//
you're reading...
europe, Independence in Europe, Jose Manuel Barroso, Lords economic committee, politics, scotland, SNP., Sturgeon

Independence in Europe. Jose he say "no".

It recalled the BBC Director General, John Entwhistle, being jeered by MPs over the Newsnight/Savile affair.   John Swinney, the Scottish finance secretary, was ridiculed by the House of Lords economic committee on Tuesday for trying to argue that an independent Scotland would be able to remain in the EU because it would still be part of the UK when the negotiations took place. The “last refuge of the scoundrel” sneered one Peer. “Doesn’t know what he’s talking about” said another
Their Lordships eyes rolled to the ceiling in mock amazement as a diffident Swinney tried to argue that the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, had not said what he clearly had said in a letter to the committee. Namely, that after independence Scotland would become “a third country with respect to the EU” and that the various treaties “would no longer apply on its territory” and that the new entity would have to apply for membership “like any other state”. The chairman, Lord McGregor, treated Swinney as if he were a rather dim sixth former at a minor public school.
It wasn’t really John Swinney’s fault – the constitution and Europe isn’t his brief after all, it is Nicola Sturgeon’s. And the patronising Peers, like Lord Forsyth and Lord Lipsey, are of course political appointees and hardly independent authorities. He had been left dangerously exposed by his own party, who’ve tried to ignore this issue for far to long expecting that it will go away. This won’t do. You can’t be the party of ‘independence in Europe’ when the top guy in Europe is suggesting that Scotland would be ejected from it.

Nicola Sturgeon has been dragged kicking and screaming to give a statement on EU membership to Holyrood on Thursday, just as Alex Salmond was dragged to the chamber to explain the non-existent legal advice in October. This is undignified.  Barroso has chosen to get involved in this issue for his own political motives. Bureaucrats, like cushions, ten to show the imprint of the last people who sat on them. Barroso is under pressure from other member states, like Spain, who have their own separatist movements, not to say anything that might encourage secession.

The SNP should have challenged him on the membership issue back in September, when he first started comparing Scotland to a “new state” that would have to reapply. Scottish government sources dismissed this at the time saying that he didn’t mean Scotland. Then Alex Salmond deployed tortuous constitutional logic to argue that, because the Scottish independence referendum is legal and because under the Edinburgh Agreement the UK government has agreed to recognise the result, Scotland would remain a “succession state” and that EU treaties would still apply. Unfortunately, Jose Manuel – he no agree.
Salmond and Sturgeon, should there and then have booked a ticket on Ryan Air and jetted across to the European Commission. They should have held a press conference to ask the President if he was seriously suggesting that, if Scotland were to become independent as the result of a legitimate democratic referendum, he would authorise the expulsion of 5.2 million EU citizens from the European Union. Could he explain the mechanism by which Scotland could be ejected, since there is no Treaty covering such an eventuality. Since Scotland has been subject to European law now for forty years how could those protections be removed by the whim of the Brussels Commission?  In other words: No way Jose.
But the SNP don’t seem to realise how serious this is, or perhaps it is the arrogance of power. All long-serving governments have a tendency to listen only to people who agree with them. The Scottish government insist that, in the end, Brussels will see reason. Certainly, the idea that Scotland would actually be forced to leave the EU is so absurd that not even the SNP’s most vehement critics, like Labour’s Lord McFall, argue it. But it’s no use just asserting this, or endlessly citing the views of sympathetic professors – the matter should have been addressed politically.
Barroso is worried that, if he appears to endorse Scottish independence, he would be attacked by Tory ministers in Westminster for encouraging the break up of Britain. And he’s probably right. Imagine if the Commission President had said “we would welcome an independent Scotland as the 28th member of the European Union”. Tory MPs would’ve been apoplectic at this latest Brussels conspiracy against Britain. The white elephant in the room here is that David Cameron is already under intense pressure from figures like Mayor Boris to hold a referendum on British membership of the EU after the next election. Indeed, it’s not inconceivable that Scotland could be negotiating entry to the EU at the very moment England is negotiating its exit – which would be interesting.

The SNP needs to reframe the entire argument. It has anyway been too uncritical of Europe, which is plunging half the eurozone into economic depression through inflexible application of monetary policy. By appearing to be humble supplicants at the EU tradesman’s entrance the SNP is only weakening its own bargaining position if Scotland votes Yes. Oil rich Norway does pretty well outside the EU. The line should be that the dysfunctional European club would be lucky to have a such a highly educated and prosperous country as Scotland with its oil and natural resources. I mean, where would Spain get its fish?
The correct way for the Commission to deal with a situation unprecedented in the EU Treaties, is surely to say that the status quo should be affirmed, ie that Scotland is in until it is out. Scotland would clearly have to negotiate its contribution to the EU budget, its relationship to treaties like Schengen, and also its posture on the single currency. But the other new entity, the “Rest of the UK”, would also have to conduct its own parallel negotiations on altering its contribution to the budget, and as much reduced country, its voting weight on the Council of Ministers. That’s if England wants to stay in the EU.


As for Mr Barroso. It’s time for Alex Salmond to park his ample derriere very firmly on the Brussels upholstery.

From Herald, 13/12/12

Advertisements

About iain2macwhirter

Writer and journalist.

Discussion

3 thoughts on “Independence in Europe. Jose he say "no".

  1. Dear Mr Macwhirter -A most thoughtful piece as usual, but I would, if I may, take issue with a couple of points:'Where would Spain get its fish?' you posit.I would respectfully suggest that Spain would get its fish from Scottish waters, which would no longer be subject to the CFP, and would no longer be protected by the Royal Navy. Make no mistake about it: Scotland's waters, outwith the EU and UK, would become a free for all, and perhaps another reason why some countries would not wish to give Scotland an easy ride; and a reason why our fishing grounds (not to mention the oil) may not be quite the powerful bargainaing chips that the First Minister claims them to be. Indeed, they may well turn out to be albatrosses round our necks.I would also suggest you be a tiny bit more circumspect when claiming that the notion of an independent Scotland being ejected from the EU is absurd. Such a notion clearly contradicts what Mr Borosso says and writes – which, in essence, is that the Scottish people, in voting for independence from the UK, will simultaneously be voting to eject themselves from the EU. This seems to be self-evident.Now, even if we were allowed to negotiate membership before becoming formally independent (and that, I believe, is a pretty big 'if'), knowing as I do how the European bureaucracy ticks, I am absolutely certain that Scotland will have to go through the formal accession process, as summarised here: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/enlargement/ongoing_enlargement/l14536_en.htm. Anybody who thinks that that process is going to be completed between the referendum in 2014 and the elections 18 months later is living in cloud cuckoo land. And even when or if negotiations are eventually concluded, our application will be at the mercy and whim of the 27 other member states, each of which could torpedo our application for any reason whatsoever (not least the loss of MEPs and relevant voting strength that some of them (eg, the UK) will have to incur to allow Scotland in).Thus, I think that even in a best-case scenario we are looking at five years from Referendum Day until we are accepted to the Euro club – 3 1/2 years of which trawlers from other countries will be more or less free to destroy our fisheries stocks; and 3 1/2 years (at least) in which there will be border posts and passport checks with the UK. And those, sir, will be the least of our worries!Respectfully yours, Felicity

    Posted by F Walker | December 14, 2012, 1:21 pm
  2. Thanks for your thoughtful and informed comment. I wonder why you think that the EU would be so anxious to expel a country, Scotland – and it is a country of course – which wants to stay in Europe, when the UK is talking about a referendum on withdrawal? I would have thought that for diplomatic as well as economic reasons, the EU would have a strong interest in keeping Scotland in the tent. There is also no precedent for a country that is part of the EU actually leaving it. And Brussels has always insisted that membership of the EU is permanent. Do you really think it would want to create a precedent for small independent states to exit the EU on a fast track? Also, as you imply, the UK would also have to conduct negotiations about its own voting weight and contribution to the EU budget. Brussels would not want to allow these negotiations to become a pretext for rUK withdrawal. So, I can only see it as being in everyone's interest – if Scotland votes for independence – for the status quo to be restored as soon as possible. Actually, from a Brussels point of view, very little would really have changed.

    Posted by iain macwhirter | December 14, 2012, 4:27 pm
  3. "Barroso has chosen to get involved in this issue for his own political motives."Completely unfair. The EU has been desperate to keep out of this issue for obvious reasons, but its impossible when a house of Lords committee and the Catalan nats have asked a direct question. What would you expect him to do? I'm astounded you Nats haven't thought this through, you've had 20 years. Makes you wonder what else has not been thought through.Would an independent Scotland be allowed to join. No. The Spanish government have made it plain. New membership has to be voted on unanimously by existing members with so many countries with separatist groups are not going to vote yes. The Salmond national party don't get it. Its not a legal decision, but a political decision, which court would Scotland go to and how long would legal action take?If it was allowed to join it would have to join the Euro. All new countries have to under the Lisbon treaty.Will the UK vote to leave Europe? When push comes to shove I believe not – its economic suicide. Every time a substantive vote has been held on this issue the Eurosceptics have lost. In most referendums people vote for the status quo. I think it will be narrow but a pro Europe victory.Does Norway off a model – no. It pays about half our money in but gets nothing back, has to obey all the rules and has no say on any EU laws.Finally the argument that Europe will welcome Scotland because of the oil. What oil? Production has fallen a whacking 50% in the last year. By the time Scotland joins the EU there will be very little left.

    Posted by Anonymous | December 17, 2012, 10:45 am

Twitter Updates

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 42,128 other followers

Follow Iain Macwhirter on WordPress.com

Archives

Social

%d bloggers like this: