Scottish Independence

[Burma]

"Yves Gounin, formerly chief of staff to the French minister for European Affairs"

Because he knows what he's talking about.

AdLib - "Did he go to the best law school in Scotland. Im wrecking this thread and holding P&B hostage until this is removed and someone personally apologises"

HB- "Irrelevent because it wasnt said by either myself of my current cheerleading favourite Professor James Crawford....Do you disagree? How very dare you...why? Be very very very very very very very very very specific....answer me!!!! IM RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT."

Reynard - " fuckin' hingmy. Wit wis ah gonnae say. Aye ....fuckin ethno nat c***s. Unlucky. Fuckin....hate they c***s.....fuckin talkin 'boot! Independence, f**k sake, wit yew even talkin 'boot.

[H_B]

"Yves Gounin, formerly chief of staff to the French minister for European Affairs"

Because he knows what he's talking about.

Right.

Former chief of staff to the French minister for European Affairs - kens the score.

Current EC President and Former EC President - dinnae ken the score.

That about sum it up?

[H_B]

It would be interesting to see H_B & Ad Lib's view on this.

I've already given you my view. And the most important line in the article.

"And he adds that, if while it's true that the public statements from the Union (that is, the obligation to reapply for entry) have been clear with respect to the current legislation, "a realistic and efficient solution for an eventual independence must be found".

This is just Sturgeon like fail. It acknowledges that the narrative he is trying to sell has no legal basis. What he is saying is, as I said above, "let's ignore the law and find another solution".

[H_B]

Note also, in terms of full and frank disclosure of the evidence here (http://www.catalannewsagency.com/politics/item/french-study-backs-eu-membership-of-independent-catalonia-and-scotland) :-

"Yves Gounin, argues that the independence of Catalonia, Scotland or Flanders would not cause their immediate expulsion from the European Union but neither could it result in their automatic inclusion

Hence, Salmond and Sturgeon are completely wrong.

Also,

"the French expert in EU affairs analyses the succession of states and their effect on international treaties. He assumes that Spain and the United Kingdom would be the “continuing states”, while Catalonia and Scotland would respectively be the “successor states”.

Hence, Salmond and Sturgeon are completely wrong.

"Gounin admits there are arguments to defend the necessity to reapply for membership but he also states they are neither “realistic” nor follow “common sense”. “Common sense prohibits assimilating them to Moldavia, Montenegro or Turkey regarding their right to (re-)accessing the Union”.

Again, as I said above, if the law fails you go for "common sense".

he backs the concept of “interior enlargement”, although he acknowledged that this concept is not defined in the treaties

[HardyBamboo]

Note also, in terms of full and frank disclosure of the evidence here (http://www.catalannewsagency.com/politics/item/french-study-backs-eu-membership-of-independent-catalonia-and-scotland) :-

"Yves Gounin, argues that the independence of Catalonia, Scotland or Flanders would not cause their immediate expulsion from the European Union but neither could it result in their automatic inclusion

Hence, Salmond and Sturgeon are completely wrong.

Also,

"the French expert in EU affairs analyses the succession of states and their effect on international treaties. He assumes that Spain and the United Kingdom would be the “continuing states”, while Catalonia and Scotland would respectively be the “successor states”.

Hence, Salmond and Sturgeon are completely wrong.

"Gounin admits there are arguments to defend the necessity to reapply for membership but he also states they are neither “realistic” nor follow “common sense”. “Common sense prohibits assimilating them to Moldavia, Montenegro or Turkey regarding their right to (re-)accessing the Union”.

Again, as I said above, if the law fails you go for "common sense".

he backs the concept of “interior enlargement”, although he acknowledged that this concept is not defined in the treaties

If we aren't expelled does that not mean we are defacto included?

With the concept of EU citizenship being in addition to State membership explain to me how, without a referendum of the affected citizens, we can be expelled.

I think when it comes down to the wire that common sense will prevail & if a law needs to be written to accommodate that, then that is what will happen.

[H_B]

If we aren't expelled does that not mean we are defacto included?

No.

Scotland isn't a member of the EU. It never has been. It would require to apply to join. Scots are only EU citizens through being UK citizens.

This is where Greenland is important. As Prof Happold states (http://www.ejiltalk.org/scottish-independence-and-the-european-union/) :-

"The withdrawal of Greenland from the EC had to be negotiated because it remained a part of Denmark (albeit having gained ‘home rule’). Had Greenland become independent, it would have automatically exited the EC, whereas Denmark would have remained."

[H_B]

And again -

"On Scottish independence, Scotland would emerge as a new State, with the rump UK (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) continuing the legal personality of the UK. As regards membership of the European Union, this would mean that the rump UK would retain the UK’s membership, whilst Scotland would have to be admitted as a new member."

http://www.ejiltalk.org/scottish-independence-political-rhetoric-and-legal-realities/

[Burma]

It's heartening to see Europe preparing itself to fastrack Scotland into the EU. As the people of Scotland are citizens of the EU, that citizenship cannot be revoked.

[Baxter Parp]

Right.

Former chief of staff to the French minister for European Affairs - kens the score.

Current EC President and Former EC President - dinnae ken the score.

That about sum it up?

If Cameron became EU president would he suddenly become an expert in EU law? Dimwit.

[H_B]

And Jure Vidmar :-

"Thus, under the presently-applicable legal framework, when Scots vote for an independent Scotland they ipso facto also vote for a Scotland outside of the EU"

"The Boyle/Crawford Opinion demonstrates that by voting in favour of independence, Scots would, at least prima facie, sever themselves from rights and duties arising under EU law."

[Burma]

If Cameron became EU president would he suddenly become an expert in EU law? Dimwit.

Not as big an expert (chuckle) as hb.

[AUFC90]

I reckon by the time independance day comes along everything will be sorted regarding Europe. I'm of the opinion wont need to apply and there will not even be 10 minutes where we are officially out.

[H_B]

If Cameron became EU president would he suddenly become an expert in EU law? Dimwit.

Sorry, are you saying that two EC Presidents don't understand how the EU Treaty works?

You do know that Romano Prodi and Manuel Barroso are both lawyers too, don't you?

[H_B]

In addition to Barroso and Prodi, there is also EC spokesman Olivier Bailly

European Commission spokesman Olivier Bailly said today (11 September) that an independent Scotland would be left outside the union, at least temporarily.

“Any secession process for member states will have to be organised according to international law so that this new organisation gets recognition from the international community,” Bailly said.

“Then if they want to apply for EU membership this will have to be done by treaty regarding provision for accession.”

[Burma]

I reckon by the time independance day comes along everything will be sorted regarding Europe. I'm of the opinion wont need to apply and there will not even be 10 minutes where we are officially out.

Not for ten seconds will the people of Scotland NOT be EU citizens.

Scotland being part of the EU is an economic no-brainer. The only negotiation which will take up less time will be the terms of the currency Union.

[H_B]

And Professor Stephen Tierney :-

http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/papers/ESRC%20Briefing%20on%20Scotland%20and%20European%20Union.pdf

"EU citizenship is contingent on EU membership: an individual requires to possess the nationality/citizenship of a Member State if he or she is to benefit from Union citizenship."

"It cannot realistically be argued that the nationals of a state leaving the EU would continue to be treated by the CJEU as EU citizens."

Now, what should be remembered is that the UK could still grant Scots citizenship of the UK.

[Burma]

If we aren't expelled does that not mean we are defacto included?

With the concept of EU citizenship being in addition to State membership explain to me how, without a referendum of the affected citizens, we can be expelled.

I think when it comes down to the wire that common sense will prevail & if a law needs to be written to accommodate that, then that is what will happen.

If neccessary law will be rewritten overnight and ratified in an afternoon. There is no political, social or economic case for Scotland not being very quickly admitted as a full EU member.

As I said....not for ten seconds will be the people of Scotland be without EU citizenship.

[AUFC90]

If neccessary law will be rewritten overnight and ratified in an afternoon. There is no political, social or economic case for Scotland not being very quickly admitted as a full EU member.

As I said....not for ten seconds will be the people of Scotland be without EU citizenship.

Like the Danish government said.... "It would be ridiculous to suggest that Scotland wouldn't be welcomed, it would be a mere formality.

Then they went onto say that if Norway wanted to, they would get in tomorrow.

It wont be a drawn out process no matter how many times the unionists tell us otherwise.

[HardyBamboo]

No.

Scotland isn't a member of the EU. It never has been. It would require to apply to join. Scots are only EU citizens through being UK citizens.

This is where Greenland is important. As Prof Happold states (http://www.ejiltalk.org/scottish-independence-and-the-european-union/) :-

"The withdrawal of Greenland from the EC had to be negotiated because it remained a part of Denmark (albeit having gained ‘home rule’). Had Greenland become independent, it would have automatically exited the EC, whereas Denmark would have remained."

You cant really answer question 1 without addressing the concept mentioned in question 2.

[HardyBamboo]

FWIW - I dont know why I am getting too involved in this particular argument, membership of the EU wouldn't be a deal breaker for me anyway, I would certainly rather be in than out but Norway & Switzerland seem to have done OK.