This blog suggested that one way around the Brexit issue would be a brief treaty revision that declared England and Wales to be an “overseas territory” of the United Kingdom. That way, the U.K. government keeps a seat at the table while England and Wales leave the single market. The half-Brexited U.K. would, of course, have its representation at Brussels reduced to reflect only the population of Scotland and Northern Ireland, but it would retain a national veto where one applies.
And therein lies the rub. As Callum points out on Medium: “With Holyrood being a subservient parliament in the constitutional order of this country, it can be overruled. Imagine a scenario where the E.U. wants to do a foreign policy initiative that the UK doesn’t want. London has reserved foreign policy, and Holyrood has no right to make foreign policy decision. Yet, Scotland sits on the council and has to vote some way in the council. Say, about sanctions against Russia, for instance. In theory, London could overrule Edinburgh, and force Scotland to vote for or against it. London would then have, indirectly, a veto in a club it didn’t belong to. The E.U. would, of course, have none of that, and wouldn’t accept this situation.”
One imagines that the U.K. could fudge this somehow. After all, this was the country that invented “responsible” self-government, dominion status and the Irish Free State. The question, I think, is whether there is a way that the U.K. can constitutionally make an ironclad guarantee to both Edinburgh and Brussels that Westminster cannot override Holyrood when it comes to voting in Brussels?
That, I think, is the needle that May needs to thread if she wants to keep the U.K. together without provoking a massive backlash from Brexit voters. Ideas?
This article in Newsweek looked at the possible mechanisms: http://www.newsweek.com/how-scotland-and-n-ireland-could-retain-eu-membership-474931
I found them interesting, but I think we are missing something here - there is no need for Scotland to represent the UK in the EU or for Scotland and Northern Ireland to rotate their representation on the Council.
Just exclude London from the definition of "England" under the putative "England and Wales Treaty". Voila, the actual seat of government remains in the EU along with the UK government ministers (who can then represent Scotland AND Northern Ireland). So keep Scotland, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and London in the EU and take the rest out.
Posted by: J.H. | July 20, 2016 at 02:37 AM
The London exclusion is unnecessary and unworkable.
Unnecessary, because the issue that needs to be solved is parliamentary sovereignty. It matters not where the parliament is located. The problem is that a parliament dominated by English representatives has the ability to overrule the Scottish assembly.
Unworkable, because nobody is going to put a tariff border around London.
Posted by: Noel Maurer | July 20, 2016 at 04:37 AM
Given it's been a year since the referendum I had looked back at some of the old postings and something struck me....
yes, the London exclusion would be unnecessary and unworkable. But then so is the need for the Scotland and Northern Ireland to remain in the EU...
As the threat of the UK breaking up over Brexit seems to have receded (for now) then no solution may really be necessary. However if Brexit starts to bite, then perhaps the threat will reappear.
Perhaps then the solution is a kludge in the EEA and EFTA. It would be the "Liechtenstein solution" for Scotland and Northern Ireland (perhaps modified). So The UK leaves the EU and EEA. The UK rejoins EFTA. Signs up to the EEA, BUT much as how the EEA only applies to the territories of the EU member states which are actually in the EU (so the EEA does not apply to the Cayman Islands, Aruba or Denmark for instance), it also only applies to the territories of the EFTA-EEA states which they have agreed should be in the EEA. So for example Svalbard (a Norwegian territory) is not in the EEA by virtue of Protocol 40 of the Agreement.
The UK could then ratify the EEA agreement as an EFTA state with a new protocol allowing it to exempt "England and Wales" from the agreement (but perhaps allowing it to negotiate a separate free trade agreement with the EU that applies with regards only to England and Wales). Since as an EFTA-EEA member the UK would not have representation at Brussels in either the Parliament or Council, then the issue of London having an indirect veto over a club in which it didn't belong wouldn't really arise.
There would be a host of other potential problems however, but the indirect veto in the EU would not be one of them.
Posted by: J.H. | June 24, 2017 at 08:40 AM