Some months ago, David Carr and I had a quick and long forgotten conversation over the subject of withdrawal from the European Union. It is a hardy perennial that fades in and out of debate. This time, I was interested in the ‘Greenland option’ where a region had stayed loyal to the crown of Denmark but had exited the EEC. Similar constitutional anomalies bind the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to the Crown. The option was not considered realistic because we concluded that the EU would never countenance losing larger portions of their members.
Think again! Labour MEP, Eluned Morgan, tabled a question to Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, asking if Wales would remain a member of the European Union if it declared independence. Prodi appeared to indicate that any region declaring independence would have to reapply for membership.
Asked if a newly independent region would have to leave the EU and apply for accession afresh, Mr Prodi said: “When a part of the territory of a member state ceases to be a part of that state, eg because that territory becomes an independent state, the treaties will no longer apply to that state.
In other words, a newly independent region would, by the fact of its independence, become a third country with respect to the union and the treaties would, from the day of its independence, not apply any more on its territory.”
His answer, written on March 1, also said any application for EU membership would require negotiation and consent of other member states.
Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalist party, viewed the eruption as a spoiler for their spring conference and noted the constitutional implications:
But Plaid Cymru last night rubbished the claims. Jill Evans MEP described it as “nothing more than a spoiling attempt by New Labour on the eve of our Spring Conference”.
She said: “The United Kingdom is constituted as a state through the respective acts of Union in 1536 and 1707. If either act is repealed, the UK as a nation state will no longer exist. On the basis of Romano Prodi’s letter, if Wales and Scotland were to become independent, all component members of the UK including England would have to reapply for EU membership. These ridiculous claims should be treated with contempt and are pure nonsensical.”
If Prodi’s reading of European law is correct, then declarations of independence by the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, followed by the dissolution of the Union, would be sufficient for withdrawal from the European Union. This provides food for thought since the campaign for an English parliament and for English independence now has another virtuous outcome.
Good news so near St. Georges Day!
Interesting articles, because one of the major selling points for Quebec independence during the referendum of 1995 was that international benefits and privileges, as a province of Canada, would automatically migrate to the new state of Quebec. Bliss would continue.
Cheers
JMH
What amazes me is that the European Commission, whilst busy bestowing more and more power on itself, is effectively dominated by a few personalities who seem to be able to dictate European policy at will. Sidelining the elected Parliament occurs all the time. In a few years, the Parliament will have no power at all, and this will have moved into the Gentleman’s Drinking Club that is the Commission. We hear more and more “Romano Prodi said this… Romano Prodi said that…”; don’t they discuss anyhing any more?
And, are we seeing a new brand of European dictators?
Philip, sadly I don’t think it would work. England would simply become the successor to the former United Kingdom and would therefore be bound by the former UK’s treaty obligations. The same would be true domestically. The Queen and Parliament would still be the English parliament and therefore the English would still be bound by the 1972 European Community Act etc.
Which can of course be repealed.
EG
It looks like a viable option. Considering that declaring independence, in effect, creates a new country, how can it be a member of the EU without applying? Withdrawal would not only be a consideration, but a requirement.
[…] and would therefore be bound by the former UK’s treaty obligations
Er, no. Treaty obligations are binding on sovereign states only as long as they choose to be bound. In the top-down Civil Law tradition (such as EU Law) treaties are automatically received as domestic Law–not so elsewhere. But even Civil Law countries can abrogate treaties they no longer support.
I think you all are missing the Euros’ angle on all of this: a new application for membership would occasion a new round of bribes and junkets; how could they possibly refuse?
You could at least have provided a link to the Campaign for an English Parliament!
http://www.thecep.org.uk