Wednesday, February 15, 2006
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (2)
Could Åland secede from the EU? Where the f#$% is Åland?
David Rennie has a story in the Daily Telegraph suggesting that a very small cluster of Finnish islands could cause some headaches for the European Union: In the decade since they voted to join the European Union the islanders of the Åland archipelago in the Baltic Sea have been outvoted and overruled by Brussels, time and again.For more on why snus is such a big deal in Åland, check out this Brussels Journal post. Rennie might be exaggerating Åland's influence just a wee bit. It's true that the Finnish Customs Service confirms the special tax and regulatory status of the island. However, if you go to the Åland Islands' official home page, you discover the following: Foreign affairs is not transferred to Åland under the Autonomy Act, but remains under the control of the Finnish Government. Even so, Åland has a degree of influence on international treaties that contain provisions relating to areas where Åland is the competent authority. The Autonomy Act states that an international treaty of this kind entered into by Finland requires the consent of the Parliament of Åland to become valid also in Åland.So, if I read this correctly, Åland can block the proposed European constitution from applying to its jurisdiction -- but it doesn't hold a veto over the rest of Finland. I will happily defer to real international lawyers on this question of law that probably interests only me. Click here if you want to know the historical reasons for Åland's special status. For some irrational reason, I do find it amusing that a small jurisdiction of 26,200 people could decide to stymie the mighty, mighty European Commission. posted by Dan on 02.15.06 at 08:34 PMComments: The legalia are murky. The proposed EU constitution, in order to become law, requires unanimous ratification. *If* it were the case that for Finland to ratify the treaty it would require the consent of this island, then the island's rejection would mean Finland rejects the treaty. If Finland rejects the treaty, the treaty does not become law - *anywhere* in the EU. Now, all of this is of course a great example of the despotic absurdity that goes for European politics. Because all of this would be relevant only if the proposed European Constitution was happily on the road to ratification until these perky Scandinavians intervened. But that, of course, is not true: last year both the French and the Dutch rejected the proposed constitution. Said constitution is therefore legally dead. Wait... Do I hear you suggesting that EU politicians don't care about such arcane things as voting and rejecting things? Do I hear you bringing to memory previous Irish and Danish referendums in which the population rejected EU treaties, only to be given a second referendum - to get the answer 'right'? The blasphemy! The outrage! You mean to say the EU is not a very liberal democratic place...? In all seriousness: "snus", whatever that may be, is really the least of Aland's problems. They did fine without Brussels for aeons up till now. No need to suddenly take orders from despicable Brusselscrats. posted by: FreeFinland on 02.15.06 at 08:34 PM [permalink]Sure, amusing. I did feell the same way if, say, Santa Cruz California decided to 'opt out' of the United States drug laws -- its already a nuclear free zone. I myself used to live in a community where you could buy 'US Out of Ocean Beach" bumper stickers. I say whats good for one is good for all -- let's all break up into microstates. I understand there is already a seccessionist movement underway in Vermont. Go Green mountain boys (and girls!) posted by: Mitchell Young on 02.15.06 at 08:34 PM [permalink]Sure, amusing. I would feel the same way if, say, Santa Cruz California decided to 'opt out' of the United States drug laws -- it's already a nuclear free zone. I myself used to live in a community where you could buy 'US Out of Ocean Beach" bumper stickers. I say whats good for one is good for all -- let's all break up into microstates. I understand there is already a seccessionist movement underway in Vermont. Go Green mountain boys (and girls!) posted by: Mitchell Young on 02.15.06 at 08:34 PM [permalink]Another quality report from the british press, I gather. Spotted the same one on Austin Bay's page and started to read the Åland Act of Autonomy on the topic. No veto over Finland that I can tell. And "snus" would be a tobacco product. Icky black stuff you stuff under your lip etc. posted by: TL on 02.15.06 at 08:34 PM [permalink]What they need is a small nuclear weapon and a data haven. Well, okay, it didn't work so well in that story. posted by: perianwyr on 02.15.06 at 08:34 PM [permalink]Well, nobody can secede from the EU. Ironically, the (now dead) constitution included a procedure for secession, IIRC, but at the moment EU is like Hotel California. posted by: Dan K on 02.15.06 at 08:34 PM [permalink]Aland wouldn't be the first to seceed from the EU. Greenland did so in a referendum in 1982 and negotiated a Treaty of Withdrawal in 1985, although it does maintain a special status agreement. Greenland is normally represented at the international level by Denmark (like Aland is by Finland), but has wide latititude on home rule -- and an opt-out of the then EEC. posted by: Mark Duckenfield on 02.15.06 at 08:34 PM [permalink]Dan K: "Well, nobody can secede from the EU. Ironically, the (now dead) constitution included a procedure for secession, IIRC, but at the moment EU is like Hotel California." I thought the 1993 agreement forming the EU was a treaty. Doesn't that mean that a member state can abrogate it? posted by: David Billington on 02.15.06 at 08:34 PM [permalink]Post a Comment: |
|