The [SNP] party insists that an independent Scotland would have automatic, seamless membership of the EU as a successor to the defunct United Kingdom. The European Commission's legal advisers insist otherwise. They say that what is left of Britain would remain an EU member but that Scotland would have to apply to join as a new member, a process that triggers all sorts of complications. Not the least of these would be a referendum in France, whose constitution—thanks to French anxiety about Turkish membership—now requires such a vote on all future EU applicants (bar Croatia, whose entry talks kicked off before the deadline).
Nobody doubts that Scotland would eventually get in, but this could take time. And even if Scotland were excused the set-piece process of full-blown membership negotiations, the EU treaties would at the very least need to be tweaked to decide such matters as how many members of the European Parliament and votes in the Council of Ministers Scotland should have. Yet any change to the treaties needs the unanimous approval of all the current members, giving every single country a chance to veto Edinburgh. Who knows whether some government or other might not fancy a wrangle over fish or the EU budget? The Spanish government might not want to nod Scotland through, for fear of encouraging its own separatists. As one EU diplomat puts it: “If your sole question is, would you like to have Scotland in the EU, everyone would say yes. But it's not as simple as that.” In Brussels high-level questions of law are often settled by low-level questions of horsetrading.
We are not of course at the stage where this needs to occupy our attention, but let us bear it in mind for future reference if necessary.
3 comments:
A couple of points. First, the SNP would be better advised championing a policy of "uninterrupted participation" in the EU as opposed to automatic right of entry. That is probably the best they can hope for - and it is by far the most likely outcome. Scotland is, after all, a valued member of the EU internal market. Second, and related, over a number of analagous (though not directly comparable) issues, the EU has demonstrated a degree of "constitutional flexibility" on membership-related matters: Greenland, the unification of Germany and, currently, the implications of the break-up of the Netherlands Antilles and the 'return' to the fold (of Dutch Government) of 3 former islands within that group. My strong hunch is that after due negotiations Scotland would be permitted to take its place as an independent member state.
But it would still need Treaty amendments which would require the agreement of all the Member States.
It's worth pointing out that the continued participation of rump-UK would probably also require treaty amendments, not least because I cannot see the other Member States standing for the proposition that RUK keeps its MEPs, and Scotland gets some extra ones. So it's a complicated business for both partners, not just Scotland.
Post a Comment