Scots would remain EU citizens
Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, has said that in the event that Scotland votes for independence in 2014 then the new state of Scotland would have to apply for EU membership all over again. Well, I hope Scottish residents vote to stay in the UK and I think the possibility that they may not is mainly media and political hype. But I’d hate to see the kind of tosh we’re being treated to today become central to what should, after all, be a serious debate.
If Scotland votes for independence then are residents of Scotland going to lose their UK citizenship? No, of course not. You can’t be stripped of your citizenship just because you’re resident abroad and in any case there’d be no way for a ‘residual UK’ to distinguish between ‘Scots’ and ‘people just living in Scotland for now’.
Moreover, the UK accepts dual or even multiple citizenship (and so would an independent Scotland) so even people who chose Scottish citizenship would have the same right as those with French or Pakistani passports to retain their ‘UK citizenship’. Scots who chose to retain their UK citizenship, either alongside a new Scottish citizenship or not, would of course remain EU citizens.
So if Scotland votes for independence the EU will be faced with a ‘new’ country literally full of European citizens and one, by the way, which will claim the same moral right to be members of the EU as the residual parts of the UK (does Barrosso’s ‘principle’ that the ‘continuity’ state has ‘special rights’ really make sense? What if it were the smaller part?).
Would an independent Scotland really be kept out of the EU for a while? Hardly. Think of how the rest of the world would see the spectacle of the people of a new country, all EU citizens, facing deep economic uncertainty and a possible wholesale loss of human rights just to help out politicians worried about secession elsewhere in Europe.
No, whether or not Scotland had to re-apply it’s certain that in practical terms it would be treated the same as the residual UK. That is, it would be fully inside the EU toute de suite – or, more likely, it wouldn’t be forced out in the first place.
Watch Mr Barrosso’s face closely as he makes such comments. He’s smiling with embarrassment at times because he knows it’s not serious politics at all. He’s saying one thing to the Europroles and quite another to his mates.
Any chance of a serious debate now? Nah, not likely.
.
Eric Joyce is the independent (formerly Labour) MP for Falkirk. Used with permission.
My opinion of Eric Joyce has climbed a notch. Not quite as large a notch as was the case for his idea of pure batterin’ a’ they f’in Tories, but a notch all the same.
😉
Excellent article. You have summed up the situation perfectly.
Thank you for allowing this to be contributed.
Whit? Reckless commonsense! Doesn’t this fella care about his Labour party membership?
Perhaps he’d be more welcome over at Allan Grogans camp than with New One Nation Labour, or by the acronym they are now better known since dropping the rights to universal benefits – N.O.N Labour
A good article raising lots of interesting questions. How would an independent Scotland and the rUK handle citizenship questions? Easy to get things wrong as seen in many countries in Europe and further afield. There’s some good stuff in Professor Jo Shaw’s oral (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmscotaf/c139-viii/c13901.htm) and supplementary written evidence (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmscotaf/writev/ref/m8.htm) to Davidson’s committee.
Thanks to Eric Joyce for allowing this article to be republished on this site. One point though Stu, the article is credited to Danielle on Erics blog.
There must be many Scots like myself who have no interest in being part of the EU and are hoping we will be an independent country running our own affairs without any interference from Brussels.
Imagine getting our fishing grounds back… £340Bn worth of fish lost to Scotland since 1972.
Setting our own laws.
Controlling our own borders.
Deciding whether we get involved with Europe in it’s many adventures overseas.
Setting our own energy policy without EU CO2 targets.
Deciding on our own defence policy.
Deciding our own policing policy.
Deciding our own fire fighting policy.
Deciding our own health policy
Deciding our own agricultural policy
Deciding our own prisons and criminal justice policy
Deciding our own health and safety policy
Deciding our own pharmaceutical and medical policy.
Deciding our own search and rescue policy.
etc………………………………………
‘Independence in Europe’ is an oxymoron.
“One point though Stu”
I assumed that was just who’d posted it. When I asked Eric for permission to reproduce it, citing it as “yours”, he didn’t correct me. And other stuff credited to the same person clearly refers to Eric himself, eg:
http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2012/12/leveson/
I used to work beside Mr. Joyce’s brother many years ago and he really baffled me, as he was one of these Scots of Irish descent who was a huge supporter of an independent and united Ireland but just couldn’t seem to bring himself to support independence for Scotland! Strange!
“I assumed that was just who’d posted it…..”
Looks like that would be right. interesting piece, thanks for picking up on it, good to get it out to a wider audience.
Here is a wee question for barosso, at what stage did east German citizens have to apply for EU membership when the Berlin wall came down? Or are we to assume that this nonsense from Barosso is a new policy of the EU?
Surely such ‘principles’apply both ways. Or is this only applicable to Catalunya and Scotland.
“I hope Scottish residents vote to stay in the UK”. The guy is still a unionist with obvious problems. His views count for diddly squat and he is not an asset in the struggle for independence.
Bill C: This site’s About page says “We have an inquiring mind, and actively welcome intelligent contributions from all sides of the political debate.” That is the case, and always will be. We disagree with Eric Joyce about independence, but the piece above is unquestionably an intelligent contribution.
@R Louis: German reunification did involve EU (or rather EEC) negotiations but not treaty revisions (perhaps because the Maastricht Treaty was already on the horizon).
See this report of the April 1990 Dublin summit: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kVZWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=z-sDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5324,7180798&dq=dublin+april+east-germany&hl=en
“The summit endorsed a plan to incorporate East Germany into the Community when it is united with West Germany. The program will temporarily exclude the economically backward former Communist state from the Community’s stringent environmental standards and restrictions on state subsidies to industry.”
Angus,
So it was negotiated, just as the YES campaign say it will.
In other words, Europe makes up/bends/ignores the rules to suit itself.
One of the most telling things is UK Gov’s reluctance to seek a definitive answer from Brussels. Remember, how following the referendum agreement Brusels said they would now be prepared to supply complete legal advice on the position of both countries following a Yes vote, but only if asked by the relevant member state government!
To methis absence of such a request is indicative that westminster strongly believe that the SG have the right of it and both countries will receive equal treatment in their negotiations following 2014
@Iain Macmillan You raise an interesting point Iain. I used to have many friends who were second generation Irish and who were all for a united Ireland. However as soon as I agreed with their sentiments and used the same arguments for an independent Scotland, I was shot down in flames. They had been indoctrinated by the Catholic Church in collusion with the Labour Party to believe that an independent Scotland was a Protestant Scotland. My own mother who was a devout Catholic told me to leave the SNP (late Sixties) because people in the church had told her that Catholics would “have no chance” in an independent Scotland.
People like Joyce are political opportunists or as they would say in the city of my birth, CHANCERS!
@Rev stu – not often I disagree with you but on this one I cannot concur. I have been a supporter of Scottish independence for over 40 years and I will take no lectures on Scotland’s constitutional future from a bar room brawler who couldn’t give a rats arse for anything other than his own self preservation.
@R Louis, Rev Stu: Absolutely, the Commission can say what the rules are, but those rules are endlessly bent and broken by the member states when it suits them. Until the Lisbon Treaty, there were no rules for leaving the EU, but that didn’t mean various islands (Greenland the biggest and best known) didn’t change their relationship with the EU. It just meant that it was done on an ad hoc basis. Unless Germany should start breaking up, I can’t see there being any rules written just yet. If it has to, the EU can cope, just like it did with those little islands, by bending the rules for Scotland and Catalonia.
Barroso’s the monkey and there are 20-odd organ grinders behind him but some of the organ grinders – Merkel, Holland, Cameron, Monti – are more equal than others.
Waaaall, Eric has had his moments but, as Margo said, ‘There’s always time for a sinner to repent’. That is a sensible contribution from Mr Joyce there. Realizing that the mainstream media is little better than state propaganda is the first step to independent thought.
The difference between Scotland and East Germany is that EG entered the EU not as a separate state but as part of another one. Areas don’t join the EU, only independent countries do.What is getting Barroso in a tizzy is the fact that Scotland is already part of the EU but is not a member state of the EU.
He ain’t got no answer to that one.
Adrian B and admin, re: Danielle. I changed my own site log-in last week and immediately forgot it. Took the slack option with my last few posts and used Danielle’s. She’s my researcher on African stuff. All my own work, but now, having been spotted, i’ll change my passoword again and log-in as me!
@Bill C. Interesting how times change. I remember in the early 50’s how the rising awareness of a Scottish demand for national recognition was combatted by the claim that “Home rule is Rome rule.”
However, jon, when Germany reunified the EU member state was West Germany. Germany was a new state and yet was allowed instant membership! There can be no doubt that the rules were disregarded in the case of the brand new state of Germany.
@Eric – Those darn security passwords…
Actually, Holebender, they got round that by having East Germany join the Federal Republic of Germany (ok, ok, aka West Germany) which is still the name of the, let’s say, “German entity” in the EU, so technically the result didn’t mean a new state, just the older one a bit bigger.
It’s the mirror reverse situation of the Scoltand/UK scenario. I’ll bet my bottom euro that London is going to argue, and get Brussels to argue too, that EWNI will still be the same one true UK we used to know and love, only a bit smaller. Otherwise they risk losing the comfy chair at the UN.
I think it all goes to show that there aren’t any hard and fast rules, and what rules there aren’t can easily be fudged. You just have to act in a certain way to get the result you were originally aiming for.
Which is why it’s all going to come down to politics and horse-trading, again.
Not that all this mijo matters much in the great scheme of things (in or out of the EU, we’ll still find customers for what we can produce and provide and who knows who the losers will be), I decided to don my “ordinary punter who believes everything they see on telly and read in the papers” hat and send this e-mail to Europe Direct, the official website for the EU – http://europa.eu/europedirect/write_to_us/mailbox/index_en.htm
“EU Commission President’s statement today
Senhor Barroso said in an interview that I have seen on television and read reports of in media outlets that, if the people of Scotland vote in the democratic referendum in 2014 to dissolve the 1706 Treaty of Union with England and become again an independent nation, all Scottish citizens will thereupon cease to be EU citizens as Scotland would no longer be a member of the European Union.
As a Scot by birth, it had been my intention to opt for Scottish citizenship under the dual citizenship arrangements that the independence settlement is bound by international law to provide.
It seems from Senhor Barroso’s comments that this would mean that, as a resident of the new state of England/Wales/Northern Ireland but a citizen of the new state of Scotland, I would no longer be an EU citizen. This does not appear logical to me.
Do you have any guidance/leaflets/information that would provide more details of my position in the event of Scotland becoming an independent nation? Particularly in the area of the protection of my human rights under EU law.”
Looking forward to their reply.
@John Nicol – John, unionists, whether they be Catholic or Protestant, have and always will play the card of divide and rule. It is Scotland’s curse to be handcuffed to the history and politics of another country. Hopefully once independence has been achieved we can ostracise the neanderthals.
Bang, Bang! The first bang is the starting gun of some deeper fact based debate on the EU/ Scottish Independence question and because of Mr Barrosso’s awkwardly expressed view – Brussels are now being challenged to provide that legally informed opinion the UK government seemed so reluctant to request.
The second bang is Foulkes shooting himself in the foot. Dose he and Ian Davidson really want Nicola Sturgeon in Brussels with world media in pursuit – she engaging with top EU official on a platform gifted to her by a couple of short sighted fools. For post meeting interviews PR and world press engagement – 10 out of 10! Also following the meetings – the opportunity for the Deputy First Minister to then articulate the EU/ Scotland issues directly to a world international press could not be better. Do Westminster really want the true UK constitutional set up publicised and spelled out by NS to an international audience?
Mr Davidson/ Foulkes remember; be careful what you wish for – you need to take what (unintended consequences) goes with it!
ayemachrihanish
The Unionist have stirred up a hornet’s nest (and I have take the view that they are actually helping us). They will get stung by this as our friends in Europe won’t ignore us. This will bring media attention in Europe and the BBC won’t be the only broadcaster to report it.
@Barney Thomson – I like your style. Spot on!
If Scotland’s not in Europe because all treaties are void on independence day what’s the position with NATO?
Has Barroso representing the EU just kicked an independent Scotland out of NATO as well. That’ll go down well with the yanks.
@ayemachrihanish – Bang bang on!
Good point, DougtheDug. Now why would NATO be interested in Scotland?
There’s going to be an awful lot of wriggling going on.
Marcia, agreed. This situation by passes the BBC and to some extent Westminster. The light is shining on the EU and it is they that must explain. Great!
Gaun yerself Eric,good man.I could grow to love you ye,ya big handsome sod that ye are.We all cheered when we heard you nutted they laddies 🙂
Newsnicht tonight was stunning, with Professor Drew Scott completely annihilating Barroso’s position and Alan Trench rubbishing his comments as well. It helped that they had David Henderson in the chair, who was more interested in hearing what his guests had to say than trying to trip them up or pretend to be Jeremy Paxman.
It made the usual guff from Curtice sound incredibly weak. More of this please, BBC!
On topic, it’s nice to see a unionist politician actually speaking up for a bit of honesty in the debate. Shame people have to leave the Labour Party before being allowed to speak their minds…
The highest court for EU citizens is within the EU itself. To kick Scotland out of the EU would be to strip every Scottish citizen of our human rights enacted via numerous directives too numerous to list.
Such an action could lead to thousands of court actions by Scottish citizens against the EU itself.
Therefore Barroso’s opinion is merely politically motivated without any legal substance and as such is ridiculous.
Thanks Eric.
No point in commenting on your article, as it just talks sense – apart from staying in the Union of course, well, we all have our strange opinions 🙂 (added – I though I’d better put a smiley!)
We had an article from an independent ex-SNP MSP, now you’re an independent ex-Labour MP. How does it feel? Is it at times like a weight off the shoulders, as you’re finally able to express your own views, rather than feel obliged to go with the majority?
Do you have an article about this on your blog apart from the main page, I’d really like to read it. And if not – why not?
Why is the question of Scotland’s EU status important to the NO campaign? The Barroso statement means that, on referendum day, there will be uncertainty in the minds of the electorate about whether there will be border controls with England and whether they will be obliged to use the Euro. If Barroso had not made this statement, then SG’s assertions about Scotland’s continued EU membership would have reassured the electorate.
Why would the UK government seek to resolve these uncertainties beforehand by requesting clarification from the EU? One could argue that the Edinburgh Agreement commits them to cooperating in the best interests of Scots, but they would argue that defending the union is their best way of doing that.
What I’m surprised about is that the uncertainties about the future of an independent Scotland are being aired by the NO camp now. For example in the current House of Lords inquiry. I would have expected they would stay silent about these until 2014 in order to maximise uncertainty in the run up. They run the risk that these issues will be debated to death, resolved in people’s minds or, at the very least, people will be fed up of hearing about them by the time of the election?
PB
I think we’re looking at this the wrong way. I see little merit in EU membership as presently constituted and think an independent Scotland should better lend its weight to EFTA or the EEA. The EU has morphed into a democratically unresponsive club for the wealthy. The endless fretting on we’re in/we’re out needs to be changed to a more aggressive position. We’re out and we mean to stay out, but just might consider entry given attractive enough conditions (can’t think what they might be, though). Let’s grow a pair, FFS.
always liked eric joyce….anyone who headbutts a tory deserves a vote don’t you think??? better than jumping into bed with them like the rest of the labour party! 😉
If after we vote for independence, the EU does not want us and the rest of the ex-UK does not want to extent the hand of friendship, so be it. Scotland will then go it alone, it may be a bit ackward and tough for the first few years, but Scotland will come out of it the better.
A Scotland honourable in word and deed.
Alba Gu snooker loopy!
The reason the UK WON’T have a referendum on EU membership is because they know the bulk of England would vote to leave the EU. Maybe this is giving England ideas of its own….
Before everyone gets carried away about how wonderful Eric Joyce is for being honest,(for a change),let’s not forget his previous track record of absolutely disgraceful behaviour,not the least of which,imho,is his hatred and contempt for the Gaelic Language!
Grahamski must be birrlin’ in his cage.
I still think this EU stuff is all wind and piss but…
Basically Barroso has said Scotland would need to reapply to join the EU after a yes in 2014 and Cameron/Westminster etc etc etc agree vehemently with this because it suits their narrow anti-independence agenda, so I was thinking…
If all the treaties Westminster claimed to be signing on behalf of all the component parts of the UK become null and void only for Scotland, they must not have been representing us at all, I mean, if Westminster agreed them all while we were part of the UK surely they have to accept the same treaties (although definitely not all of them) would still apply afterwards.
Or is it the case that all along, Westminster never did represent Scotland’s interests in the EU and only ever signed treaties on the rest of the UK’s behalf and by extension for their interests and not Scotland’s.
This is another significant double standard.
Here’s what will happen: there will be a yes in 2014 (hopefully) at which point a period of negotiation will take place between Scotland, EWNI and the EU on what treaties need to be looked at. There is no way EWNI will be able to maintain the same treaties as negotiated with Scotland included as they would with Scotland gone, as I understand it the CAP accounts for something like 40% of the EU budget, the UK currently enjoys a significant rebate, that will not remain unchanged when Scotland goes, I don’t know what percentage of UK farming Scotland accounts for (fisheries is about 25% as I recall.)
Its not just Scotland who’ll have some negotiating to do, EWNI will have even more. The EU will love it though, all that extra paperwork and activity, new committees to convene and new budgets negotiated within departments to pay for it…
And so it goes round.
Dad’sarmy, thanks and yes it does all provide a certain new freedom. Pa Broon, to be honest, in the end there’d be a big-ish gap between a vote and actual independence and that sort of detail would be fixed by diplomats in Brux then. I doubt it would even be the trickiest thing they’ve ever dealt with. Someone mentioned border checkpoints, which is of course yet more tosh. Interestingly, I imagine an independent Scotland would stay out of Schengen and probably not press different immigration rules partly in order to facilitate that.
@eric joyce – yes, that seems probable. If we can keep borders open between UK and Eire then why not rUK, Eire and Scotland. Its easier to stop people getting onto the island than crossing a land border afterall.
Of course if they are trying to spread fear over trade and business then in order for that to work either the rUK or Scotland would have to leave the EEA, and I dont see that happening in ANY scenario.
As you might expect, there is much greater clarity on BBC Scotlandshire who have bravely published the truth about THAT interview.
http://www.bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk/index.php/city-news/105-barroso.html
Eric: You recognise that being (an) independent allows you to pursue your own ends; why can’t you recognise that it would do exactly the same for our country?
Voxpop – Independence of mind = independent state. You sound like a politician, be careful!
There seems to be a basic assumption made by all who comment on wheither or not Scotland could or couldn’t become a member of the EU. That is, in the event of Scottish independence, the rest of the UK would “inherit” EU membership.
There is no provision, as far as I know, that stipulates which party, if any, of a breakup, inherits the right to membership. Essentially the independence of Scotland is the result of a democratic divorce. Therefor the assumption that RUK automatically retains membership of the EU is erroneous. It doesn’t take a legal expert to figure out that there is plenty of scope for lots of expensive litigation should those who depend on the assumption of EU membership inheritance continue with their “assumed rights”.
The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, article 34(1), states that in the event of a state separating to form one or more states, any treaty in force for the entire territory continues to apply to each successor state, regardless of whether the predecessor state continues to exist.
While the United Kingdom is not a signatory to the above-mentioned treaty, article 38 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, of which the UK is a signatory, states that while treaties cannot directly create obligations for third parties, this does not “preclude a rule set forth in a treaty from becoming binding upon a third State as a customary rule of international law, recognized as such”.
It is therefore perfectly arguable that article 34 of Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties reflects the state of customary international law, in which case it would apply to the UK despite it not being a signatory state. The case for this interpretation of international law is certainly much stronger than the corresponding arguments for an ad lib interpretation cooked up to favour the rump UK.