Brexit: Now What? Part II

[Craig B]

Scotland is only part of the EU by dint of being one region of the UK.

"Scotland remaining in the EU" is an oxymoron.

The most oxymoronic thing I've seen for some time is the juxtaposition of the two above statements.

 

[ceptimus]

What part(s) of those statements do you think are factually inaccurate?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I know that. Posters here are suggesting we negotiate a deal and then have a second referendum on whether or not to accept the deal.

In order to negotiate we must first invoke Article 50 (that's what the EU leaders still insist on) and once we've invoked Article 50 it's too late to go back to the status quo unless the EU graciously allow that option (which I don't think they will).

I think I agree with this position. Although I think I would probably say if we invoke Art 50 it's not clear whether we can go back to the status quo. It would be a bit like handing in your notice at work and then changing your mind and deciding to stay.

 

[ceptimus]

I think I agree with this position. Although I think I would probably say if we invoke Art 50 it's not clear whether we can go back to the status quo. It would be a bit like handing in your notice at work and then changing your mind and deciding to stay.

And to push that analogy further, it would not just be your bosses at work who could decide to let you stay - if just one other employee disagreed with allowing you to stay then you'd have to leave.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But Scotland is not and never has been a member country of the EU: it's the UK that's a member. Scotland is only part of the EU by dint of being one region of the UK.

And nobody ever said it was a member country. However the people of Scotland are EU citizens and have the rights that this confers.

"Scotland remaining in the EU" is an oxymoron. The only way Scotland could become an EU member is for it to first secede from the UK and then apply for EU membership. There is no guarantee that the EU would accept Scotland's application: Spain is the country most likely to veto Scotland's application.

You seem confused and that's why you have reached the silly oxymoron conclusion. And as always seems to be the case you in this matter a conclusion has been reached, without sufficient evidence, that the only way Scotland can become an EU member is by applying afresh.

The topic at hand is that the people of Scotland are EU citizens and wish to remain such. And no amount of English or Welsh votes can change that position or make it any more reasonable that it should change.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What part(s) of those statements do you think are factually inaccurate?

They are mutually contradictory.

You concede in the first that Scotland is in the EU and then in the second argue that staying in would be somehow oxymoronic.

 

[ceptimus]

And nobody ever said it was a member country. However the people of Scotland are EU citizens and have the rights that this confers.



You seem confused and that's why you have reached the silly oxymoron conclusion. And as always seems to be the case you in this matter a conclusion has been reached, without sufficient evidence, that the only way Scotland can become an EU member is by applying afresh.

The topic at hand is that the people of Scotland are EU citizens and wish to remain such. And no amount of English or Welsh votes can change that position or make it any more reasonable that it should change.

You keep saying that, but the EU has no mechanism that allows for one part of a member country to split away and still remain an EU member in its own right.

I know that's what you think is fair, and what you think ought to be the situation but it's not: you have to deal with reality.

Edited to add: I think the EU would feel sympathetic towards an independent Scotland and probably would wish to allow it to become a member in some fast-track way. The problems would be that new members are required to adopt the Euro, which many Scots don't wish to do - and that Spain would likely veto the application because of worries about Catalonia wishing to secede.

 

[ceptimus]

They are mutually contradictory.

You concede in the first that Scotland is in the EU and then in the second argue that staying in would be somehow oxymoronic.

No they're not. I said that Scotland is in the EU only because Scotland is part of the UK.

In exactly the same way, Cornwall is in the EU because it's part of the UK.

Now I admit that Scotland is more likely to secede from the UK than Cornwall is, and that in the event of secession the EU would look more favourably on an independent Scotland than an independent Cornwall.

But in either case, the split-off part of the UK would not automatically "remain" part of the EU. The split-off part would be a new country under international law, and as a new country would be required to apply for membership of the EU just like any other non-member country.

I accept that the EU would look favourably on Scotland as a new applicant for EU membership, but that membership would not be instant or automatic - as I mentioned above the Euro and Catalonia are just two of the thorny issues that would have to be overcome.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You keep saying that, but the EU has no mechanism that allows for one part of a member country to split away and still remain an EU member in its own right.

I keep saying what? Certainly not what you wrote in your next sentence. I have never claimed that the EU necessarily has such a process. It also doesn't NOT have that process. It's never had to deal with the situation.

I know that's what you think is fair, and what you think ought to be the situation but it's not: you have to deal with reality.

Well the reality is that there is nothing stopping it from happening and that there are all sorts of principles of European law that make it very likely. The EU isn't in the business of stripping rights from its citizens (nor in shrinking the EU to be honest). I could just as easily counter with your exact same answer to your position.

Edited to add: I think the EU would feel sympathetic towards an independent Scotland and probably would wish to allow it to become a member in some fast-track way. The problems would be that new members are required to adopt the Euro, which many Scots don't wish to do - and that Spain would likely veto the application because of worries about Catalonia wishing to secede.

I think there would be many practical problems. Made worse by England and Wales self-harming decision to exit the EU. I don't think Spain vetoing anything would be one of them.

I would also add that once the UK leaves the EU it's pretty clear that we WOULD need to reapply as a new member if we became independent which is why it's so important that the referendum is held WELL before that happens.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No they're not. I said that Scotland is in the EU only because Scotland is part of the UK.

Your foot is on your body by way of being connected to your leg so is it oxymoronic for you to want to keep your foot attached to your body?

If you are in something you are in. By whatever means.

In exactly the same way, Cornwall is in the EU because it's part of the UK.

Now I admit that Scotland is more likely to secede from the UK than Cornwall is, and that in the event of secession the EU would look more favourably on an independent Scotland than an independent Cornwall.

But in either case, the split-off part of the UK would not automatically "remain" part of the EU. The split-off part would be a new country under international law, and as a new country would be required to apply for membership of the EU just like any other non-member country.

Again you are switching to membership status rather than the status of the people. This is an attempt to switch the discussion to another topic.

I accept that the EU would look favourably on Scotland as a new applicant for EU membership, but that membership would not be instant or automatic - as I mentioned above the Euro and Catalonia are just two of the thorny issues that would have to be overcome.

I disagree. And neither of us will be able to convince the other because it's a completely unique situation with no precedent and no clear rules pertaining to it.

 

[Craig B]

I think the EU would feel sympathetic towards an independent Scotland and probably would wish to allow it to become a member in some fast-track way. The problems would be that new members are required to adopt the Euro, which many Scots don't wish to do - and that Spain would likely veto the application because of worries about Catalonia wishing to secede.

If we're not allowed to use the pound, which isn't looking so attractive now anyway, perhaps the € will seem a good option - if it lets us trade freely within the EU, as it would.

I don't know what Spain will wish to do, but Spain creating difficulties for Scotland will without doubt cause enormous resentment in Catalonia, a region which I think Madrid would be well advised to placate rather than irritate even further.

At all events, that won't be England's or rUK's problem to worry about, if Scotland leaves the U.K., or is forced out, to remain in the EU.

 

[ceptimus]

Okay, I accept your point that Scotland will get preferential treatment from the EU if it becomes independent before the UK leaves the EU.

Given that Prime Minister May will be invoking Article 50 next March, which could lead to the UK leaving the EU as early as March 2019, why isn't Nicola Sturgeon pushing for an immediate second Scottish independence referendum?

 

[McHrozni]

Given that Prime Minister May will be invoking Article 50 next March, which could lead to the UK leaving the EU as early as March 2019, why isn't Nicola Sturgeon pushing for an immediate second Scottish independence referendum?

For one, because there is no guarantee Theresa May will invoke Article 50 next March. She said she will do so, but at this point it looks like she might lack the capacity to do so, owing to a (very sensible) court ruling she needs the Parliament to take a vote on it first. That's before we consider the fact lying through your teeth is a feature of a Politicians' job.

Secondly, Sturgeon has one and only one shot at this, and she must make it right. It would be catastrophic for her and her cause if Scotland held another referendum, and the Remain in UK won out again. She needs to time this right, call for one when it's already clear UK will be leaving EU and that leaving EU will be a disaster for UK and when she has sufficient guarantees independent Scotland will be able to join EU either immediately or at least very soon after achieving independence. These are not trivial questions, since Spain isn't exactly thrilled at the prospect of a country seceding from a (member) state and achieving full EU integration immediately, because they have to deal with their own secessionist movement in Catalonia.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Okay, I accept your point that Scotland will get preferential treatment from the EU if it becomes independent before the UK leaves the EU.

Given that Prime Minister May will be invoking Article 50 next March, which could lead to the UK leaving the EU as early as March 2019, why isn't Nicola Sturgeon pushing for an immediate second Scottish independence referendum?

There are a number of issues here, that are not all covered by simplistic declamations obviously intended to create trouble for the SNP by trying to force the Scottish Government's hand. The motivation here is transparent. Neither you or I know what is going to happen early next year, let alone in March 2019, or what agreements or undertakings with the EU may become available to Scotland in the intervening period.

I think you want Holyrood to call a referendum before the depths of the "fine mess Brexit has got us into" have become fully apparent, and I understand the anxieties that British Unionists must feel about these developments.

 

[ceptimus]

Perhaps you're right. Sturgeon wants to let the Scots see how bad the Brexit negotiations are looking before she pulls the trigger.

But the next Scottish referendum will take some time to set up, and if the vote is to leave then that process will also require negotiation and take time - Sturgeon can't afford to procrastinate for much longer if she wants to be certain of Scotland splitting from the UK before the UK splits from the EU.

 

[McHrozni]

Perhaps you're right. Sturgeon wants to let the Scots see how bad the Brexit negotiations are looking before she pulls the trigger.

But the next Scottish referendum will take some time to set up, and if the vote is to leave then that process will also require negotiation and take time - Sturgeon can't afford to prevaricate for much longer if she wants to be certain of Scotland splitting from the UK before the UK splits from the EU.

Sturgeon can afford the leisure of time at the moment. Scotland might not have the luxury, but it's something she can safely blame on the stupid conservatives in Westminster and stupid English peasants and emerge unscathed and even bolstered.

Funnily enough, it's really closer to a fair and balanced description of the situation than an excuse.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Okay, I accept your point that Scotland will get preferential treatment from the EU if it becomes independent before the UK leaves the EU.

Given that Prime Minister May will be invoking Article 50 next March, which could lead to the UK leaving the EU as early as March 2019, why isn't Nicola Sturgeon pushing for an immediate second Scottish independence referendum?

It may be that she sees it differently from me. It may be that she has better information than me. It may be that she is simply waiting for some kind of clarity from Westminster on what the plan actually is before she details her alternative vision.

The other underlying issue is whether she thinks she can win a referendum. My personal feeling is the sooner the better but it seems that she disagrees and wants a more measured approach.

Another option is that she doesn't think she will win a referendum and is merely using the threat of independence as a bargaining chip in negotiations with May for more influence on the outcome.

Its even possible she is being altruistic and trying to get the best solution for the UK overall rather than invoking the nuclear option straightaway.

In short: I don't know.

ETA: I don't think Scotland needs to be independent from the rUK before it leaves the EU provided the decision is taken then a special arrangement seems likely during the negotiation period. If we don't want to stay in a currency Union with rUK then negotiations may well be fairly short prior to the declaration of independence (other details could probably be worked out after the fact)

 

[Craig B]

I don't think Scotland needs to be independent from the rUK before it leaves the EU provided the decision is taken then a special arrangement seems likely during the negotiation period. If we don't want to stay in a currency Union with rUK then negotiations may well be fairly short prior to the declaration of independence (other details could probably be worked out after the fact)

I agree very strongly with that. One other point. If a new applicant requires to commit to join the Euro, does that mean that such country will be admitted to the Eurozone immediately, or does it require the process of initiation that takes several years first?

 

[Craig B]

Perhaps you're right. Sturgeon wants to let the Scots see how bad the Brexit negotiations are looking before she pulls the trigger.

No. I didn't mean "how bad the Brexit negotiations will look" but "how bad the reality of Brexit will be". These are different things.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No. I didn't mean "how bad the Brexit negotiations will look" but "how bad the reality of Brexit will be". These are different things.

The reality will only be apparent once we actually leave the EU though. In some ways I think it might make it less likely to get an independence vote if things are economically terrible. People might well be less risk minded if they are already struggling. It could go either way.