EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

Regional independence: Opening Pandora's box

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 24 September 2012, updated 25 September 2012

It is too simplistic to propose that a region could simply remain in the European Union after seceding from its EU member state and that the ‘evaporation theory’ of Belgium's New Flemish Alliance cannot adequately grasp all the political and legal problems which such a scenario would entail, say Guillaume Van der Loo and Merijn Chamon.

Guillaume Van der Loo and Merijn Chamon are doctoral candidates at the European Institute of Ghent University in Belgium.

"A new state, if it wants to join the European Union, has to apply to become a member of the European Union like any state," replied European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, in a BBC 4 radio interview on 12 September, on the question whether or not an independent Scotland would automatically remain in the EU.

This was bad news for the Scottish National Party (SNP) which proclaims that, under international law, Scotland would retain its EU membership after seceding from the UK. 

A clarification of this matter is urgently needed not only for the Scottish case, where the SNP government intends to hold a referendum on Scottish independence in the autumn of 2014, but also for other regions in the EU where regional political parties pursue the independence and EU membership of their region.

Clear examples of this are Flanders in Belgium, where the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) aims to secure EU membership for an independent Flanders, and Catalonia, where hundred thousands of people demonstrated on 11 September for independence. 

Whereas the SNP claims that Scotland could automatically remain in the EU-club after its independence, the N-VA has stated that Belgium will gradually evaporate, leaving only a European macro-level and a Flemish micro-level.

According the N-VA, competences for which the advantages of size are greater than the costs of heterogeneity must be exercised by the EU, while competences where heterogeneity costs are too great must be exercised by Flanders.

This may look nice on paper but the reality is far more complicated. First, there are no examples in history of ‘evaporated states’. Generally, states cease to exist following an active deed: a declaration of independence, an international treaty, a civil war, etc.

To conceive the future of Flanders as the result of the evaporation of Belgium reveals the lack of a clear and realistic vision on the position of this region in the EU after its hypothetical independence.

In Scotland, the SNP government even refuses to make public whether or not it has received any legal advice on this matter, leading the opposition to conclude that the advice runs counter to the SNP’s public position.

Granted, drafting such a clear and realistic scenario is not an easy exercise. The EU Treaties only contain provisions allowing for the accession to the EU or, since the Lisbon Treaty, for the withdrawal from the EU.

On the issue of whether regions in the EU can automatically become EU member states after their independence from the ‘mother state’, the Treaties are silent.

Moreover, according to the case-law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), regional entities, no matter how autonomous they may be under national public law, do not have special status under EU law.

Therefore, subnational entities, such as Flanders or Scotland, only belong to the EU by virtue of the membership of their ‘mother states’.

This implies that, in the hypothetical situation where such a region would become independent and wants to remain in the EU, it would have to make an official application to the Council and go through the entire accession procedure of Article 49 TEU like any other country applying for EU membership.

This was confirmed by the European Commission in 2006 in an answer on a parliamentary question. Moreover, it must be noted that there are no useful precedents.

The only case of an entity escaping the arduous accession procedure was the de facto EU (then EC) accession of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) after being absorbed by the Federal Democratic Republic (West Germany) in 1990.

An analogous case would then be that Flanders or Scotland would declare their independence from one EU member state (Belgium and the UK respectively) only to be absorbed by another EU member state.

The key challenge an accession procedure would pose for such a region would not be the democratic, economic or administrative criteria (i.e. the Copenhagen Criteria) but the political reality. This is so because an EU accession requires unanimity among all the EU member states.

In the case all the member states would support EU accession of the region, it could join the EU rather swiftly. However, it is unlikely that this scenario would occur. First, the unanimity requirement implies that the member state from which the region seceded (Belgium or the UK) would be able to block the region’s (Flanders or Scotland) EU accession (supposing that Belgium and the UK would remain international subjects and EU member states).

Secondly, it is obvious that other members states which have their own regions with aspirations for independence would not be eager to recognise such a new state and allow it into the EU.

In addition, if such a region would secede from its member state and would not automatically be able to join (or to remain in) the EU, several other complex issues would occur.

For example, would such a new state be able to keep the Euro as its national currency (or lose its opt-out in the case of Scotland)? Would its national citizens lose their European citizenship since only citizens of EU member states are EU citizens? Are the many international agreements concluded exclusively by the EU (and not by the member states) still applicable to the new state? Would such a new state profit from the benefits of the customs union?

All this shows that it is too simplistic to propose that a region could simply remain in the EU after seceding from its EU member state and that the ‘evaporation theory’ of the N-VA cannot adequately grasp all the political and legal problems which such a scenario would entail.

This is remarkable because this matter is often the core-business of these regionalist parties. In this, we have deliberately left the question on whether or not independence of these regions is feasible or desirable to others.

In any case, it seems that the vague and incomplete EU discourse of regionalist parties is the result of strategic choice so as not to open a Pandora’s box: speech is silver, silence is golden.

COMMENTS

  • If the EU creates difficulties for portions of EU member states who become independent from a 'mother' state, to join the EU, it will only be causing problems for itself for no good reason.

    Scotland for example, has been fully a part of the EU since the UK joined. It is already compliant all the relevant EU bodies and regulations. They are firmly in place all over the country already. Nothing needs to be changed or introduced at that level. It could be a fairly seamless transition.

    And is the writer saying that if Scotland gains her independence, the remaining piece of the UK will have the same quotas and influence and obligations that it had when it had all Scotland's territory and resources at it's disposal? Not likely! In fact impossible.

    And should the EU give member nations--including 'mother' states, (the ones seceded from), the opportunity to play 'spiteful' politics, and refuse membership to a newly independent nation as a sort of revenge, it will only cause the EU to suffer in the end.

    Tread softly EU, there are many in Britain, north and south who would rather not be 'in' the EU in the first place. Make it difficult and you'll lose Scotland AND rumpUK.

    The EU better look at the problem quickly and come up with a protocol, because Europe's 'Spring of discontent' is coming, and many of Europe's small nations, who've been absorbed into bigger ones, are going to want their autonomy back.

    By :
    Bridget Hennessey
    - Posted on :
    25/09/2012
  • José Manuel Barroso's remarks are irrelevant. They cannot apply to Scotland as Scotland would not be a "new state", but an existing state within what the EU would be obliged to regard as a voluntary union.

    The bottom line is that the status of newly independent states WITHIN the EU would be a matter of politics and not law. And the politicians will go for the easiest option - which is to accept both Scotland and the remainder of the UK (rUK) as equal successor states.

    Those who insist that the EU might do otherwise will need to explain why these politicians would voluntarily and quite unnecessarily open up the horrible can of worms that is a debate and referendum on membership in ANY part of the EU, far less the former UK, where there is known to be some scepticism about the benefits of such membership.

    By :
    Peter A Bell
    - Posted on :
    25/09/2012

Advertising

Videos

EU Treaty and Institutions News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

EU Treaty and Institutions Promoted

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising