# Possible Catalan Independence and the Euro



## mike kelly (Aug 12, 2009)

Catalan President Arthur Mas says that an independent Catalyuna would have the Euro as it's currency, even if it were not a member of the EU: Can anyone explain to me how this could be the case? Why would the ECB or the Eurozone countries agree to it?


----------



## Pazcat (Mar 24, 2010)

Most likely in some kind of arrangement similar to Andorra, Kosovo, Montenegro, Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican City who use the Euro but are not in the EU.


----------



## Aron (Apr 30, 2013)

Like everything else, it is what is negotiated. At the moment it's a big IF for everything. Everyone can have an opinion on this subject and everyone could be wrong!


----------



## Pazcat (Mar 24, 2010)

That's their choice though. 

None of those countries are in the Eurozone either nor EU which it may be likely to be the same if Catalyuna gained independence, no point in confusing the matter.


----------



## mike kelly (Aug 12, 2009)

Pazcat said:


> Most likely in some kind of arrangement similar to Andorra, Kosovo, Montenegro, Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican City who use the Euro but are not in the EU.


Yes, but all San Marino, Vatican City, Monaco and (from later this year) Andorra all have agreements with the EU which allow them to be part of the currency union and mint their own euro coins.
Unless Catalan independence has full EU backing, I can't see an similar arrangement being facilitated for Catalyuna.

Montenegro has indeed unilaterally adopted the euro. The EU is not happy about this and Catalyuna trying a similar tactic would surely cause economic chaos as nominal euro salary levels would be impossible to maintain. 

As for Kosovo...


----------



## Pazcat (Mar 24, 2010)

Andorra have used the Euro for donkeys though and it's only just been endorsed so to speak, officially they have an agreement starting later in the year but have always used the Euro.
Worse case scenario the Catalans adopt the same tactic, ignore the need for their own currency and use what is already in circulation. Who cares what the EU thinks if you put it that way and it's unlikely to cause much chaos seeing as though they already use the Euro.

Still it's all a bunch of IF's though, full EU backing or no they would be more likely to support such an arrangement to avoid destabilising the region further.


----------



## mike kelly (Aug 12, 2009)

Pazcat said:


> Andorra have used the Euro for donkeys though and it's only just been endorsed so to speak, officially they have an agreement starting later in the year but have always used the Euro.
> Worse case scenario the Catalans adopt the same tactic, ignore the need for their own currency and use what is already in circulation. Who cares what the EU thinks if you put it that way and it's unlikely to cause much chaos seeing as though they already use the Euro.
> 
> Still it's all a bunch of IF's though, full EU backing or no they would be more likely to support such an arrangement to avoid destabilising the region further.


I fully agree that there are a lot of IF's involved. I wish that Arthur Mas would make this clear!


----------



## mickbcn (Feb 4, 2013)

)


----------



## Chopera (Apr 22, 2013)

There is nothing to stop a country deciding to use someone else's currency as legal tender, however it is a very risky thing to do since the country has no lender of last resort: no central bank to bail out its banks or provide extra liquidity if some other disaster occurs.


----------



## NickZ (Jun 26, 2009)

You don't need permission to use a currency. Over the years plenty of countries have more or less used the US $.

Why would the EU let them into the Eurozone etc? Obvious answer is they don't want to risk anybody leaving. The moment somebody opts out of the € the question becomes why shouldn't somebody else ?

The question you need to ask is why would an independent country want to be in the Euro? Being in the Euro either fully or just using the currency means giving up so much independence .


----------



## NickZ (Jun 26, 2009)

Chopera said:


> There is nothing to stop a country deciding to use someone else's currency as legal tender, however it is a very risky thing to do since the country has no lender of last resort: no central bank to bail out its banks or provide extra liquidity if some other disaster occurs.


You just described the Eurozone :frusty:


----------



## gus-lopez (Jan 4, 2010)

NickZ said:


> Why would the EU let them into the Eurozone etc? Obvious answer is they don't want to risk anybody leaving. The moment somebody opts out of the € the question becomes why shouldn't somebody else ?
> 
> .


& you've hit the nail on the head as to what might happen if the UK opted to leave. 
It might be amicable but on the other hand they might want to make an example to others thinking of leaving & make life as difficult as possible. Which wouldn't take much.


----------



## Chopera (Apr 22, 2013)

NickZ said:


> You just described the Eurozone :frusty:


I thought that as I wrote it. I guess the difference is that at least Cyprus got a bailout - even if it was subsidised by raiding personal bank accounts. At least there was some engagement with the EU since it was a member of the EU. If a country outside the EU were in a similar position there would be no reason for the EU to even talk to them. Their banks would simply collapse.


----------



## Chopera (Apr 22, 2013)

gus-lopez said:


> & you've hit the nail on the head as to what might happen if the UK opted to leave.
> It might be amicable but on the other hand they might want to make an example to others thinking of leaving & make life as difficult as possible. Which wouldn't take much.


The harder they make it for the UK the harder they make it for themselves.


----------



## mike kelly (Aug 12, 2009)

gus-lopez said:


> & you've hit the nail on the head as to what might happen if the UK opted to leave.
> It might be amicable but on the other hand they might want to make an example to others thinking of leaving & make life as difficult as possible. Which wouldn't take much.


As the UK is not in the Eurozone, how can the UK "leave"?


----------



## mike kelly (Aug 12, 2009)

NickZ said:


> The question you need to ask is why would an independent country want to be in the Euro?


What about Latvia who joined the Euro this year? Being in the euro affords smaller countries protection against international currency speculators.


----------



## Chopera (Apr 22, 2013)

mike kelly said:


> What about Latvia who joined the Euro this year? Being in the euro affords smaller countries protection against international currency speculators.


It switches the speculation to the bond markets instead. Although they seem to have put a lid on that for the time being. The problem is that if you don't have control of you own currency and the amount of it that flows around the economy, then you don't have control of your economy. Poorer regions within the eurozone end up with an overvalued currency while richer regions end up with an undervalued currency, and the only way around this is for the richer regions to subsidise the poorer regions.

It's the same within the UK - London has an undervalued currency while everywhere else has an overvalued currency. So London ends up subsidising the rest of the UK through taxes.


----------



## Williams2 (Sep 15, 2013)

Chopera said:


> There is nothing to stop a country deciding to use someone else's currency as legal tender, however it is a very risky thing to do since the country has no lender of last resort: no central bank to bail out its banks or provide extra liquidity if some other disaster occurs.


Which is the most likely scenario if the Scots vote for Independence. They will carry
on and continue to use the pound, although in Scotland's case they already have
Scottish Pound notes in circulation.

By the way when is the Catalan referendum on independence, as it's the first I've
heard of it ????


----------



## amogles (Feb 4, 2014)

NickZ said:


> You don't need permission to use a currency. Over the years plenty of countries have more or less used the US $.
> 
> Why would the EU let them into the Eurozone etc? Obvious answer is they don't want to risk anybody leaving. The moment somebody opts out of the € the question becomes why shouldn't somebody else ?
> 
> The question you need to ask is why would an independent country want to be in the Euro? Being in the Euro either fully or just using the currency means giving up so much independence .


I think we should rather ask this question the other way around. Why would the EU not want Catalonia? Catalonia has an important economy and is an important trading partner for many Eurozone nations. They would be short sighted not to want Catalonia in their club. Maybe the rest of Spain might have some bruised pride over agreeing to this. But what is Spain against the rest of the EU? And anyway, time heals all wounds.


----------



## Chopera (Apr 22, 2013)

amogles said:


> I think we should rather ask this question the other way around. Why would the EU not want Catalonia? Catalonia has an important economy and is an important trading partner for many Eurozone nations. They would be short sighted not to want Catalonia in their club. Maybe the rest of Spain might have some bruised pride over agreeing to this. But what is Spain against the rest of the EU? And anyway, time heals all wounds.


Generally the EU would want to let Catalonia in, but the process would take years. Also Spain would see this as a precedent - first Catalonia, then the Basques - and they'd oppose it in every possible way. Spain would not recognise Catalonia as an independent state, the PP would ignore any referendum results as they view it to be unconsitutional, but as with Kosovo, that wouldn't necessarily stop them from entering the EU eventually. It would just take a long time.


----------



## amogles (Feb 4, 2014)

Chopera said:


> Generally the EU would want to let Catalonia in, but the process would take years. Also Spain would see this as a precedent - first Catalonia, then the Basques - and they'd oppose it in every possible way. Spain would not recognise Catalonia as an independent state, the PP would ignore any referendum results as they view it to be unconsitutional, but as with Kosovo, that wouldn't necessarily stop them from entering the EU eventually. It would just take a long time.


Not necessarily. Spain is not Serbia, and even the PP are not die-hard nationalists (there may be some, but if push comes to shove they can't hold the balance). Grand standing before a referendum is one thing, but actually being obstructionaist afterwards may well end up hurting their own interests more than it hurts the Catalonian ones. It's a bit like the UK. You can see unionist and nationalist types grandstanding over Scotland or Northern Ireland, but I bet that if these countries vote to leave the UK, most of those opposing that now would get over it pretty quickly rather than seeking to be obstructionist forever. And the handful who would choise to remain obstructionists would be too insignificant to be of much relevance and would largely be ignored. Spain's history shows that nationalist backlash movements are usually short lived. And remember for example that Spain lost its colonies under less amicable terms than Britain did.


----------



## Chopera (Apr 22, 2013)

amogles said:


> Not necessarily. Spain is not Serbia, and even the PP are not die-hard nationalists (there may be some, but if push comes to shove they can't hold the balance). Grand standing before a referendum is one thing, but actually being obstructionaist afterwards may well end up hurting their own interests more than it hurts the Catalonian ones. It's a bit like the UK. You can see unionist and nationalist types grandstanding over Scotland or Northern Ireland, but I bet that if these countries vote to leave the UK, most of those opposing that now would get over it pretty quickly rather than seeking to be obstructionist forever. And the handful who would choise to remain obstructionists would be too insignificant to be of much relevance and would largely be ignored.


It's nothing like the situation with the UK. The UK recognises the Scottish referendum, not least because it recognises Scotland as a country bound by treaty only. Catalona has never been a country - it's a bit like Yorkshire saying "we want a referendum", Cameron saying "no", and then they have one anyway. What would Cameron do? Suddenly grant Yorkshire independence because they held an unofficial referendum, on their terms, and voted for independence? I doubt it.

And if Catalonia somehow did get independence it would have to invent itself as a country from scratch. It would still take years to go through the process of becoming a member of the EU.




amogles said:


> Spain's history shows that nationalist backlash movements are usually short lived. ...


Apart from the 40 years of facist dictatorship that didn't entirely end with the death of Franco.


----------



## mrypg9 (Apr 26, 2008)

Camerón has already said the UK will veto Catalán accession to the EU.Rajoy will reciprocate the favour if Scotland votes for slow suicide later this year.
As will Merkel.


----------



## amogles (Feb 4, 2014)

Chopera said:


> It's nothing like the situation with the UK. The UK recognises the Scottish referendum, not least because it recognises Scotland as a country bound by treaty only. Catalona has never been a country - it's a bit like Yorkshire saying "we want a referendum", Cameron saying "no", and then they have one anyway. What would Cameron do? Suddenly grant Yorkshire independence because they held an unofficial referendum, on their terms, and voted for independence? I doubt it.


which is why I also mentioned N. Ireland, where the legal status is a bit more tricky. Whereas Scotland joined the UK on nominally equal terms, the same cannot be said of Ireland and the whole issue is a minefield caused by past wrongdoings (of both sides). However, the UK government agreed to Good Friday because they saw it was the right thing and not because there was a legal case forcing them to sign it.



Chopera said:


> And if Catalonia somehow did get independence it would have to invent itself as a country from scratch. It would still take years to go through the process of becoming a member of the EU.


Catalonia basically is a country. Very many issues are already being governed from Barcelona rather than Madrid and succesive Catalan governments have been working towards ultimate independence for decades by creating and strengthening the key institutions that will continue to serve post independence . The transfer of power would be more nominal plus tieing up the few odds and ends that are still presently in Madrid's hands (and also diplomatic in terms of getting international recognition). There would not need to be a huge redrafting of legislation or estabishment of due process.




Chopera said:


> Apart from the 40 years of facist dictatorship that didn't entirely end with the death of Franco.


Not even Franco attempted to reclaim any of the territories that Spain had lost (apart from nominally pretending to go through the movements over Gibraltar, but that hardly amounted to chasing the Americans out of Cuba or anything like that).


----------



## amogles (Feb 4, 2014)

mrypg9 said:


> Camerón has already said the UK will veto Catalán accession to the EU.Rajoy will reciprocate the favour if Scotland votes for slow suicide later this year.
> As will Merkel.


With Cameron's "will we stay or will we go" attitude over the EU, he hardly qualifies as one of the pillars driving it forward. Of course if Catalonia turns around and supports the UK claim to Gibraltar, things may change yet again. There's nothing Scotland can do to counter that favour.

Furthermore, of the present member states, by my count 12 themselves gained their independence within living memory and so may be more sympathetic to Catalonia's plight. In contrast only five (Spain, UK, Belgium, France and Italy) will be opposed because they are themselves worried about independendence movements at home. And of these both Belgium and Italy may prove to be fence sitters due to the domestic power that the independence movements actually wield.


----------



## Alcalaina (Aug 6, 2010)

amogles said:


> With Cameron's "will we stay or will we go" attitude over the EU, he hardly qualifies as one of the pillars driving it forward. Of course if Catalonia turns around and supports the UK claim to Gibraltar, things may change yet again. There's nothing Scotland can do to counter that favour.
> 
> Furthermore, of the present member states, by my count 12 themselves gained their independence within living memory and so may be more sympathetic to Catalonia's plight. In contrast only five (Spain, UK, Belgium, France and Italy) will be opposed because they are themselves worried about independendence movements at home. And of these both Belgium and Italy may prove to be fence sitters due to the domestic power that the independence movements actually wield.


But AFAIK it's not a majority vote situation for new members. It has to be unanimous and any one member's veto will block the accession.


----------



## Williams2 (Sep 15, 2013)

amogles said:


> With Cameron's "will we stay or will we go" attitude over the EU, he hardly qualifies as one of the pillars driving it forward. Of course if Catalonia turns around and supports the UK claim to Gibraltar, things may change yet again. There's nothing Scotland can do to counter that favour.


 Now there's a thought, just for arguement's sake. Scotland voted Yes to independence
and becomes a fully independent country thereafter.

The United Kingdom ( as we know it ) will cease to exist. The Union Jack flag
will have to undergo a fundamental change ( basically strip away the blue ) all
those teenagers wearing Union Jack T-Shirts, Sports Jacket, etc will be 
wearing a flag of a defunct nation called 'The former United Kingdom' just like
many people refer to 'The former Soviet Union' when mentioning the USSR.
Now I'm glad I mentioned the USSR for as many expats know. When the
Soviet Union broke up. The Soviet Army, Navy and Air Force were split up
between the various newly independent states of the former Soviet Socialist
Republics, that quickly became independent countries following the
dissolution of the USSR.
Therefore no doubt what's already being hammered out in Parliament is
how the various units of the British Army ( those famous Scottish Regiments )
for example - are going to be split between Scotland and whats left of the
former United Kingdom.
Now we come to 'The British Overseas Territories' which ( as we all know )
includes Gibraltar. By rights and at first glance they should be split up
between London & Edinburgh depending on whether Edinburgh feels she
has an equal share in The British Overseas Territories or a proportional share
after taking into account any future claims by Cardiff & Belfast - if Wales
and Northern Ireland should broke away from what's left of the Former United
Kingdom.
Of course if Edinburgh was to lay claim to ( for example ) Gibraltar. The
citizens of the Rock would have the right to hold a referendum on whether
they would prefer their interests to be looked after by London or Edinburgh.


----------



## Chopera (Apr 22, 2013)

amogles said:


> which is why I also mentioned N. Ireland, where the legal status is a bit more tricky. Whereas Scotland joined the UK on nominally equal terms, the same cannot be said of Ireland and the whole issue is a minefield caused by past wrongdoings (of both sides). However, the UK government agreed to Good Friday because they saw it was the right thing and not because there was a legal case forcing them to sign it.


If Northern Ireland wanted independence then I suspect the UK would gladly give it to them.



amogles said:


> Catalonia basically is a country. Very many issues are already being governed from Barcelona rather than Madrid and succesive Catalan governments have been working towards ultimate independence for decades by creating and strengthening the key institutions that will continue to serve post independence . The transfer of power would be more nominal plus tieing up the few odds and ends that are still presently in Madrid's hands (and also diplomatic in terms of getting international recognition). There would not need to be a huge redrafting of legislation or estabishment of due process.


If Catalonia were a country then so would be Andalucia, Murcia, The Canary Islands, Galicia, and every other autonoma. And there wouldn't be much of a call for a referendum. 

Yes they do have certain powers, but they don't have a central bank, a defence, a full police force, border controls, and they have no government to handle foreign affairs, sign treaties, etc. In order to join the EU they not only need to set all this up, but they need to demonstrate that it functions according to EU membership criteria. This takes at least 7 years. 

In fact I have previously said that what they really want is "semantic" independence - they don't really want true sovereignty (otherwise they wouldn't want to join the eurozone). They just want to be seen by others as a "country" in the same terms people see Spain as a country. However I'm not sure they want the responsibility that comes with actually being a truly independent country.



amogles said:


> Not even Franco attempted to reclaim any of the territories that Spain had lost (apart from nominally pretending to go through the movements over Gibraltar, but that hardly amounted to chasing the Americans out of Cuba or anything like that).


Franco tried to abolish non-Castillian languages. There are stories of people being imprisoned and even shot for speaking Basque during his time. Of course he didn't try to reclaim lost territories, but he used violence and other extreme techniques to not only prevent Spain from losing any more territories, but to extinguish any potential desire for independence.


----------



## amogles (Feb 4, 2014)

Williams2 said:


> Now there's a thought, just for arguement's sake. Scotland voted Yes to independence
> and becomes a fully independent country thereafter.
> 
> The United Kingdom ( as we know it ) will cease to exist. The Union Jack flag
> ...


And then there would also be the question of who gets the permanent seat on the UN security council.

I don't know if the flag would have to change. After all several nations such as Australia, and even the US state of Hawai have the Union Flag within their own flags as a historical artefact, not because of any ongoing dependence on the UK. If Scotland could force the Rest of Uk to change its flag, it would also need to force thse other nations to change theirs.

Spain has it easier of course, as it's flag unites the arms of Leon, Castille, Aragon and Navarro but not those of Catalonia, but arguably the banner of Aragon does contain the Catalan Senyera. But let's leave that to others to work out.

When the Irish Free State gained independance, the British regiments based in the territory of the Free State were disbanded with members being allowed to chose whether they preferred to serve in the British or Irish armed forces. New Irish regiments were then established that more or less stood in the traditions of those that were disbanded and inherited much of the equipment and inventory. Possibly the same would have to happen in Scotland, as many servicemen might not agree with their allegiences being transferred to another country without their consent.


----------



## Williams2 (Sep 15, 2013)

Here's another thought - if the United Kingdom was to cease to exist following
Scottish Independence or was to change it's name back to England. If say Wales
and Northern Ireland were also to secede from the United Kingdom.
Could Spain pronounce The Treaty of Utrecht ( 1713 ) null and void concerning
the clause granting Gibraltar to the United Kingdom in perpetuity. As the United
Kingdom would have ceased to exist and Spain would no doubt take England to
court if she still claimed to hold title over Gibraltar.
Of course England could put up a stoic defense by counter claiming that 
Gibraltar was seceded to the British Crown and not the United Kingdom which
would mean The British Monarchy would still have to reign over all four Home
Nations of the Former United Kingdom.


----------



## Chopera (Apr 22, 2013)

Williams2 said:


> Here's another thought - if the United Kingdom was to cease to exist following
> Scottish Independence or was to change it's name back to England. If say Wales
> and Northern Ireland were also to secede from the United Kingdom.
> Could Spain pronounce The Treaty of Utrecht ( 1713 ) null and void concerning
> ...


Ireland has already left the United Kingdom since The Treaty of Utrecht was signed. It didn't seem to make much of a difference.


----------



## Williams2 (Sep 15, 2013)

Chopera said:


> Ireland has already left the United Kingdom since The Treaty of Utrecht was signed. It didn't seem to make much of a difference.


Good point but at the time of the Treaty of Utrecht 1713 - Ireland had not
joined the United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Wales until 1800.

Therefore it doesn't count.

See the Wiki on The Union with Ireland Act 1800.


----------



## mickbcn (Feb 4, 2013)

Chopera said:


> It's nothing like the situation with the UK. The UK recognises the Scottish referendum, not least because it recognises Scotland as a country bound by treaty only. Catalona has never been a country - it's a bit like Yorkshire saying "we want a referendum", Cameron saying "no", and then they have one anyway. What would Cameron do? Suddenly grant Yorkshire independence because they held an unofficial referendum, on their terms, and voted for independence? I doubt it.
> 
> And if Catalonia somehow did get independence it would have to invent itself as a country from scratch. It would still take years to go through the process of becoming a member of the EU.
> 
> ...


----------



## 90199 (Mar 21, 2010)

Chopera said:


> It's nothing like the situation with the UK. The UK recognises the Scottish referendum, not least because it recognises Scotland as a country bound by treaty only. Catalona has never been a country - it's a bit like Yorkshire saying "we want a referendum", Cameron saying "no", and then they have one anyway. What would Cameron do? Suddenly grant Yorkshire independence because they held an unofficial referendum, on their terms, and voted for independence? I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nah then! we'll have less of that,thah nos, the broad acres of Gods own country, the Ridings of Yorkshire, are and have been since time immemorial independent, the clowns in Westminster just haven't realised yet


----------



## Chopera (Apr 22, 2013)

mickbcn said:


> Chopera said:
> 
> 
> > It's nothing like the situation with the UK. The UK recognises the Scottish referendum, not least because it recognises Scotland as a country bound by treaty only. Catalona has never been a country - it's a bit like Yorkshire saying "we want a referendum", Cameron saying "no", and then they have one anyway. What would Cameron do? Suddenly grant Yorkshire independence because they held an unofficial referendum, on their terms, and voted for independence? I doubt it.
> ...


----------



## Chopera (Apr 22, 2013)

Williams2 said:


> Good point but at the time of the Treaty of Utrecht 1713 - Ireland had not
> joined the United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Wales until 1800.
> 
> Therefore it doesn't count.
> ...


Why should it matter that Ireland joined later on? If anything it further demonstrates that countries joining and leaving the UK have no effect on existing treaties.


----------



## amogles (Feb 4, 2014)

Williams2 said:


> Here's another thought - if the United Kingdom was to cease to exist following
> Scottish Independence or was to change it's name back to England. If say Wales
> and Northern Ireland were also to secede from the United Kingdom.


To be a pedant, Wales cannot secede from the United Kingdom directly as the United Kingdom unites Scotland, Ireland and England by various Acts of Parliament, none of which specifically deals with Wales. Wales is considered part of England for the purpose of these acts. Wales would thus have to secede not from the United Kingdom but from EnglandAndWales by repealing various acts of parliament going back to the days of Edward I. Once no longer attached to England, it would not need to secede from the United Kingdom as the Acts of Union make no provision for member countries splitting up.



Williams2 said:


> Could Spain pronounce The Treaty of Utrecht ( 1713 ) null and void concerning
> the clause granting Gibraltar to the United Kingdom in perpetuity. As the United
> Kingdom would have ceased to exist and Spain would no doubt take England to
> court if she still claimed to hold title over Gibraltar.
> ...


The Treaty of Utrecht was not a treaty with the British Monarchy but with the United Kingdom. But the question is valid. On the whole, when a country ceases to exist, there is nevertheless a legal successor country. For example Germany cannot worm its way out of responsibility for Nazi crimes by claiming that that country ceased to exist as there remains a moral repsonsibility for a successor to take on responsibility for actions of its predecessor, including the honouring of treaties. The question thus is, would Scotland or England be considered the legal succesor of the United Kingdom as far as the treaty of Utrecht is concerned?


----------



## amogles (Feb 4, 2014)

Chopera said:


> If Northern Ireland wanted independence then I suspect the UK would gladly give it to them.


Er yes, this is the bottom line of what the Good Friday agreement says. Nothern Ireland can go when it wants to go. But this is a recent development. Prior to that, there was no such simple exit mechanism.



Chopera said:


> Yes they do have certain powers, but they don't have a central bank, a defence, a full police force, border controls, and they have no government to handle foreign affairs, sign treaties, etc. In order to join the EU they not only need to set all this up, but they need to demonstrate that it functions according to EU membership criteria. This takes at least 7 years.


The UK doesn't have a central police force but just a collection of local forces. So do many other countries. Catalonia wouldn't be the only EU country not to have a central bank. It wouldn't be the only European country not to have a full diplomatic corps. Border controls are essentially a police activity and could be set up as required. I am sure that if Europe was interested in having Catalonia, then acceptance procedures could be fast tracked.



Chopera said:


> In fact I have previously said that what they really want is "semantic" independence - they don't really want true sovereignty (otherwise they wouldn't want to join the eurozone). They just want to be seen by others as a "country" in the same terms people see Spain as a country. However I'm not sure they want the responsibility that comes with actually being a truly independent country.


If they wanted to be truly independent they wouldn't want to be in the EU. But they want to have their own voice within the EU rather than be represented by Spain.


----------



## Williams2 (Sep 15, 2013)

amogles said:


> The Treaty of Utrecht was not a treaty with the British Monarchy but with the United Kingdom. But the question is valid. On the whole, when a country ceases to exist, there is nevertheless a legal successor country.
> 
> and
> 
> The question thus is, would Scotland or England be considered the legal successor of the United Kingdom as far as the treaty of Utrecht is concerned?


 I'm sure the Gibraltar's Chief Minister as well as David Cameron & Norman Clegg
would not be sleeping comfortably in their beds at night - if that question should
arise if Scotland, goes it alone. Outside the United Kingdom.
Think the only answer round this thorny question for what's left of the
United Kingdom to retain the title and ( so long as theirs no dispute ) the Union Jack
for as long as possible.

Lets face it - it was bad enough losing Calais to the French but to lose Gibraltar
to the Spanish over a technicality would be worst.
Still we will see.


----------



## mickbcn (Feb 4, 2013)

Chopera said:


> mickbcn said:
> 
> 
> > And the existence of the Generalitat de Catalonia means Catalonia is a country?
> ...


----------



## amogles (Feb 4, 2014)

Williams2 said:


> I'm sure the Gibraltar's Chief Minister as well as David Cameron & Norman Clegg
> would not be sleeping comfortably in their beds at night - if that question should
> arise if Scotland, goes it alone. Outside the United Kingdom.
> Think the only answer round this thorny question for what's left of the
> ...


I think the official take on it is that Scotland would be leaving the Union, which is not the same as the Union being dissolved. Even if at some later point Northern Ireland would also leave the Union, the Union would still technically exist. It would just have a single member.

If Northern Ireland were to leave the Union, we might also have to remove the St Patrick Saltire from the flag. But maybe we could also keep it seeing the Irish have made no motions towards establishing any claims towards it.


----------



## Chopera (Apr 22, 2013)

mickbcn said:


> Yes. Catalonia since then haved his own laws his own currency and his own language.


Plenty of regions around Europe could make the same claim. But this also demonstrates what I'm talking about: you say that having your own laws and your own currency is important, but Mas doesn't want this: he wants you to be part of the eurozone, where you don't have your own currency and have limited power to make your own laws. Really what he wants is to be separate from Spain but not independent.



mickbcn said:


> And now we the majority of the catalan people and catalan government have decided that we are a nation. and for this reason we want the independence from Spain.
> And we will get it in a few months!!! and nobody can stop us!!


I didn't realise you had already had your referendum!


----------



## mike kelly (Aug 12, 2009)

Will bookies offer odds on the result of this referendum? I predict a minimum of 90% in favour of independence. The participation level will hardly be above 40% though.


----------



## Aron (Apr 30, 2013)

mike kelly said:


> Will bookies offer odds on the result of this referendum? I predict a minimum of 90% in favour of independence. The participation level will hardly be above 40% though.


I never bet, The only guaranteed winner is the bookie. 

The only guarantee they have is that Barcelona FC will win the Catlonia league every year. Their International side will probably never qualify for any competition, though they may beat Gibraltar, but probably not Scotland!


----------



## Pazcat (Mar 24, 2010)

Aron said:


> Their International side will probably never qualify for any competition, though they may beat Gibraltar, but probably not Scotland!


Not so sure about that, if they all decided to represent Catalonia it would decimate the Spanish national squad. 
Catalonia national football team - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some quality players there, I imagine Hodgsons mob would struggle against that.


----------



## mickbcn (Feb 4, 2013)

mike kelly said:


> Yes, but all San Marino, Vatican City, Monaco and (from later this year) Andorra all have agreements with the EU which allow them to be part of the currency union and mint their own euro coins.
> Unless Catalan independence has full EU backing, I can't see an similar arrangement being facilitated for Catalyuna.
> 
> Montenegro has indeed unilaterally adopted the euro. The EU is not happy about this and Catalyuna trying a similar tactic would surely cause economic chaos as nominal euro salary levels would be impossible to maintain.
> ...


Please.don't suffer for us. (the catalan)if you want to suffer suffer for Spain.)


----------

