butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I know that, any one with eyes to see knows that. Diamond thinks there is an a). After just talking about what they did to Spain.
Implications for the rest of us if Scotland votes yes
- Thread starter newbie
- Start date
Hmm... (ignoring the grandstanding last bit) not sure what point you are trying to make.
The rule of EU law is clearly what the EU is all about - hence the General Court and the superior Court of Justice (although both are so clogged up with cases that the application/determination of EU law is certainly not prompt).
Without it, there would be no EU.
However, at the same time, it is an international/transnational agreement between member states and therefore is fundamentally political in that respect, which allows for derogations/variability in exceptional circumstances according to the general interest at that point in time.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The formal declaration of The rule of EU law is clearly what the EU is all about (and haven't you learnt anything on your subtlety and nuance awareness course about the use of clearly) doesn't make it so when you go on to say that precisely that it is a mere formality and means nothing. You undermine your own starting - and might i say, rather naive - premise.
whole lot of blind people about then. The whole debate seems to have revolved around variations on a).
No, you misunderstand me - it is not a mere formality, it is the very purpose of the organisation - to establish a common European polity governed by a common European law.
To further that ultimate goal, occasional derogations/variations will be granted but they are few and far between and are governed specifically by that final consideration - a common Europe, underpinned by a common European law.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No, i understand fully. And it's lying about this and the activities justified under exceptionalism (the language of carl schmitt the founder of fascist legal thought) that will kill it. It's also what renders your argument that the EU will closely follow the law as regards an independent scotland a little bit daft.
It will def follow the law in the bits i agree it should. But not in the bits i disagree with. It's the law.
Lying, how?
Kill, what?
And, finally, why do you think the, now well established in EU law, accession regime will be ignored with iScotland?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
By offering the pretence that the EU is something different from what it is understood by by those in power. By lying.
KIll the EU.
God, no we're back to your earlier precedent confusion. I never did get an answer to my question as to why the lack of precedents means that an independent scotland automatically leaves the EU rather than this lack of precedents suggesting that there are other options did i? I wonder why. try and answer it then ask me that last question again.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Establish accession is needed. You've been unable to do so all day. I thought this was your area of special legal expertise? All you've managed is my boss who doesn't work in the field thinks so and so do his mates who don't know fuck all think so too.
I've made my position clear, anything is possible (including the readmission of iScotland to the UK - I find assertions to the contrary particularly egregious examples of party politics).
An interesting point that many UK lawyers often fail to appreciate when dealing with EU law is that there is no formal concept of stare decisis in EU law.
This makes it a lot more flexible, in the civil rather than common law tradition, than UK law.
So, even if there was a firm precedent, CJEU judges would not be formally obliged to find it binding.
Nonetheless, it is very rare indeed for the ECJ to rule contrary to earlier decisions (I am not aware of a single occasion).
Anyway, I digress, although hopefully lending some light on how EU law is different in principle to English and Welsh [and here I am guessing, admittedly] Scottish law.
However, the main point still remains, the EU has many priorities, almost all of which are incompatible, or at best neutral, with Scottish independence insofar as such a development undermines integration.
An interesting point that many UK lawyers often fail to appreciate when dealing with EU law is that there is no formal concept of stare decisis in EU law.
This makes it a lot more flexible, in the civil rather than common law tradition, than UK law.
So, even if there was a firm precedent, CJEU judges would not be formally obliged to find it binding.
Nonetheless, it is very rare indeed for the ECJ to rule contrary to earlier decisions (I am not aware of a single occasion).
Anyway, I digress, although hopefully lending some light on how EU law is different in principle to English and Welsh [and here I am guessing, admittedly] Scottish law.
However, the main point still remains, the EU has many priorities, almost all of which are incompatible, or at best neutral, with Scottish independence insofar as such a development undermines integration.
Last edited:
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I think you've made yourself very clear. You made a series of definitive statements. You can't defend or sustain them under questioning. In fact, you've been forced to undermine them and agree that the basis for them doesn't actually exist. Good days specialist lawyering!
Fair enough, enjoy that self-awarded medal.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
But EU law specifically is political, particularly on this sort of point, where any new membership would have to be ratified by all member countries, and any ammendments to the existing documents to allow for Scotland to somehow just be accepted eg by splitting the existing UK votes would also require approval by European parliament and the European Council- the political element is codified into the EU law.
Diamond has it right IMO in that there's nothing actually in the EU law as it stands that would automatically grant Scotland the right to be members of the EU, it would require political agreement between member states for this to happen, basically to amend the legislation to allow it.
That political agreement could happen, but it's a hell of an ask to expect it to happen within 18 months, particularly when considering that depending on how this were to be done it could set a precedent that might well alarm some of the countries that would need to agree to it.
Scotland does have some decent bargaining chips, and it's in the EU's interests for Scotland to be part of the EU, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all countries in the EU will play ball and allow it to happen smoothly.
Favelado
J'adore South Shore
The current panic in Madrid about Catalonia can't be underestimated. PP are hell bent on doing anything to wreck independence. I think they would possibly spite Scotland for their own self-interest. Thing is, it won't be PP in power for long. PSOE would be more flexible, and as for Podemos - they'd have the red carpet out for Scotland.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You have our positions the wrong way round. You read me characterising his positions as my positions. I am the one that forced him to recognise that his definitive claim that an independent scotland is out of the EU and that's an end of it, is naive at best given political will. In fact, as my two things a) and b) above show-diamond doesn't even have a position to be correct about. He makes 100% claims then is forced to take them back. There is no Diamond position.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
Scotland itself has no signature on any treaties, and no votes specifically allocated to it at the council of ministers.
It can't be a member without signing the treaties, and it can't be a full member without being allocated votes at the council of ministers.
So without an agreement to allow it to just sign the treaties, and be allocated an agreed share of the former UK votes it automatically won't be a member of the EU.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Which isn't anything to do with what i asked - i guess that you're reading this thread backwards and then responding (more than a little arrogant that) but at least you did respond. More than Diamond managed.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
That's your characterisation of his posts, rather than what he's actually been saying IMO. He probably should have put some caveats in to the first post, eg 'To put it simply - a "yes" vote is likely to be a "yes" for leaving both (i) the UK and (ii) the EU.", but it was fairly clearly an opinion rather than a clear statement of absolute fact.
But rather than sniping at his position, maybe you could outline your own understanding of how you see it panning out so that Scotland ends up being able to simply remain a full EU member. I'm assuming you must be basing this on the idea that there would be some political fudge to allow it to happen?
And yes I did read the 2 links you posted, but they weren't particularly clear on exactly how they expected this to work.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yes it's my correct characterisation of his posts. Why should he have put those caveats in when that wasn't what he was saying? He was saying this is the facts. There is nothing else. I showed him to be wrong by arguing with him - or sniping as you put it and argue that i shouldn't do - and he now has accepted that his definitive claims were nonsense. Not that it stopped him making the same sort of definitive claims and the same re-correction having to take place later. But yeah me being right was just sniping and mischaracterisation.
I wouldn't want an independent scotland in the EU. So i couldn't give two shits about working out how it could stay in or regain membership.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
it was an attempt at answer theing question, as only a precedent to the contrary would indicate that the above would be unlikely to be how it worked out in practice. However, as this is an unprecedented situation, it is also a situation in which the precedent will need to be set one way or the other, so ultimately will be a political decision as opposed to a purely legalistic one (which I think is probably what you've been getting at?).
Actually, I'll revise what I said previously as the EU apparently can suspend the voting rights of a member country, so possibly this could be another route they could go down - accept Scotland's membership, but suspend its voting rights until agreement can be reached on how to divvy the UK voting rights up.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Have a read of your first para. And then read what i've been posting all day.
To be fair, you haven't demonstrably shown what you claim with regard to my posts to any degree of satisfaction.
The single post that you hinge your bizarrely narrow argument upon offered a clearly qualified opinion.
You are trying to pretend otherwise through selective quotation.
Butchers, you seem to have an adversion to advancing an integrated argument yourself on this topic. Why is that?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
a bit more clarity in your writing style to explain your points better might help then.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Why do you write like a trained wanker? Are you actually really trained to write like that? Like integrally and egregiously?
And is that really the best repsonse to criticisms of your own intellectuals positions - to argue that i haven't been as fucking daft as ye? That i failed to be as silly enough to offer a load of definitive postions that i had to take back and attempt to cover up with bluster about nuance and subtlety in the way that you did?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Don't read backwards. Clarity, will come.
I'm just trying to be clear.
"trained wanker", is not in my professional vocabulary, admittedly...
(and again, these definitive positions that you refer to are far from what you pretend them to be...)
Last edited:
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Of course not. Of course they clearly weren't. Of course i didn't have to clearly force you to recognise that they were and so to change them-to offer some nuance. And in the process overthrow your own original argument. Clearly.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
Oh dear. Looks like debate has been derailed by inept pedantry and insults
Similar threads
