Martin Stabe: English Euroscepticism | Martin Stabe
James
· 4 years ago
Martin, I think you and I have reached the same conclusion. There are actually three logical, and intellectually consistent, positions in this debate: A) Pro-European and a British federalist; B) Nationalist (English, Scottish or Welsh) and Eurosceptic; or C) Pro-independence and pro-European. This third position is adopted by the SNP, which would keep an independent Scotland within the EU.
The one realistic inconsistent position is, as you say, to support a supra-national British project but oppose a supra-national European project - the position taken by the large majority of 'British' Eurosceptics.
Ken
· 4 years ago
There is no confusion or inconsistency between internal British arrangements and external EU arrangements, it was the British government with representatives of both Scotland and Wales that took Britain as one unit, into the EU and it was a British referendum that chose to stay within the Common Market, so we must argue for withdrawal of Britain not England Scotland and Wales.
These individual kingdoms are not in fact members of the EU so there is no inconsistence in opposing devolution at this stage because self evidently if Britain were to be divided into its continuant parts it would then be impossible for Britain to withdraw, because it would in effect no longer exist.
For instance if Scotland were to prefer a future as part of the EU rather than its present arrangement Britain would first have to leave the EU then Scotland would separate and rejoin the EU in its own right. At present Scotlands only right to be a member of the EU rests entirely on its place as part of the UK.
But this also brings up one further point where Loose the Delusion has got it wrong, and that is because of devolution/regionalisation Scotland and to a certain extent Wales can now speak with one voice, England cannot, we were not offered an English parliament, neither were we offered a voice in the devolution referendums in Scotland or Wales, it could be argued that we should not have a voice in that debate but it could also be equally argued that as one unit, all British people should have a vote in the break up of the country.
Aris Katsaris
· 4 years ago
For instance if Scotland were to prefer a future as part of the EU rather than its present arrangement Britain would first have to leave the EU then Scotland would separate and rejoin the EU in its own right.
Hardly so difficult a process. When a nation separates into two or more parts, often arrangements are made that only one of the parts needs to fulfill the obligations under treaty that the unified state had (compare with Russia succeeding to much of the role of the Soviet Union). Sometimes arrangments are made so that *all* of the parts become successors to the treaty obligations.
In the case of Scotland deciding to leave United Kingdom, the rest of the United Kingdom will probably still be a part of the EU, and only Scotland will need to renegotiate for entry.
It's even possible that arrangements can be made with the EU so that Scotland becomes a member-state automatically upon separation.
Comments that Britain "would first have to leave the EU" are absurd at their rigidity. There's hardly any such rigid obligation. The EU won't stop Scotland from leaving the United Kingdom.
Aris Katsaris
· 4 years ago
Example: Indonesia didn't need to leave ASEAN, when East Timor separated.
Gareth
· 4 years ago
Maybe you should have linked to the Campaign for an English Parliament which has no policies on Europe.
All Comments
The one realistic inconsistent position is, as you say, to support a supra-national British project but oppose a supra-national European project - the position taken by the large majority of 'British' Eurosceptics.
These individual kingdoms are not in fact members of the EU so there is no inconsistence in opposing devolution at this stage because self evidently if Britain were to be divided into its continuant parts it would then be impossible for Britain to withdraw, because it would in effect no longer exist.
For instance if Scotland were to prefer a future as part of the EU rather than its present arrangement Britain would first have to leave the EU then Scotland would separate and rejoin the EU in its own right. At present Scotlands only right to be a member of the EU rests entirely on its place as part of the UK.
But this also brings up one further point where Loose the Delusion has got it wrong, and that is because of devolution/regionalisation Scotland and to a certain extent Wales can now speak with one voice, England cannot, we were not offered an English parliament, neither were we offered a voice in the devolution referendums in Scotland or Wales, it could be argued that we should not have a voice in that debate but it could also be equally argued that as one unit, all British people should have a vote in the break up of the country.
Hardly so difficult a process. When a nation separates into two or more parts, often arrangements are made that only one of the parts needs to fulfill the obligations under treaty that the unified state had (compare with Russia succeeding to much of the role of the Soviet Union). Sometimes arrangments are made so that *all* of the parts become successors to the treaty obligations.
In the case of Scotland deciding to leave United Kingdom, the rest of the United Kingdom will probably still be a part of the EU, and only Scotland will need to renegotiate for entry.
It's even possible that arrangements can be made with the EU so that Scotland becomes a member-state automatically upon separation.
Comments that Britain "would first have to leave the EU" are absurd at their rigidity. There's hardly any such rigid obligation. The EU won't stop Scotland from leaving the United Kingdom.