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.

Now Åland, a unique, autonomous region of Finland, is about to teach Brussels a lesson in democracy it may never forget.

Thanks to a quirk of early 20th-century history, Åland's 26,000 people are essentially sovereign co-rulers of their home nation of Finland. As such, they can veto any international treaty that Finland wants to enter, including EU treaties.

And the islanders are threatening to do just that when the European Commission attempts to revive the moribund EU constitution later this year.

But last week the archipelago's head of EU affairs, Britt Lundberg, travelled to Brussels - a day-long trek - to deliver a warning that dismally low public opinion on Europe could mean Alanders prevent Finland from ratifying the constitution.

The islanders' revolt has been brewing for some time. First, this community of Swedish-speaking Finns lost the right to fish at sea with traditional nets.

Then Ålanders saw their beloved spring duck hunting virtually abolished. To the Ålanders' final outrage, local laws on consuming "snus" or Swedish chewing tobacco, are about to be quashed by the European Court of Justice....

Brussels is trapped in a "Catch 22" situation of the EU's own making. Snus, a form of chewing tobacco, has been outlawed by EU fiat in every nation except Sweden, which secured a -special opt-out as a condition of its joining the EU, and in every region - except Åland.

The Commission recently took Finland to court to quash Åland's snus law. But Finland has no power to change that law. Finland does not control laws covering health in Åland; Åland does.

Åland is not allowed to defend its law before the justices in Luxembourg because the court recognises only nations. So the court is set to convict and fine Aland, without allowing the island's government to plead its case....

The head of the Åland government, Roger Norlund, admitted that he did not even like snus. To him, the row is philosophical. "Åland finds small-scale solutions to its problems. But the EU model is one of large-scale solutions, and harmonisation."

Tomas Grunér, a navigator on the big boats, uses snus "24 hours a day". "It keeps me relaxed," he said. "I thought the EU was a good idea, but now I think it sucks."

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.

Thus, when Finland became a member of the European Union in 1995, Åland’s accession was dependent on the consent of the Parliament. After the population had expressed its opinion in two separate referendums and it had been decided that Åland’s relationship to the EU would be regulated in a special protocol, the Parliament of Åland expressed its consent. The protocol, which is part of Finland’s treaty of accession, states that Åland shall be regarded as a third territory with respect to indirect taxation. It also contains certain special provisions relating to the purchase of real property and the right to conduct a business in Åland, and confirms Åland’s special status under international law. (emphasis added)

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 PM




Comments:

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.
That said, what the EU constitution needs is a proper burial not another vote.

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:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:




Comments:


Remember your info?