 |
| Do we need to look north - way north - to get precedents for constituent nations being treated differently than "regions"? (Pic : Traveljournals.net) |
It's probably the
biggest stumbling block so far in the SNP's fledgling independence
campaign.
There's still some way to go of course, but the issue of Scottish EU membership was muddied recently. Statements from EU Commission President, Juan Manuel Barroso, suggest that Scotland would need to re-apply to become an EU member state, not simply "inherit" the UK's status upon (any eventual) independence.
Perhaps this was said with one eye on Catalonia too, but there's an issue here that needs clearing up by the yes campaign one way or another. And obviously it might affect Wales further down the line.
Precedence for secession within an EU member state
There's still some way to go of course, but the issue of Scottish EU membership was muddied recently. Statements from EU Commission President, Juan Manuel Barroso, suggest that Scotland would need to re-apply to become an EU member state, not simply "inherit" the UK's status upon (any eventual) independence.
Perhaps this was said with one eye on Catalonia too, but there's an issue here that needs clearing up by the yes campaign one way or another. And obviously it might affect Wales further down the line.
Precedence for secession within an EU member state
The simply fact of the matter is it's never happened before.
There's a more detailed analysis by former European Court Judge, Sir David Edward QC, at Newsnet Scotland.
I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty whether Scotland (or, perhaps one day, Wales) would/wouldn't automatically accede to the EU. The EU has a track record of "on the fly" working, and it's perhaps one of its greatest strengths. Saying Scotland would have to re-apply is the easiest thing to say, but it might be disingenuous to a certain extent.
If the UK signed the Lisbon Treaty, and an independent Scotland would be subject to all treaties of the "former UK" (as a successor state), then the raw logic suggests that Scotland would automatically be subject to the Lisbon Treaty and become an EU member state.
Instead of negotiating membership, Scotland might actually be in the position of having to negotiate a withdrawal from the EU, or an amendment to the existing ascension treaties.
But, as we all know, logic and politics rarely go hand in hand. It's not as simple as the scenario above.
As pointed out by others, there would likely be a "buffer period" between any 2014 yes vote and a final independence date. The Czech-Slovak "Velvet Divorce" took around five months if you want to set a precedent.
Because the UK is a unitary state, with many functions tied together, for Scotland it might be longer – a year to 18 months would be my guess. That might be enough time for the Scottish Government to go through the process of applying to the EU before becoming fully independent.
Would Scotland be eligible to join the EU?
Eligibility for EU membership is defined by the Copenhagen criteria. It's likely that Scotland - as part of the UK - already meets these criteria, which can be summarised as :
- Being geographically part of Europe – yes.
- A functioning liberal democracy with universal suffrage and a secret ballot at all levels of government – yes.
- Freedom to join trade unions, free press, freedom of speech – yes, perhaps subject to a written Scottish constitution.
- Rule of law – yes.
- Respect for Human Rights – yes, as a obligation to continue existing UK commitments.
- Respect for minorities – yes, but I imagine there would be issues surrounding sectarianism.
- Functioning market economy – yes, more so than Wales at the moment.
- Bringing legislation in line with European law – yes, happens already as part of the UK and the devolution settlement.
The only major sticking point is the last one:
- A commitment to European convergence criteria/ERM and joining the Eurozone (as per the Maastricht Treaty) – unclear. But if Scotland were subject to a continuation of UK treaties and international obligations (as stipulated by international law), they might be able to negotiate their way out of this one. The Scottish Government could also quite easily turn around and say that for any decision to join the euro to be legitimate, it should be subject to a referendum post-independence.
There would also be many specific details needing to be addressed as part of a formal accession process. But I doubt Scotland would have many problems there. I doubt Wales would either, in practice.
The EU and "constituent nations"
Now we have something to work on.
Greenland is an overseas territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, along with the Faroe Islands, and receives subvention from the Danish Government . Its constitutional status could be compared to Scotland and Wales as a "devolved/constituent nation".
Despite having the population of Wrexham spread over a land a third of the size of Australia, Greenland has a modern economy – expanding due to resource exploitation.
For its size, Denmark has a relatively unknown, but brutal colonial past. Suicide and alcoholism rates amongst the native Greenlandic Inuit populations are astronomically high, and their indigenous culture – which includes hunting for food - is under threat from wildlife conservationists. Plus they're on the forefront of climate change. Although the Greenlandic government now has rights over the natural resources (which not even Wales has), it's a Danish colonial remnant and it's mainly foreign companies benefiting.
That doesn't just include oil and gas, but gemstones like rubies (which are culturally important to the Inuit), where Greenlanders are actively marginalised from prospecting for resources under their own feet by government bureaus. Because, and I quote:
"We don't want your sort of people (native Greenlanders) having access to that kind of wealth."
I strongly recommend BBC documentary series, Bruce Parry's Arctic, if you want a better demonstration.There are many ways Wales should seek to emulate Denmark. However, we would do well to remember these uncomfortable truths and learn from it.
But despite being constitutionally part of Denmark, Greenland isn't in the EU. Greenland voted against continued membership of the EU in a 1982 referendum, and has sat outside ever since, though they enjoy some EU benefits as a recognised "overseas territory".
Closer to home, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands - as UK dependencies - enjoy a broadly similar relationship with the EU as Greenland. The same can be said for other overseas territories of the UK, France and the Netherlands. There are also "special statuses" for places like the Åland Islands (Swedish-speaking islands that are an autonomous part of Finland), Gibraltar and various enclaves and exclaves on mainland Europe.
The Lisbon Treaty
will have complicated things by, ironically, simplifying
everything. However, there's clearly a precedent of the EU treating constituent nations and "territories" differently to a federal state.
Here's an interesting suggestion - using the Greenlandic precedent, could Scotland and Wales do the opposite? Could Scotland and Wales remain full members of the EU - and the UK - whilst allowing a future eurosceptic England to withdraw or move to a paired-down relationship like Switzerland?
It's incredibly unlikely, because it would cause administrative chaos in Brussels. However, it's something that might have to happen if there were a move toward English devolution to prevent tensions between the Home Nation governments on European policy possibly stirring secessionism (if Scotland votes no). Perhaps this is one reason why there's a quiet reluctance to create an English Parliament in the first place. But it has to be said that all parts of the UK are relatively eurosceptic, just the Scots are less so than the rest.
Imagine an English Parliament. Imagine said parliament with a (whole or partial) system of PR to elect MPs. Which party would stand to gain most from that, and hold considerable sway? - UKIP.
Although they're doing a fine job of blowing themselves up at the moment.
The real threat to Scottish (and Welsh) EU membership
The only tangible threat to Scottish EU membership at the moment is a successful UK withdrawal, whether that's a Boris Johnson mooted "paired down relationship"/associate membership or via an in-out referendum.
If Scotland and Wales want to guarantee EU membership and its benefits - yes that presumably includes Welsh Labour unless they're going to make a massive u-turn - both are going to have to become EU member states in their own right and control their own relationships with the EU.
Unless there's a precedent set by which constituent nations can become full EU members - whilst remaining in their "middleman unions" like Spain and the UK - independence and control of foreign policy is the only way to ensure it.
Until Welsh independence becomes nothing more than a minority interest, we're stuck with whatever the UK Government decides is best for us. Also, I'd like to be less cynical, but Carwyn Jones will probably change his tune on the EU whenever Westminster Labour tell him to. It's above Carwyn's pay grade.
At least Scotland has a chance to not only say yes to full statehood in 2014, but perhaps yes to guaranteed continued EU membership too. A waiting period is just a temporary inconvenience.
 |
| The Isle of Man is neither part of the UK or the EU, despite foreign policy being controlled by Westminster. (Pic : mapsofworld.com) |
Here's an interesting suggestion - using the Greenlandic precedent, could Scotland and Wales do the opposite? Could Scotland and Wales remain full members of the EU - and the UK - whilst allowing a future eurosceptic England to withdraw or move to a paired-down relationship like Switzerland?
It's incredibly unlikely, because it would cause administrative chaos in Brussels. However, it's something that might have to happen if there were a move toward English devolution to prevent tensions between the Home Nation governments on European policy possibly stirring secessionism (if Scotland votes no). Perhaps this is one reason why there's a quiet reluctance to create an English Parliament in the first place. But it has to be said that all parts of the UK are relatively eurosceptic, just the Scots are less so than the rest.
Imagine an English Parliament. Imagine said parliament with a (whole or partial) system of PR to elect MPs. Which party would stand to gain most from that, and hold considerable sway? - UKIP.
Although they're doing a fine job of blowing themselves up at the moment.
The real threat to Scottish (and Welsh) EU membership
The only tangible threat to Scottish EU membership at the moment is a successful UK withdrawal, whether that's a Boris Johnson mooted "paired down relationship"/associate membership or via an in-out referendum.
If Scotland and Wales want to guarantee EU membership and its benefits - yes that presumably includes Welsh Labour unless they're going to make a massive u-turn - both are going to have to become EU member states in their own right and control their own relationships with the EU.
Unless there's a precedent set by which constituent nations can become full EU members - whilst remaining in their "middleman unions" like Spain and the UK - independence and control of foreign policy is the only way to ensure it.
Until Welsh independence becomes nothing more than a minority interest, we're stuck with whatever the UK Government decides is best for us. Also, I'd like to be less cynical, but Carwyn Jones will probably change his tune on the EU whenever Westminster Labour tell him to. It's above Carwyn's pay grade.
At least Scotland has a chance to not only say yes to full statehood in 2014, but perhaps yes to guaranteed continued EU membership too. A waiting period is just a temporary inconvenience.
