tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post8931370794305867368..comments2024-03-26T09:38:39.888+00:00Comments on Borthlas: What's the purpose of a confederation?John Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-854055032579330002019-07-03T06:15:59.591+01:002019-07-03T06:15:59.591+01:00To Michael Haggett,
The Norwegian/Sweden divorce w...To Michael Haggett,<br />The Norwegian/Sweden divorce was not really peace full. The cause used for separation was the appointment of consuls in various foreign ports.The merchant navy was almost all Norwegian but the consuls were almost all Swedish. Norway traded with the world but Sweden traded with Germany.<br />After a plebiscite in 1905 the Norwegian Army was moved to the frontier to face off the Swedish forces. The Swedish king wisely renounced his claim to Norway and a real shooting war was avoided.<br />As the late Phil Williams said in one Plaid conference you have have to have at least a threat of violence.<br />Gwyn Jones <br /> Gwyn Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374910801538007571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-80503588709315801422019-07-02T14:23:50.530+01:002019-07-02T14:23:50.530+01:00Michael,
I'm not an expert here, and am open ...Michael,<br /><br />I'm not an expert here, and am open to correction, but I didn't think that the Nordic Council was as far advanced as the Benelux arrangement; the former, I thought, was about 'economic <br />co-operation' whereas the latter is about 'economic union'? Definitions are always a difficult area, of course; especially when being translated into multiple languages. But I think there's an important distinction there. Perhaps I should have referred to membership of the single market rather than the EU as such; the possibility that a state could be a member of two 'economic unions' which overlap but where some states are only members of one strikes me as being 'chellenging' to say the least; and, ultimately, isn't that what gives rise to the problem with the EU-UK border across Ireland?John Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07447224248021209852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-88591744933761375532019-07-02T12:31:40.759+01:002019-07-02T12:31:40.759+01:00I share your opinion that there was something &quo...I share your opinion that there was something "not quite right" about Adam's speech (for others reading this, the full transcript is <a href="https://www.partyof.wales/adam_price_benelux_britain" rel="nofollow">here</a>). But it's harder to put my finger on exactly what is wrong with it.<br /><br />It's worth noting that Adam specifically says that the future, Benelux-like, relationship he describes is specifically post-independence. But I would be willing to bet that a large number of his audience thought that he was in fact describing some half-way stage that wasn't quite full independence. That seems to be what Lee Felton thinks, in his article for <a href="https://eingwlad.wales/NewsPortal/index.php/2019/07/01/plaid-cymru-change-tac-on-independence-again/" rel="nofollow">Ein Gwlad</a>. <br /><br />To me, it seems that a lot of people are bound to ask, "Why would we need to go all the way to full independence if we could have this model instead?" To be frank, I think it quite likely that this WAS the point that Adam was making in his speech, and the bit about it being "post-independence" was only added in a later draft. It doesn't seem to fit naturally with the rest of the speech.<br /><br />I would note that both Benelux, in 1944, and the Nordic Council, in 1952, were set up long after the countries concerned had become independent. It is not as if Norway, when it became independent from Sweden following a peaceful, democratic referendum in 1905, did so on the basic that Norway could or would only become independent if it was within some alternative over-arching formal relationship structure between Norway and Sweden. Nor Belgium, when it became separate from the Netherlands in 1830 ... although in rather less democratic circumstances. <br /><br />On that basis, I would say that the lesson of history must be that independence comes first, and that Adam is doing neither himself, his party, nor the cause of Welsh independence any favours by putting the cart before the horse in this way. It's confusing the issue.<br /><br />-<br /><br />One small point relating specifically to what John has said. I don't really agree that any British equivalent unit could only be entirely in or entirely out of the EU. The Nordic Council includes members who are both in and outside the EU. Michael Haggetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00184013872282202623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4411161795798360588.post-39991123610842527312019-07-02T10:07:09.278+01:002019-07-02T10:07:09.278+01:00I don't think there is any form of confederati...I don't think there is any form of confederation of equals that England would sign up to. <br />Any confederation of non-equals requires Scotland to sign up to it and given the level of support for independence why would it. Was Adam Price trying to sell them the idea?<br />Englandandwales as a confederation. I would be interested to know who thinks that that proposal would be taken seriously and by whom. <br /><br />Maybe in Cymru the idea of a "confederation" would serve in a similar way to the idea of "Brexit". Members of the Welsh electorate would imagine their personal form of confederation and under the umbrella of "confederation" there would be enough voters to support independence. It follows that "independence" would naturally have as many imagined forms as "confederation".<br />Brexit provides the template for constitutional change. What could possibly go wrong. <br /><br /><br /> <br /> CapMnoreply@blogger.com