Oct 27, 2011 12:00
india,
independence,
greenparty,
women,
freespeech,
tablet,
brain,
conservatives,
chaos,
emotions,
economics,
usa,
alzheimers,
threemusketeers,
ptsd,
windows,
sleep,
research,
css,
children,
css4,
science,
parents,
europe,
crime,
photographs,
marijuana,
epigenetics,
parenting,
goths,
eyesight,
bt,
longevity,
politics,
review,
goth,
web,
scotland,
simulation,
law,
movies,
genes,
advice,
homeopathy,
eating,
intellectual_property,
jokes,
isp,
links,
drugs,
men,
bipolar,
technology,
uk,
canada,
media,
police,
funny,
guns,
mental_health,
mobilephones,
wtf,
epicfail,
android,
censorship,
stem_cells,
nokia,
depression,
internet,
gender,
psychology,
models,
tax,
food,
cataracts,
humour,
adult
This looks like a piece of scaremongering by conservatives (small-c and Capital-C) who don't wish to see the UK break apart. There is simply no precedent whatever in EU law for a declaration of autonomy or independence by a territory or region which is part of an existing Member State; it does not therefore automatically follow, as the article claims, that the newly autonomous or independent state would be regarded as a candidate country which has to undergo a complete accession process. Indeed, the newly independent country would already be party to the acquis, through the signature of the Member State from which it was seceding; it would therefore already be compliant with all applicable EU law. In such circumstances, therefore, it is more likely that there would be short transition process in which the newly independent country signed its own acquis documents, ratified the Treaties in its own Parliament, and nominated its own Commissioner. "Short" in this case could be as little as a year or two.
I suspect that the conservatives claiming that Scotland would have to be treated as a candidate country are well aware of this, but are using the eurozone crisis as camouflage for their real fears (that the UK might break apart). A similar elision is present in David Gow's article, where he refers throughout to "Britain" but quite clearly means "England", which has always been the most resentful of the three countries about the "burghers of Brussels". (Four countries, if you count Northern Ireland -- indeed, Gow's is a double elision, since he's using "Britain" as short-hand for "UK". Perhaps a geographically-challenged sub-editor is to blame.) You can bet your bottom dollar that if there was referendum on a revised Treaty, and there was a majority vote in England to leave the EU, not just Scotland but Wales and Northern Ireland would also be clamouring for independence from England so that they could remain as Members.
Reply
The way the politicians are adamant that we won't get a referendum on whether or not we should be part of the EU. Like they know the people would vote no, but it's infinitely better for us to be part of the EU than out of it.
Which means they really need to do a better job of explaining to we, the people, exactly why being in Europe is a very good thing indeed.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment