Marc, comme je disais, l'Angleterre possède un statut hybride en Europe, elle est en dehors de Schengen, possède plus d'indépendance qu'un pays européen complètement intégré. C'est la continuation de ce statut que veut l'Ecosse. Le fait que l'Ecosse doive intégrer l'euro n'est pas du tout acquis à ce stade. On ne sait encore rien des modalités de son intégration, ni de la monnaie qu'elle utilisera. L'Angleterre dit qu'elle va lui refuser le pound mais c'est à prendre avec des pincettes vu que c'est un moyen de pression pré-référundum pour qu'elle reste dans le RU.
Le rapport que j'ai posté est celui de Graham Avery, qui travaille à la commission européenne, et qui recommande, je le cite à propos de la Croatie:
Some lawyers argue that the traditional accession procedure of Article 49 of the EU Treaty should be used. This could not begin until Scotland obtains independence, and could last a long time – it took Croatia ten years to join the EU.
Others argue that since the case of a member state dividing into two member states is not covered by the Treaty, the revision procedure of Article 48 could be used in the period between the referendum and independence to negotiate the Treaty changes necessary for Scotland's accession.
If Scotland votes for independence, the decision on how to proceed will not be taken by lawyers, but by the EU's leaders in the European Council, and they will decide on the basis of practical and political considerations:
- From the political point of view, Scottish membership could hardly be opposed on the grounds that it weakens the EU, or is contrary to its basic principles or interests.
- It is difficult to see how the Union could reject 5 million Scots, who are already EU citizens and have applied European policies for 40 years. In this respect, the situation of Scotland is not the same as that of non-EU countries.
From a practical point of view, no member state has a material interest in Scotland remaining outside the EU, even for a short time. This would deprive the EU of the benefits of Scotland's membership (budgetary contribution, fisheries resources, etc). Scotland outside the EU, and not applying EU rules, would be a legal nightmare for: EU member states, whose citizens and enterprises would lose their rights in Scotland. No member state, particularly not the rest of the UK, would have an interest in creating such an anomaly.
These considerations suggest that it would be in the interest of the EU to follow an 'internal' procedure under Article 48 of the Treaty, coupled with an assurance that this could not be a precedent for unilateral declarations of independence.
Voilà. Dit plus simplement, les pays européens sont libres de faire ce qu'ils veulent pour intégrer l'Ecosse et l'option la plus vraissemblable à ce stade est de lui garder le statut actuel, ce que veulent la majorité des pays européens pour des raisons évidentes.
On ne va pas faire sortir l'Ecosse de l'UE pour la faire re-rentrer 10 ans plus tard.
(et désolé si je paraissais sec, ce n'est pas mon intention).
