’ve just become the richest nation in Europe.
If this was the case, then other smaller states will cotton on, and do the same trick. Leave the debt with the host nations. The major nations in Europe are hot footing from one hot stone to the next, and back again. They are in a bind. If they knock back each new state that was already in the EU, then the EU will crash and burn spectacularly.
Scotland won’t need to negotiate a thing. Will Spain and the others really allow Scotland to walkaway with a treasure trove of oil, the whisky industry, the 4th largest Financial sector in Europe, wind power, sea power, the fishing area’s of the North Sea and North Atlantic…
No, I don’t think so either….
The EU doesn’t want to encourage “separatism” because it is worried about the consequences given the instability across the Euro zone, in particular Spain and Italy (which is an almost completely artificial state) but also Belgium (Flanders) and France (Corsica). Furthermore it is likely that Barroso in particular doesn’t want to annoy the Spanish.
Essentially the EU is hoping if they avoid the problem it will go away. But the consequence of their approach is that they are effectively saying that all a country needs to to do to leave the EU is to secede from its existing state. This could clearly be exploited by anyone who actually wants to leave – like the majority of English people (e.g. Scotland votes for independence, UK holds referendum to leave EU (which would pass) and therefore England secedes from the UK). In the long run it is unhelpful to the EU to suggest that there is a get out of the EU free card for anyone who wants to escape. James T has laid out why very succinctly.
The EU is about to receive a peace prize for bringing people together. It is therefore ironic that the effect of its actions is to collaborate with the heirs to Spanish fascism and one of the most Europhobic parties in Europe in threatening that existing EU citizens will be expelled if they exercise their right to self determination. The comments sections of the delightful British press suggest that this is not a good way of spreading peace and harmony.
Jeez….even Wessex (next to Devon and Cornwall) wants to break away from England…
This ….I did not know!!
To be honest, if half of the states that want Independence, finally got it, then I can’t see how the EU would survive. The Euro would just crumble into dust. Even Germany would be humped.
In fact, it might be in Scotlands interests to NOT join the EU !!
I agree with Margo MacDonald. Create a Scottish pound and start again …because the way it is all going …everybody is going to have to start again once the Euro finally caves in !!
There are several factors which have allowed this to arise.
1. The SG so far has only addressed this issue from their own view point, however logical it may all seem they haven’t gone far enough. Whether they have sought legal advise or not matters, whether there is direct precedence or not must be outlayed clearly to political non-anoraks, whether there have been informal discussions with decision makers at EU level must be known.
2. Westminster is the same. Nothing other that simple assertion and conjecture but with the usual arrogance of trust us not them.
3. The EC’ position giving only vague responses of principle is simply not good enough or trust worthy.
The SG must take the lead on this and must be seen to do so. SG should make the request (via Westminster) that factual answers to specific questions must be provided as it is in the interests of the people of Scotland and therefore the EU that the situation is addressed fully.
It benefits the EU much more to retain Scotland as a member than the opposite. The cynical side of me wonders if the EU is preempting a yes vote set of discussions and pretending to close the door (while also some how using it to its advantage behind the scenes re. Tory anti EU stance).
The simple answer is the Scottish Gov lead the way demanding that Hollyroods Qus are put to the Commision for unequivocal answers in either direction.
Jist gui uz the truth min.
Say YES, with conviction.
I agree with Cuphook. I’d like to know what happened to my citizenship. Anyone got Barroso’s email?
James T
Let me get this right.
If all the regions of France vote seperatly for independence. They then all form “new states” not tied down to existing treaties and debts. They, in theory, could then reform under a new name “Le France” perhaps. Will they also be put in the 3rd Division?
James T – that list is one of my favourite Wikipedia pages, although it mixes independence movements with autonomy movements, and it’s also important to remember that not all independence movements are anywhere near as advanced as those in Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders.
Perhaps a slightly better list to look at is the list of parties in the European Free Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Alliance), although the vast majority of these don’t actually enjoy EU representation (this can perhaps partly be explained by the fact most EU nations elect their MEPs as a single national constituency).
It’s interesting to consider how Europe could look in 100 years’ time – after all, there has never been a point in time where Europe has been static – but bear in mind that several of these movements may be no more popular than Orkney’s Independence movement (aka Tavish Scott).
In all seriousness, has Barroso’s stated opinion breached Article 41.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
‘Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union.’
Surely, by refusing to discuss the future of an independent Scotland with regards to the EU but to then assure the rUK that they’ll continue to be EU citizens, Barraso has been partial and unfair.
Barraso is a European politician, not a legal expert on EU affairs. He answered a leading question about a region of a member country becoming independent, not about a member country ending or renegotiating its political agreement (union) with another member.
From the BBC actual transcript:
“Jose Manuel Barroso: “Look, I did not comment on specific situations of member states because I very much respect that it is their right, their sovereign right to decide about their organisation. (A)
“Now, what I said, and it is our doctrine and it is clear since 2004 in legal terms, if one part of a country – I am not referring now to any specific one – wants to become an independent state, of course as an independent state it has to apply to the European membership according to the rules – that is obvious.” (B)
A is correct, and B is presumably correct. Neither makes an independent Scotland a “new state”. However, the justaposition of A and B can lead the unwary or biased to make the assumption. Barroso may not have meant this, however, this is at least the third time he has done this exact or similar juxtaposition.
Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and thrice is enemy action. The conclusion is obvious now: Barroso is happy to feed the anti-independence cause, but with deniability.
However, “it has to apply to the European membership according to the rules – that is obvious“. Yes, indeed Scotland will, just exactly as the rUK will, Catalonia will, and Spain will, and indeed Germany did after the re-unification. If the situation changes, all is up for renegotiation, and all is up for acceptance or refusal, by either party.
Perhaps the most important precedent is Germany, whereby an enlargement went through on not much more than a nod from various or all then EU member states.
The logical conclusion from my above posting is that when Barroso says, as he has said before: “I very much respect that it is their right, their sovereign right to decide about their organisation“, he is not keeping to that correct EU principle. In short, he is lying.
I have just e-mailed President Barosso expressing my concern that I could lose my EU citizenship and be deported back to Scotland from France, where I live and work.
as follow
Dear President Barosso
I write as a concerned, very concerned European Citizen, regarding you recent interview with the BBC where you said that should Scot;l secede from the United Kingdom I as a Scot would be deprived of my European Citizenship. As I live in France this would make me an illegal alien and as such I could be deported to an non European Union country, an independent Scotland.
I am also very vexed by your intervention in a member State’s, United Kindom, internal politics.
Perhaps you has a “Clintonesque mis-speak” during the interview?
I only ask that you really should become more proficient in your knowledge of the United Kingdom?
Scotland would not be seceding from the United Kingdom as it would be breaking the Treaty of the Union that created the United Kingdom. Scotland and England entered as equal partners in 1707 to form the United Kingdom; Wales was a Principality of England, subject to English laws and Ireland was a possession of England. So, no Scotland, no United Kingdom and thus two successor states period where the Westminster Parliament was ceded certain power. Scotland remained and remains a country with territorial waters, as recognised by Westminster, separate from that of England.
If Scotland has to leave the European Union I would not bet that we would want to be a member of a club that had just expelled us? Remember Scotland is the laregest producer on Oil in the EU and has the largest potential to produce carbon free regenerative energy in the EU. It would by all accounts be the sixth richest country in the World by GDP per capita and as a member of the EU would probably be a net budget contributor. I also thank that the Spanish would not be very happy to lose access to the North Sea fishing grounds.
Can you clarify your and the EU’s position vis a vis my EWU citizenship and Scotland position as a succesor state, like England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be?
Please remember that Scotland is not part of England.
Thank you
James McLaren
If I get a reply I will post it
Interesting one though (about the rUK):
“Interviewer: “Would it have to renegotiate its terms?”
Jose Manuel Barroso: “No, no in principle no.”
If the rUK could in any way hold the EU to this, it would mean that the rUK would keep ALL of its rebate and ALL of its MEP’s and votes. It would also keep ALL its CAP and other funding, and quotas. Also its contribution to the EU would be totally unchanged in quanitiy. 100% of them, with only 91.6% of the population. I don;t think the EU member states would be happy about that, and probably neither would the rUK!
In his hast to discredit Independence for Scotland, Barroso made a big mistake. In fact the BBC interview, Hard Talk, has served a purpose in discrediting Barroso’s views – all of them.
IMHO this whole EU thing is yet another example of the antis being unable to distinguish between the YES campaign and the SNP. SNP policy has long been “independence in Europe” so the naysayers think they are attacking the argument for independence by attacking an SNP party policy.
Sorry about 3 in a row, but first I’d like to thank the BBC for providing a transcript so that everyone can see for themselves. In the G I tried and it’s painful, fortunately bitthick was better at it than me, and I checked her transcript, a couple of minors.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again; the SNP (or YES) should make the effort of producing a transcript of every critical TV (or radio) interview, and make it available via a website. There’s just so much distortion that could be negated by such transcripts.
My verdict on the Hard Talk interview is quite equitable however:
EU v ScotNat: 0 – 1 (away win)
EU v BritNat: 0 – 1 (away win)
The EU goes away with nothing – apart perhaps from an increase in EuroScepticism from the likes of me.
jon_abroad thanks for the clarification I in my own obscure way thought Greenland was Independent. 😀
I believe that Greenland did gain freedom from the EU though although it did take two years to accomplish. This therefore asks MORE questions of Barroso and the EU than of Alex Salmond or the Catalonia Independence leaders. More over the Greenland situation does I think ask MORE questions of the BT brigade. IF it took two years for Greenland to LEAVE the EU why on earth do the unionists think for one second that on Independence Scotland would be evicted from the EU on day one? It just is not going yo happen.
I really do grow weary of people demanding “clarity” and even “certainty” in the matter of Scotland’s post-independence EU status. There is no certainty! And right now you have all the clarity you’re going to get until after a YES vote in the referendum.
There is no definitive legal position. There is no precedent. And when you get down to brass tacks, Jose Manuel Barroso’s opinion is worth no more that of any other reasonably well-informed individual. In fact, his expressed opinion may be worth considerably less than, for example, mine. He has the internal politics of the EU to consider. I don’t!
Barroso shouldn’t be commenting at all. He’s being hounded by the media and I’ve no doubt that all these people hanging on his every utterance is mighty flattering to his sense of self-importance. He should shut-up. But given that he can’t bring himself to do that, he has to mouth whatever platitudinous waffle he thinks may impress his audience. He can’t admit the truth. He can’t just say, “I don’t know!”.
He doesn’t know how things will pan out. Not for an absolute fact. Not with the “certainty” that so many are demanding. Nobody does! Why can’t people get that through their skulls?
The situation as it stands is not unclear at all. It just isn’t perfectly clear. There are three options.
No successor state – Both Scotland and rUK being treated as accession states.
One successor state – Most likely rUK being treated as the successor state while Scotland is treated as an accession state.
Two successor states – Both Scotland and rUK treated as successor states.
It takes no wits at all to see that the first option is not worth treating seriously. But when you consider the reasons why it is not worth treating seriously you find that those reasons apply just as much to the non-successor part of the second option. One of these reasons is that having two accession states at this time is simply too disruptive to be contemplated. Never mind all the legal and constitutional problems involved in ejecting both states from the EU and stripping people of their citizenship. Indeed, if you asked unionists they would say that it is impossible for rUK citizens to be thus deprived of their EU status.
But if it is “too complicated” to have two accession states and impossible to deprive people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland of their EU citizenship then it is hardly less complicated to have a single accession state starting from the same point and equally impossible to strip the people of Scotland of their EU citizenship.
Which leaves the “two successor state” option as the simplest, least complicated, and least disruptive course. So why would the EU as a whole choose anything else?
That’s as much certainty as you get with this. The degree of certainty that comes from rational consideration of all the possibilities. if you want more certainty than that, then you should go find yourself a fundamentalist religion. Because you aren’t going to get what you crave from constitutional politics.
Arbroath1320
I think leaving the EU was made easier by Lisbon, Section or Clause 50 or something.
But Lisbon also makes it easier for an Old/New state apparently, as it removed all treaty references to numbers of member states in the EU, so contrary to Barroso’s expressed opinion that nothing has changed since 2004, it has. It’s now easier for the EU to take Scotland as a New/Old/Split state. I forget the reference or legal opinion for this, possibly SCFF – Aileen McHarg perhaps, I can’t remember.
@Peter A Bell
I agree with much of what you say but it doesn’t stop us playing politics.
Barroso has stated that rUK will be a successor state and that, therefore, the rights of those EU citizens are secured. He refuses to do the same for Scotland. I’m an EU citizen and I have as much right to know the implications of a YES vote as the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Barroso should either clarify the position or admit that he’s making it up as he goes along.
I have emailed the EU direct, be interesting to see if I get a reply.
Barroso did not say anything specifically about rUK or Scotland. Play with politics. Not with facts.
Mm. Barroso was extremely explicit at several points that he was speaking in generalities, not explicitly about Scotland.
Exactly. But he had this to say about rUK:
Interviewer: “What about the rest of the UK that is effectively left behind by Scotland’s independence….”
Jose Manuel Barroso: “That is the principle of the continuity of the state, in that case if a….
Interviewer: “Would it have to renegotiate its terms?”
Jose Manuel Barroso: “No, no in principle no.”
Surely this is him saying that rUK would be a successor state in the EU.
What is significant is that Barroso did not specifically say that Scotland would not be a successor state. Not that this prevents lying British nationalist journalists like Simon Johnson claiming that he did. – José Manuel Barroso: Independent Scotland not EU member http://bit.ly/123eaRZ
Peter A Bell
Herald as well Peter, in the case of its article headlined: “Barroso: it’s ‘obvious’ independent Scotland must re-apply for EU membership”
I’ve noticed that Herald articles by named journalists are reasonably fair and accurate, but that anonymous articles presumably by editors, are slanted and inaccurate. In this case very inaccurate as the headline is an outright lie.
I did put in a comment earlier about the Jean story which was removed, and a second attempt was moderated to remove the second paragraph which criticised the Herald for not talking to Jean, and not giving all the information.
Yes. He beat about the bush with regards to Scotland but specifically said that rUK would carry on regardless in the EU. I have the same right to know as my fellow citizens in rUK. Where’s the harm in asking him to address this inequality or shut up?
Interviewer: “So if, and I am using the example of Scotland, and I appreciate you are not talking about specifics, but say a country like Scotland, it, say, chooses independence, it is then like a new state applying to the EU?”
Jose Manuel Barroso: “For European Union purposes, from a legal point of view, it is certainly a new state. If a country becomes independent it is a new state and has to negotiate with the EU.
Sorry to come back to this but I think Barrosso, having stated initially that he could speak only in generalities, allowed himself to be drawn by the interviewer into making an explicit statement about Scotland having to apply for membership and a further statement that the rest of the UK would not in principle have to renegotiate its terms. It is clear that he does not understand the nature of the Union and has been manipulated.
I doubt if he really understood the implications of what he was saying but he has now given an opinion on a specific case and I think that the Scottish Government will now have something to get its teeth into.
@James McLaren
We would be a new state and have to negotiate. What he doesn’t say is that we’ll be thrown out of the EU before we can negotiate.
Oh, Peter Bell – please warn us if a bit URL sens us to the Telegraph.
I tend to prepare myself before having a look there, things like glass of water, fly swat, make sure the stomach isn’t queasy, blinkers on and neurofen ready, and a Tunnock’s teacake to take away the bad taste! Plus an hour lie-down to get over the shock and trauma.
@John Jamieson
Agreed. As I said earlier, I’m sure he’s breached the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by showing partiality and lacking fairness. Why should people in the rUK be told of the implications of my vote and not me? I intend to take it up with him and then the EU Ombudsman if I don’t get an answer.
@dadsarmy
I love the Telegraph. It’s a hoot.
Next time there’s an article on independence tell them that you’re all for it but do worry about having a failed Conservative state over the border. They love that sort of thing.
@Cuphook
but England + would not
There seems to be no limit of the amount of spin, bias and downright lies that the English owned BBC and MSM will churn out. No wonder Cameroon wont apply the recommended measures of the Levinson Report.
Under those measures they wouldn’t be allowed to Lie without being censured.
UKIP is on the rise. Right wing Tory’s want out of Europe. Eurozone may collapse anyway.
We would have to apply to join it ?
A mass refusal to pay the licence fee for the EBC would be a good start.
Where do I start. 38 Degrees of which i am a member have asked me if there is any Campaign i want to start. I could do with some advice on what or how to word it.
@James McLaren
That’s his position – not that he wants to ‘comment on specific situations of member states’ or anything like that.
Much BBC spin going on. Small point though Hallstein served more than two mandates although that was in a different age. Barroso might hold on however until the next Portuguese presidential election which might put him up against Guttieres.
Hmmm, let’s try a differnt Interviewer asking a different question:
Interviewer: ”So if, and I am using the example of the rest of the UK, and I appreciate you are not talking about specifics, but say a country like the EWNI, it, say, chooses independence, or has independence forced on it, it is then like a new state applying to the EU?”
Jose Manuel Barroso: ”For European Union purposes, from a legal point of view, it is certainly a new state. If a country becomes independent it is a new state and has to negotiate with the EU.
@dadsarmy
Except that he said that rUK will be the continuing state.
I’ve emailed him seeking clarification and stuff so hopefully I’ll be in the know soon.
Hi Doug
James T – that list is one of my favourite Wikipedia pages, although it mixes independence movements with autonomy movements, and it’s also important to remember that not all independence movements are anywhere near as advanced as those in Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders.
The problem I see for the EU is that the big 5 nations (UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and France) all have parts seeking Independence. And each one of these new ‘states’ (if we go with Mr. Barroso’s terminology) is a rich state. Scotland, Bavaria, Venetia, Catalonia and Occitania are all seriously rich. The removal of each from the ‘Host’ state would hurt the host, and in turn would hurt the EU hugely. And I haven’t even mentioned Belgium which could split into 2 nations.
Barroso is panicking here! He can see several problems. Apart from these new states hurting the big ones, they will also have a huge affect on the Euro. The Euro could crash again if say, Bavaria, Venice or Catalonia became independent.
And what happens if Scotland does tell the EU to ‘get stuffed’ (I can see this happening – nothing pees the Scots off more when someone dictates to us – it gets our back right up). What happens if say, none of the new states ‘re-join’ the EU? Not exactly the European dream, is it? The EU would crash and burn …and all because one Spaniard is determined to keep Catalonia in Spain. Barosso could unravel 60 years of work in Europe because of the chip on his shoulder.
What happens – if we say for a laugh – Scotland, Norway, Iceland, Occitania, Catalonia, Venice, Bavaria, Switzerland created their own ‘EU’ free trading (a larger scale of EFTA)…we would have one massive Trade War in Europe?
The suggestion of this post seems to be that Scotland might be “expelled” from the EU in the event of independence; that there is no mechanism for this to happen; and that therefore it can’t and won’t.
This seems to me to be a misreading of Barroso’s comments. He’s saying that if Scotland unilaterally secedes from the UK (and it would be unilateral given that the proposed referendum is restricted to the Scottish people) then by the same token it’s seceding from the UK and the whole paraphernalia of Westminster oversight. Which is fine. But In that situation Scotland cannot unilaterally pick and choose which Westmnster treaties it will abandon and which it will maintain.
Scottish independence is exactly that – independence. The freedom to make its own decisions, its own treaties, and its own laws. That’s the whole point, and is an aspiration which is actually supported Barroso’s remarks.
Just to be clear, Barroso is Portuguese. He is not Spanish.
Churm Rincewind –
“Scotland cannot unilaterally pick and choose which Westminster treaties it will abandon and which it will maintain.”
Yes it can, but it will be after negotiation. Much as the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria, etc., etc. did.
I can see the Spanish point of view but we are all now clear why that is? yeah?
Stu’s 4, 5 and 6 are good. Scotland being chucked out of the EU is going to cause chaos, even if EWNI is left in and the EU might suss they don’t want the English to vote on the EU .. or might they, and rather have Scotia in than greetin Ingurland
Cheers
Charlie
I dont think it wise to bombard him with useless emails, but I think those who have well researched information should contact Barossa at his office at http://ec.europa.eu/archives/commission_2004-2009/president/contact/mail/index_en.htm
James T says:
10 December, 2012 at 3:34 pm
To be honest, if half of the states that want Independence, finally got it, then I can’t see how the EU would survive. The Euro would just crumble into dust. Even Germany would be humped.In fact, it might be in Scotlands interests to NOT join the EU !!
I agree with Margo MacDonald. Create a Scottish pound and start again …because the way it is all going …everybody is going to have to start again once the Euro finally caves in !!
Couldn’t agree more, who needs the EU just another dictatorship why leave one for another, EFTA, the way to go…