Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Scottish Independence
Options
Comments
-
They don't have to argue it, nor does their argument have to "cut it". Each member has the power of veto if it believes admitting a candidate country would damage it's interests. Spain or Belgium could well feel that admitting Scotland would cause them problems and they would be entitled to use their veto in that case.
That is why I believe Barroso can say what he likes now in an attempt to influence the referendum, but that afterwards things will change.
There is also the legal obligation of states to negotiate in good faith and I can't see the position you're assuming Spain would adopt post referendum to be such.0 -
I would expect some of these countries to pipe up prior to the referendum in September in an attempt to influence the vote, but I think it's important to remember that post referendum, should the Scots vote yes, these countries will be required under EU law to negotiate Scotland's entry in good faith[/I]. Arguing that an already independent Scotland can't join because of the Basques or the Walloons or what have you won't cut it. It is, after all, not Scotland's fault that some of these countries have problems with separatist movements.
Can you explain and reference which parts of the EU Treaty require these negotiations in "good faith". I am not familiar with them even though I do know some European law.But remember that Scotland as part of the UK has been a long standing member of the EU. If they gain independence they will have already have implemented all the EU laws. There will little to negotiate in terms of the normal criteria for entry into the EU and most states will be happy to have Scotland as a member. The EU as a whole will look bad if they try to exclude Scotland after a yes vote.
That is why I believe Barroso can say what he likes now in an attempt to influence the referendum, but that afterwards things will change.
There is also the legal obligation of states to negotiate in good faith and I can't see the position you're assuming Spain would adopt post referendum to be such.
On what basis are you saying that most state will be happy to have Scotland as a member?
Even if that is true, why do you think that is enough when one state alone can veto?0 -
But remember that Scotland as part of the UK has been a long standing member of the EU. If they gain independence they will have already have implemented all the EU laws. There will little to negotiate in terms of the normal criteria for entry into the EU and most states will be happy to have Scotland as a member. The EU as a whole will look bad if they try to exclude Scotland after a yes vote.
That is why I believe Barroso can say what he likes now in an attempt to influence the referendum, but that afterwards things will change.
There is also the legal obligation of states to negotiate in good faith and I can't see the position you're assuming Spain would adopt post referendum to be such.
Not necessarily. Scotland's current adherence to the requirements for EU membership - the now 35 chapters of Community Law (Acqui Communitaire) - takes places under the laws of the United Kingdom and in many areas under UK-wide administration and management. All of these functions will have to be not only replicated in Scotland, but will have to take place within a new wholly Scottish legal framework that must itself pass scrutiny under the AC.
It should be easier for Scotland to get up to speed on this than say, Albania but it still has to be done and it is by no means certain that an independent Scotland (presumably led by the SNP) wouldn't have its own views or policies that may not all sit comfortably with EU law.
I don't know what you mean by "negotiate in good faith". EU accession involves two phases - technical (conformance with the Acqui) and political (acceptance by member states). No member state is obliged to treat Scotland any more preferably than any other applicant. As well as the internal secession issues already mentioned, it is likely that some members will be concerned about how this plays with countries on their own borders. For example Croatia and Greece both border some Balkan applicants/candidates and will be looking for even handed treatment for them.
By declaring independence, Scotland will have withdrawn itself from the EU. It cannot expect the door to be held open while it decides if and how it wants to come back in.0 -
Not necessarily. Scotland's current adherence to the requirements for EU membership - the now 35 chapters of Community Law (Acqui Communitaire) - takes places under the laws of the United Kingdom and in many areas under UK-wide administration and management. All of these functions will have to be not only replicated in Scotland, but will have to take place within a new wholly Scottish legal framework that must itself pass scrutiny under the AC.
It should be easier for Scotland to get up to speed on this than say, Albania but it still has to be done and it is by no means certain that an independent Scotland (presumably led by the SNP) wouldn't have its own views or policies that may not all sit comfortably with EU law.I don't know what you mean by "negotiate in good faith". EU accession involves two phases - technical (conformance with the Acqui) and political (acceptance by member states). No member state is obliged to treat Scotland any more preferably than any other applicant. As well as the internal secession issues already mentioned, it is likely that some members will be concerned about how this plays with countries on their own borders. For example Croatia and Greece both border some Balkan applicants/candidates and will be looking for even handed treatment for them.
On the political side, by good faith I mean that negotiators are required to negotiate within the spirit of the EU not merely their own narrow national interests. Remember that Scotland will still be part of the UK while much of the preliminary negotiations are taking place.By declaring independence, Scotland will have withdrawn itself from the EU. It cannot expect the door to be held open while it decides if and how it wants to come back in.0 -
Which takes us back to what was said 4 days ago but some posters continue to post the opinion of Barroso as legal fact backed up with their legal fact0
-
Advertisement
-
Post-independence Scotland might then have to deal with further separatist with parts of the Highlands or Orkneys (which historically have been different entities from the Lowlands) seeking greater autonomy from Edinburgh.
I know many scots and that issues is mainly made up by English trying to stop the indepence movement it'll be like saying that England or Wales would split up
There is some difference but they're only regional and not enough to destroy Scotland as a while IMHO0 -
Would Scottish indepence not affect England more than Scotland as the whole British thing will be gone and the mindset of Britain as a world power will be gone
It will affect the blue Home Counties the most I think0 -
I think you're clutching at straws here. The newly independent Scotland will assume all existing laws of the United Kingdom until they start legislating for their own. This includes all existing EU legislation. You need to explain in what way, specifically, that the new system would fail to pass muster.
I haven't seen anything specific to suggest that Scotland would fail on the technical side but I'm happy to look at realistic possibilities. Remember we need to find things that can't be fixed here.
On the political side, by good faith I mean that negotiators are required to negotiate within the spirit of the EU not merely their own narrow national interests. Remember that Scotland will still be part of the UK while much of the preliminary negotiations are taking place.
Whilst I think that it probable, it is not definite. There have been no cases to date of member states splitting in the way that would happen in the event of a yes. The problem is that there's an application process and then a two year waiting period for countries wishing to leave the EU. The idea that a territory can leave overnight simply by splitting from a parent country makes a mockery of this. What about the EU citizenship rights of the country leaving that the rules are meant to protect? These are issues that will arise in the aftermath of a yes vote should one occur.
"According to Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which constitutes the legal basis for any accession, the EU is open to all European countries. However, in order to join the EU, the applicant country must adhere to the principles of Article 6(1) TEU which all the Member States subscribe to and on which the EU is based: freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.
Under Article 49 of the TEU, any European country wishing to join the EU shall apply to the Council which, before taking a decision, must consult the Commission and ask the European Parliament for a favourable opinion adopted by an absolute majority of its members. The Council then makes its decision unanimously.
The Member States and the applicant country come to an agreement on the conditions for accession and adaptation of the treaties and institutions which are entailed by accession. This agreement, or Accession Treaty, is subject to ratification by all the signatory States."
You seem to assume that the status quo will prevail until Scotland decides otherwise. As the above extract from EU legislation shows, that is not and cannot be the case. Scotland as an entity has no status in the EU, other than as part of the United Kingdom. Once Scotland leaves the United Kingdom and becomes a separate sovereign state, it ceases to be a member of the EU, until such time as it is re-admitted in its own right. That is not clutching at anything. It is just pointing out the facts.
If (in the unlikely event that) Scotland votes yes, there will of course be a transition period (I think the SNP has proposed three years) during which this will be sorted. Scotland will continue to be an EU member during that time (unless it is dragged out by a UK referendum in the meantime.)
Presumably Scotland's exit negotiations with England, Wales and N.I will be conducted in parallel with Scotland's entry negotiations with the EU. It is possible that this will happen while the UK is negotiating its own exit from the EU. Meanwhile EU accession talks will continue with other candidate countries, each with its own issues, complications and regional implications. To think Scotland will be treated as a special case is naive in the extreme.
There is no precedent and I don't know any more than you do, how it will turn out. All Barroso has done is point out that in an EU context, this is a lot more complex than some people want to think.0 -
"According to Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which constitutes the legal basis for any accession, the EU is open to all European countries. However, in order to join the EU, the applicant country must adhere to the principles of Article 6(1) TEU which all the Member States subscribe to and on which the EU is based: freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.
Under Article 49 of the TEU, any European country wishing to join the EU shall apply to the Council which, before taking a decision, must consult the Commission and ask the European Parliament for a favourable opinion adopted by an absolute majority of its members. The Council then makes its decision unanimously.
The Member States and the applicant country come to an agreement on the conditions for accession and adaptation of the treaties and institutions which are entailed by accession. This agreement, or Accession Treaty, is subject to ratification by all the signatory States."
You seem to assume that the status quo will prevail until Scotland decides otherwise. As the above extract from EU legislation shows, that is not and cannot be the case. Scotland as an entity has no status in the EU, other than as part of the United Kingdom. Once Scotland leaves the United Kingdom and becomes a separate sovereign state, it ceases to be a member of the EU, until such time as it is re-admitted in its own right. That is not clutching at anything. It is just pointing out the facts.
If (in the unlikely event that) Scotland votes yes, there will of course be a transition period (I think the SNP has proposed three years) during which this will be sorted. Scotland will continue to be an EU member during that time (unless it is dragged out by a UK referendum in the meantime.)
Presumably Scotland's exit negotiations with England, Wales and N.I will be conducted in parallel with Scotland's entry negotiations with the EU. It is possible that this will happen while the UK is negotiating its own exit from the EU. Meanwhile EU accession talks will continue with other candidate countries, each with its own issues, complications and regional implications. To think Scotland will be treated as a special case is naive in the extreme.
There is no precedent and I don't know any more than you do, how it will turn out. All Barroso has done is point out that in an EU context, this is a lot more complex than some people want to think.
The notion that Scotland will not be allowed in the EU is a joke
If Scotland isn't allowed in the English anti EU voice will get very loud as they will want to leave too
Also will the Anti EU voice in Finland Denmark Sweden etc
The EU will fall apart over night then IMHO0 -
You seem to assume that the status quo will prevail until Scotland decides otherwise.
But even though this is unlikely, much of the argument against Scotland is overblown. Sure they will most likely have to negotiate their way in the same way as an accession state would, but the fact that they are currently part of a larger state already in the EU will make this process easier and not harder.As the above extract from EU legislation shows, that is not and cannot be the case. Scotland as an entity has no status in the EU, other than as part of the United Kingdom. Once Scotland leaves the United Kingdom and becomes a separate sovereign state, it ceases to be a member of the EU, until such time as it is re-admitted in its own right. That is not clutching at anything. It is just pointing out the facts.
The clutching of straws was your claim that technical issues concerning EU legislation under a Scottish parliament would be a major issue. This is where I would disagree most strongly. Of all the states wishing to gain entry, an independent Scotland with UK and EU legislation already as part of Scottish legislation would likely have the least legislative issues to contend with.If (in the unlikely event that)Scotland votes yes, there will of course be a transition period (I think the SNP has proposed three years) during which this will be sorted. Scotland will continue to be an EU member during that time (unless it is dragged out by a UK referendum in the meantime.)
Presumably Scotland's exit negotiations with England, Wales and N.I will be conducted in parallel with Scotland's entry negotiations with the EU. It is possible that this will happen while the UK is negotiating its own exit from the EU. Meanwhile EU accession talks will continue with other candidate countries, each with its own issues, complications and regional implications. To think Scotland will be treated as a special case is naive in the extreme.There is no precedent and I don't know any more than you do, how it will turn out. All Barroso has done is point out that in an EU context, this is a lot more complex than some people want to think.0 -
Advertisement
-
Would Scottish indepence not affect England more than Scotland as the whole British thing will be gone and the mindset of Britain as a world power will be gone
It will affect the blue Home Counties the most I think
Britain has long ceased to be a world power. Hanging on to the coat-tails of the Americans does not a world power make.0 -
Are you deliberately misquoting me, or just mis-understanding what I'm saying?
Where did I say being part of an existing member would make it harder? I clearly said that they would be able to get up to speed faster than new accession countries like Albania for example. I am just saying that Scotland will still have to go through the same line by line process as new members, not be waved in automatically or on a fast track.
Nor did I say technical issues would be a major problem. I said that it is by no means certain that a nationalist SNP agenda would not have areas of difference from what was accepted by the UK. We won't know that until we see a draft constitution but presumably there is no point in demanding independence unless you want to be different in some way. Let's see.
There is no provision in current EU law for internal secession in a member state. We are in uncharted water. The EU will be looking at this not just in relation to Scotland but in relation to the many other scenarios that could arise in the future. That will not be quick - or easy.
And you might also quote (and interpret) Barroso accurately. He did not say it would be impossible for Scotland to gain entry. He said he thought it would be extremely difficult or even impossible to get approval of all other member states. Your spin makes it sound like he was blocking entry. All he was doing was pointing to the political realities in some member states.0 -
There is no provision in current EU law for internal secession in a member state. We are in uncharted water. The EU will be looking at this not just in relation to Scotland but in relation to the many other scenarios that could arise in the future. That will not be quick - or easy.
So how come Barroso seems so sure of himself, when no precedent exists?
Unless he has his own agenda.....0 -
And you might also quote (and interpret) Barroso accurately. He did not say it would be impossible for Scotland to gain entry. He said he thought it would be extremely difficult or even impossible to get approval of all other member states. Your spin makes it sound like he was blocking entry. All he was doing was pointing to the political realities in some member states.
This is very much something he's not in a position to know at this stage and is a gross simplification of matters.0 -
Harry Angstrom wrote: »So how come Barroso seems so sure of himself, when no precedent exists?
Unless he has his own agenda.....
Did you see the interview?0 -
Would Scottish indepence not affect England more than Scotland as the whole British thing will be gone and the mindset of Britain as a world power will be gone
It will affect the blue Home Counties the most I think
I'm sure there's people in England very keen to see the back of them also. The Home counties would probably give them everything north of the Watford Gap as well if they'd take it.0 -
But the only conclusion to be drawn from what he said is that it would indeed be next to impossible for Scotland to be in the EU after independence. No I didn't say that he personally would block entry but rather that he said that entry would be blocked.
This is very much something he's not in a position to know at this stage and is a gross simplification of matters.
The conclusion to be drawn from what he said is that he believes it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to get all member states to agree. Would you agree that he is (a) entitled to an opinion on this and (b) that he might be in a better position to form an opinion seeing as he is constantly in contact with political leaders in the member states?
If this is what he believes, would you rather he answered the question with a lie?0 -
The conclusion to be drawn from what he said is that he believes it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to get all member states to agree. Would you agree that he is (a) entitled to an opinion on this and (b) that he might be in a better position to form an opinion seeing as he is constantly in contact with political leaders in the member states?
If this is what he believes, would you rather he answered the question with a lie?
Or (c) He's scared sh!tless of the repercussions of a "Yes" vote, and what it would mean for the Basque Country and Catalonia.0 -
Harry Angstrom wrote: »Or (c) He's scared ****less of the repercussions of a "Yes" vote, and what it would mean for the Basque Country and Catalonia.
Scared ***less is your term. Some might say he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't think about the consequences of such matters a bit more deeply than some I can think of.0 -
Scared ***less is your term. Some might say he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't think about the consequences of such matters a bit more deeply than some I can think of.
Doing his job? We're talking about a bunch of self-interested arrogant Eurocrats. We saw how they treated this country with absolute disdain during the financial crisis. It's ironic that the IMF showed more empathy towards us than our supposed EU friends.0 -
Advertisement
-
The notion that Scotland will not be allowed in the EU is a joke
If Scotland isn't allowed in the English anti EU voice will get very loud as they will want to leave too
Also will the Anti EU voice in Finland Denmark Sweden etc
The EU will fall apart over night then IMHO
What anti-EU voice in Finland or Sweden?0 -
Harry Angstrom wrote: »Doing his job? We're talking about a bunch of self-interested arrogant Eurocrats. We saw how they treated this country with absolute disdain during the financial crisis. It's ironic that the IMF showed more empathy towards us than our supposed EU friends.
I love a rational, informed debate.0 -
But the only conclusion to be drawn from what he said is that it would indeed be next to impossible for Scotland to be in the EU after independence. No I didn't say that he personally would block entry but rather that he said that entry would be blocked.
This is very much something he's not in a position to know at this stage and is a gross simplification of matters.
Well, for anyone who has more than a tiny snippet of information about Belgium would realise that for the Belgian national government, admitting Scotland is a nightmare. Here is a TIME article on the issue to set you on your way.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2000517,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/01/589-days-with-no-elected-government-what-happened-in-belgium/
As for Spain, have a read of this:
http://www.dw.de/catalonia-wants-choice-on-independence-from-spain-despite-rajoy-warning/a-172903610 -
Well, for anyone who has more than a tiny snippet of information about Belgium would realise that for the Belgian national government, admitting Scotland is a nightmare. Here is a TIME article on the issue to set you on your way.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2000517,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/01/589-days-with-no-elected-government-what-happened-in-belgium/0 -
If you haven't got the point after the number of times it has been explained already, I don't think there is anything to be gained by explaining it again.0
-
If you haven't got the point after the number of times it has been explained already, I don't think there is anything to be gained by explaining it again.0
-
If you are the Belgian government, quite possibly yes.
And if that is still too hard, the only word you need to understand is veto.0 -
I'm afraid your points don't stand up to a huge amount of scrutiny so forgive me if I don't take them into consideration. Am I to take it so that you believe that Belgium's inability to manage itself and its divisions is a legitimate reason to exclude Scotland from the EU?
The point is, I think, the division there and in Spain would make both countries less likely to vote to allow an independent Scotland join the EU as it would cause further issues internally for said countries. It only takes one country to say no to veto Scotlands prospective membership of EU0 -
If you are the Belgian government, quite possibly yes.
And if that is still too hard, the only word you need to understand is veto.Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »The point is, I think, the division there and in Spain would make both countries less likely to vote to allow an independent Scotland join the EU as it would cause further issues internally for said countries. It only takes one country to say no to veto Scotlands prospective membership of EU
Agreed.
Sometimes I wonder how easily people disregard other countries' interests.
We got it for years with the everyone in Europe loves the Irish stuff but when the **** hit the fan, they looked after their own interests as a rational person would expect. The same applies to the Scottish issue.0 -
Advertisement
-
If you are the Belgian government, quite possibly yes.
And if that is still too hard, the only word you need to understand is veto.
They would in effect be refusing to negotiate in the first place.
I don't think that is a realistic scenario and outside the likes of Barroso (talking about Spain) who is clearly trying to influence the referendum, few have put this kind of thing forward as a serious possibility.Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »The point is, I think, the division there and in Spain would make both countries less likely to vote to allow an independent Scotland join the EU as it would cause further issues internally for said countries. It only takes one country to say no to veto Scotlands prospective membership of EU
It might make them tougher in negotiating. For example, they might be more keen than others in a swift entry into the Euro than other countries, but a blanked refusal to negotatiate is not likely and indeed could be in violation of the spirit of Eu law.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement