Should Scotland be an independent country?

zagubov

antrobus wrote: »

On a point of order. The European Court has said no such thing.

You're sure? Do check.

coolcait

baldelectrician wrote: »

...

It has been pointed out by the European Court that Scots have rights as EU citizens and there is no legal recourse to have these rights removed from Scots citizens against their will
...

antrobus wrote: »

On a point of order. The European Court has said no such thing.

zagubov wrote: »

You're sure? Do check.

It would be helpful to have clarity on this point. Which of the European Courts made this statement? In what context? Does anyone have a link to that pronouncement?

As things stand, the EU legislation does not cover a situation where part of a member state chooses to secede from that member state and - arguably - from the EU.

So, while Scots are citizens of an EU member state, I fully understand the view that there is no legal recourse to have EU rights removed from Scots against their will.

However, should the Scots choose to secede from the EU member state, on what basis is it argued that they are still "EU citizens"?

Or indeed, that that they have not chosen to renounce any rights as EU citizens by voluntarily seceding?

zagubov

coolcait wrote: »

It would be helpful to have clarity on this point. Which of the European Courts made this statement? In what context? Does anyone have a link to that pronouncement?

As things stand, the EU legislation does not cover a situation where part of a member state chooses to secede from that member state and - arguably - from the EU.

So, while Scots are citizens of an EU member state, I fully understand the view that there is no legal recourse to have EU rights removed from Scots against their will.

However, should the Scots choose to secede from the EU member state, on what basis is it argued that they are still "EU citizens"?

Or indeed, that that they have not chosen to renounce any rights as EU citizens by voluntarily seceding?

That's a really good point.

There was, a few years back a situation where Greenland negotiated a stronger Home Rule within the Kingdom of Denmark (through which it had EU memebership in a way that I don't hink the Faroes had).

They wanted to deal with NAFTA as, to be honest, Greenland's more geographically North American than it is European.
It wanted to remove itself from the EU but apparently no mechanism was built into the EU treaties to allow this.

New amendments had to be built in by new treaty amendments which formed two new mechanisms for a territory or population to exit, and an exit pathway was negotiated for Greenland.

It was quite involved. The only previous exit was Algeria via a civil war in 1960 when it was sort of de facto realised they'd kind of thoroughly gone and wouldn't be responding to the telegrams.

The EU constitution holds EU citizenship quite highly and tries to avoid accidental loss orf citizenship. I'd be surprised for example if a delayed cash transfer from the UK meant the UK was expelled in any way.

They've already pointed out that the people in Northern Cyprus could be in like a shot if they gave the EU the nod.

The current prospect of the UK maybe splitting doesn't seem to have generated a third exit mechanism for people to leave the EU.

coolcait

zagubov wrote: »

That's a really good point.

There was, a few years back a situation where Greenland negotiated a stronger Home Rule within the Kingdom of Denmark (through which it had EU memebership in a way that I don't hink the Faroes had).

They wanted to deal with NAFTA as, to be honest, Greenland's more geographically North American than it is European.
It wanted to remove itself from the EU but apparently no mechanism was built into the EU treaties to allow this.

New amendments had to be built in by new treaty amendments which formed two new mechanisms for a territory or population to exit, and an exit pathway was negotiated for Greenland.

It was quite involved. The only previous exit was Algeria via a civil war in 1960 when it was sort of de facto realised they'd kind of thoroughly gone and wouldn't be responding to the telegrams.

The EU constitution holds EU citizenship quite highly and tries to avoid accidental loss orf citizenship. I'd be surprised for example if a delayed cash transfer from the UK meant the UK was expelled in any way.

They've already pointed out that the people in Northern Cyprus could be in like a shot if they gave the EU the nod.

The current prospect of the UK maybe splitting doesn't seem to have generated a third exit mechanism for people to leave the EU.

That's all genuinely interesting stuff.

But none of it has anything to do with the statement that:

"It has been pointed out by the European Court that Scots have rights as EU citizens and there is no legal recourse to have these rights removed from Scots citizens against their will".

Is there a link to such a statement, where one of the European courts (as yet unspecified) allegedly 'pointed out' the above? That was the implicit suggestion in your post saying:

"You're sure? Do check."

zagubov

coolcait wrote: »

That's all genuinely interesting stuff.

But none of it has anything to do with the statement that:

"It has been pointed out by the European Court that Scots have rights as EU citizens and there is no legal recourse to have these rights removed from Scots citizens against their will".

Is there a link to such a statement, where one of the European courts (as yet unspecified) allegedly 'pointed out' the above? That was the implicit suggestion in your post saying:

"You're sure? Do check."

I wish I knew. It's probably buried in the earlier forums or in one of the non-MSE websites dealing with this. I always find that the arguments are circular and repetitive and I'd struggle to remember where the originals are.

To my knowledge, unless the Scots followed one of the two negotiated exit routes I don't know of any way they'd be out.

The secession referendum doesn't look as though it fits either method.

I'm baffled at how a difficult -to-leave union suddenly becomes an easy-to-leave union.

Imagine Belgium split by Flanders seceding (not a crazy idea). Surely it would be weird for Brussels to be stranded outside the EU " by accident".

Maybe Scotland could, similarly, end up outside the EU, but I'd be amazed.

Maybe following baldelectrician's prior posts might reveal this, or he might be able to help us out. To be honest most posters don't give very much backup and expect us all to do our own research, as if we had the time!:o

coolcait

zagubov wrote: »

... To be honest most posters don't give very much backup and expect us all to do our own research, as if we had the time!:o

Indeed.

Your statement "You're sure? Do check." suggested that you had defintive knowledge that antrobus was incorrect in saying that "the European court has said no such thing" in respect of baldelectician's statements.

I did make an attempt to carry out some research on the 'point' referred to by baldelectrician, but found no statement at all from any European court along those lines.

So, if there is no link to anything said, by any European Court, along the lines put forward by baldelectrician, maybe it is time to discount that claim.

And I'm still left wondering why you posted to antrobus in the way that you did.

On a point of principle, why should a poster be able to post a statement such as baldelectrician's and yours, and expect others to find the links to back up those statements?

If you can't provide a link to back up a statement that such and such an organisation said such and such a thing, then don't expect people to give much credence to that statement - or anything else you post on trust.

zagubov

coolcait wrote: »

Indeed.

Your statement "You're sure? Do check." suggested that you had defintive knowledge that antrobus was incorrect in saying that "the European court has said no such thing" in respect of baldelectician's statements.

I did make an attempt to carry out some research on the 'point' referred to by baldelectrician, but found no statement at all from any European court along those lines.

So, if there is no link to anything said, by any European Court, along the lines put forward by baldelectrician, maybe it is time to discount that claim.

And I'm still left wondering why you posted to antrobus in the way that you did.

On a point of principle, why should a poster be able to post a statement such as baldelectrician's and yours, and expect others to find the links to back up those statements?

If you can't provide a link to back up a statement that such and such an organisation said such and such a thing, then don't expect people to give much credence to that statement - or anything else you post on trust.

I genuinely do want to know what the EU may have said that's relevant to this. I'm pretty sure they've not said anything specifically about Scotland in the precise wording baldelectrician has used. When I search online I find articles suggesting continued dual citizenship for Scots citizens (contradicting Theresa May's 2013 threats). But others are more ambiguous

I wouldn't be surprised if the EU'd said something about the EU citizenship of other divided countries such as Denmark and Cyprus.

As I stated earlier, if Flanders leaves, Brussels could be toally stuck in a non-EU hinterland. Many of its employees would not be citizens as they'd be commuting from outside Brussels. Goods products and services to the EU HQ would be imports I'd suppose.

If there isn't a mechanism at least in theory for maintaining citizenship for splitting countries I'd be frankly amazed. But i don't know for sure and would like to.

coolcait

I'm in the same boat as you when it comes to finding any definitive statement by the likes of current members of the European Court of Justice, or other such organisations.

That's why it would be so helpful if those who say that such and such a statement was made by such and such an organisation would provide a link.

The Flanders scenario would be a real test for the EU! Scotland seceding from the UK is pretty small beer (apologies) compared to that.

I really don't think that there are any mechanisms in place at the moment to deal with any country splitting up. I suspect that Scotland would be a test case.

That said, the Flanders scenario would also be an issue for Belgium, as Brussels has both Flemish community and French community institutions.

My own view is that any serious suggestion of Belgium splitting would probably lead to contingency planning to move all EU institutions to Strasbourg, to avoid the kind of logistical problems you've pointed out.

Imagine the impact that would have on their independence debate! It would make the sterling spat look (even more) like an "It's mah ba', an' ah'm no playin'" playground confrontation.

zagubov

coolcait wrote: »

I'm in the same boat as you when it comes to finding any definitive statement by the likes of current members of the European Court of Justice, or other such organisations.

That's why it would be so helpful if those who say that such and such a statement was made by such and such an organisation would provide a link.

The Flanders scenario would be a real test for the EU! Scotland seceding from the UK is pretty small beer (apologies) compared to that.

I really don't think that there are any mechanisms in place at the moment to deal with any country splitting up. I suspect that Scotland would be a test case.

That said, the Flanders scenario would also be an issue for Belgium, as Brussels has both Flemish community and French community institutions.

My own view is that any serious suggestion of Belgium splitting would probably lead to contingency planning to move all EU institutions to Strasbourg, to avoid the kind of logistical problems you've pointed out.

Imagine the impact that would have on their independence debate! It would make the sterling spat look (even more) like an "It's mah ba', an' ah'm no playin'" playground confrontation.

It wouldn't just be the EU. NATO's HQ is in Brussels. Belgium's a highly devolved nation already.

They must have planned for this, to avoid the kind of move you've suggested. It would be easier for them to maintain some fast-track EU membership for Flanders than move the HQ to France (having the EU run from a big country was somnething they've wanted to avoid from the start).

An organsiation that can swallow East Germany in one gulp will be able to sort out swallowing parts of former countries. Whether they're keen to discuss this with potentially fissile states is another matter.;)

brodev

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they come to fight you, and then you win." (M.K. Gandhi)