Turkey warns EU becoming 'Christian club'

[Gerald]

Turkey's deputy prime minister complained on Saturday that the European Union was becoming an inward-looking "Christian club", slamming a lack of progress in his country's bid to join.

Speaking on a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos that included EU President Herman Van Rompuy, Ali Babacan said: "We always thought the EU is a big peace project... but then the enlargement process literally stalled.

"Open door policy is no longer there," he added.

"And one of the big themes about why Turkey cannot become a member of the European Union is because it is a Christian club. This is in our view very, very dangerous," he said.

Beyond this, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel has expressed opposition to Turkey's bid.People in the Islamic world are looking closely at the EU to see whether it will open its doors to Turkey, said Babacan, also economy minister.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20110129/tbs-turkey-warns-eu-becoming-christian-c-5268574.html

Note: 2011.01.29

[Feuer Frei!]

I think we need to also ask the question:
Why does Turkey want to join the EU?
The secular side wants in because Turkey risks falling into the theocratic muslim circle.The military wants in because it will keep turkey secular and modern.
The current administration of Turkey says it wants in because they can use it to further there own agenda of a muslim state without the Military shutting them down.
Now,
Turkey started entry talks with the European Union five years ago, but negotiations on several policy areas have stalled or have been suspended because of Turkey's refusal to open its ports to trade with EU-member Cyprus as well as opposition in France and other European countries' to letting a populous, Muslim nation into the 27-nation bloc.
It's actually interesting to point out that both the Orthodox Church in Turkey, along with the Syriacs and Armenian Apostolic Church are in favor of Turkey joining the EU. In a nutshell, the reason they are in favor of Turkish EU membership is that there will be leverage to force Turkey to live up to the constitutional guarantee, which has been part of the Turkish constitution since the republic was established, as well as a condition for EU membership, to grant religious freedom to all citizens. Hence, unlike Saudi Arabia, which constitutionally bans all religions except Islam, Turkey already, at least notionally, guarantess this first freedom.
But how can Turkey join the EU without recognizing a member state (Cyprus) for instance?
The suppresion of human rights is also a very big issue : why the orthodox patriarchate of Istanbul is not capable of training its own priests?
The problem is in Turkey's imperialist attitude as evidenced in Cyprus, or the state run by the Generals who question the sovereignty of 2 EU member states, namely Greece and Cyprus for instance.
Europe should not be asked to take a chance on Turkey.
There is the Da'wa threat, and the demographic threat, for a start, both felt in Europe.

[Skybird]

To hell with Erdoghan and Turkey. A racist, supremacist, cheating, split-tongued, bigmouthed bastard like him, propagating a totalitarian, inhumane ideology and call that barbarism a "peace" and a "freedom", while calling the demand that Turks should integrate if living in other countries a "crime against humanity", should not lecture others about "values".

BTW, historically the cultural sphere of Europe IS a Judaic-Christian club, in all that was bad, but also, what in the modern era outshines the past, in all that became good.

While Erdoghan once again shows what a two-faced a#####e he is, from Iran we get reports that mirror what wqas reported from Turkey early last year: Iran sees the biggest wave of persecutions of Christians currently since 70 years. Early last year, discrimination of Christian communities by turning legal schicanes against them, and sacking in the property they left behind when leaving or where not allowed to keep, reached a climax in Turkey. One year before that Egypt saw a massive attempt of supressing and driving out the Koptian Christians by killing their lifestocks and minimising or even preventing their financial compensations.

The past 5 years have seen a huge grow in violent and massive persecution of Christian communities in most of the all Islamic countries, marking a historic landmark value in violence of Islam against Christians. Local progroms and masskillings of Christians in Africa, the southern tip of ther Arab peninsula, and SE Asia. The occasional quick kill-en-passant on the street not even mentioned - we all have our problems with street crime, don't we? :88)

Comment on that, you Turkish wannabe Padisha-Emperor Erdoghan the Great, ruler over the Arabs and conquereor of Europe.

Really, this azz starts to piss me very very big time.

Okay mods, I know I know - but cursing and using strong language sometimes gives at least temporary relief. :03:

[Feuer Frei!]

Cursing and using strong language sometimes gives at least temporary relief. :03:
Unfortunately only temporary though :03:

[Schroeder]

We're not a Christian club, were a western club. Big difference for me.;)

[Skybird]

We're not a Christian club, were a western club. Big difference for me.;)

Even me (athgeist), even you are influenced by cultural traditions, historical developements basing and deeply rooting in the basis of asncient Greek philosphy and Judaic-Christain tradition, both in good and bad. What we benefit from today, grew in parts by beinbg fostered by this tradition, but also often gre due to bitter resistance to this tradition.

I am no Christian, nor am I a Greek, nevertheless both have had tremendous influence over me actually turning out to be this "me" that I am, especially intellectually, and value-wise.

[Jimbuna]

We're not a Christian club, were a western club. Big difference for me.;)

Most definitely....I can only foresee problems if Turkey are allowed to join....who next?

[Betonov]

you dont hear bosnia complaining and they're muslim

[Gerald]

you dont hear bosnia complaining and they're muslim The country consists of only 40 percent believing Muslims, but to compare Bosnia and turkey can be made but the turkey has other problems that Bosnia not have

[Skybird]

....who next?
In the EU, Marocco gets mentioned, also Lybia, Tunisia, also Israel.

None of that is in Europe, but who cares. :dead: Once, there already were times when Europe thought of Africa has something like Europe. :88)

Some even say Belarus and Russia itself. Russia - reaching from west of the Ural to Kamchatka and the Japanese Sea in the East. The Japanese Sea - a European border! :har:

The megalomania anbd craving for attention by Eurocrats seems to be withouzt limits. Althoiugh they even cannot swallow what so far they already have bitten off - more! more! MORE...! Bigger!

Afghanistan could become a EU member too. Maybe it would not help the fight against terror - but it would allow politicians a big show in claiming so.

[CaptainHaplo]

I could have sworn that the E in EU stood for EUROPEAN. Just a quick check of a map....

http://students.wsc.ma.edu/rpellicier5597/europe.html

Turkey is at best "EurAsian" - geographically 90% resides on the continent recognized as Asia. Half of the city of Istanbul is in Asia, the other half in Europe, split down the middle by the Bosphorus river. 10% (roughly) of the rest of the country is geographically in Europe.

Depending on where you go in Turkey, you could think you were in an Asian country, a Middle Eastern country, or a European country. However, appearances do not tell the story.

If it were my decision, Turkey would not be considered for a spot on the EU. They are not located in Europe, nor have they embraced European values. A country where the military must be on standby to keep the government secular isn't exactly to european civility standards. While Turkey can't move the river to change its geography, it can move its societal standards - and it consistently refuses to do so in ways that would reassure the member EU countries.

Edit: Dang skybird you beat me to it! :salute:

[Schroeder]

Even me (athgeist), even you are influenced by cultural traditions, historical developements basing and deeply rooting in the basis of asncient Greek philosphy and Judaic-Christain tradition, both in good and bad. What we benefit from today, grew in parts by beinbg fostered by this tradition, but also often gre due to bitter resistance to this tradition.

I am no Christian, nor am I a Greek, nevertheless both have had tremendous influence over me actually turning out to be this "me" that I am, especially intellectually, and value-wise.
I'm fully aware of that. But how many people are still believing Christians here? I'm not sure that it's a majority. The EU wasn't founded because of a religion that most countries have in common.

[Armistead]

It's certainly not a christian issue, Europe is very secular, it's western culture of which christianity played a strong role once that offends them, thus it poses problems.

[STEED]

"Open door policy is no longer there," he added.



What! :stare:

There not taking bribes these days? :o

How about Turkey signs off the EU books. ;)

[Growler]

Of course it's a Christian EU; if it weren't, then how could the Turks call to unite dissatisfied, disenfranchised, discriminated Muslims against the EU? Wait for it - they'll be pointing at the riots in France of a few years ago as further proof.

I mean, could their intent be any clearer?

[Hitman]

Turkey is not europe in almost everything, and they shouldn't be so angry about that. They have their own identity, and if they want to preserve it, joining an EU that protects rights and freedom is obviosuly not their best bet. That said, I think that the EU should consider some kind of special treaty or status for countries that are not to be members of the EU, but could well trade in common. I.e., economical common space, but no allowing of free persons movement from Turkey to EU, etc. :hmmm:

[Skybird]

That said, I think that the EU should consider some kind of special treaty or status for countries that are not to be members of the EU, but could well trade in common.
That is already the case: Turkey, Israel, Marocco...

[Skybird]

I'm fully aware of that. But how many people are still believing Christians here? I'm not sure that it's a majority. The EU wasn't founded because of a religion that most countries have in common.

But it is made of countries that all have similiar cultural roots in common, regarding the ancient Greek heritage and the influence of Christian culture.

In a way we all are Romans.

[Skybird]

I could have sworn that the E in EU stood for EUROPEAN. Just a quick check of a map....

http://students.wsc.ma.edu/rpellicier5597/europe.html

Turkey is at best "EurAsian" - geographically 90% resides on the continent recognized as Asia. Half of the city of Istanbul is in Asia, the other half in Europe, split down the middle by the Bosphorus river. 10% (roughly) of the rest of the country is geographically in Europe.

Depending on where you go in Turkey, you could think you were in an Asian country, a Middle Eastern country, or a European country. However, appearances do not tell the story.

If it were my decision, Turkey would not be considered for a spot on the EU. They are not located in Europe, nor have they embraced European values. A country where the military must be on standby to keep the government secular isn't exactly to european civility standards. While Turkey can't move the river to change its geography, it can move its societal standards - and it consistently refuses to do so in ways that would reassure the member EU countries.
:salute:

To me Turkey is Middle East, period. And ME belongs to the orient. The Turkmen came from the northern area of Iran and Afghanistan. The Turkish lanmguage has nothing in common with any of the European languages. It does not share hisdoric roots with any Europoean country (expect in terms of attempted military conquests by the Ottomans), it does not share religion, and in fact Turkey/Ottoman Empire has been an enemy of Christianity and European nations.

[joegrundman]

I have my solution. That bit of Turkey which is in Europe can join. The rest cannot.

Welcome back Constantinople!

[Spoon 11th]

Ali Babacan
ROFL

[Gerald]

If Turkey joining the EU, with the existing problems, then it is surely time to move to another country, enlargement of the EU has already gone too fast...

[Kaye T. Bai]

Turkey is not europe in almost everything, and they shouldn't be so angry about that. They have their own identity, and if they want to preserve it, joining an EU that protects rights and freedom is obviosuly not their best bet. That said, I think that the EU should consider some kind of special treaty or status for countries that are not to be members of the EU, but could well trade in common. I.e., economical common space, but no allowing of free persons movement from Turkey to EU, etc.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has something similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Cooperation_with_non-member_states

[gimpy117]

well any country who starts blocking internet sites because it insulted its leader is no country i'd ever want to see in the EU. Sorry turkey, i know you want into the EU for a number of reasons, but you'd have to clean up your act.

[Respenus]

I won't go into details why Turkish membership would not work, even if they managed to fulfil all the criteria which are currently demanded during the EU enlargement process. What needs to be mentioned is that Turkey already has a customs union with us, meaning that there are no internal tariffs and all external ones are unified. Now, I may be willing to go as far as to allow Turkey to enter the European Economic Area, also known as the EU by telephone, meaning that the countries accept the rules of the common market, but have extremely limited say in how things are done. I realise that 4 freedoms might be a lot to swallow, but let us not forget that Erdogan thinks that Turkey will revitalise Europe. Well, let us open our market to them. Then we shall see how many Turks come running in. The Eastern Europeans are already coming back home, I doubt that in the long run, Turkey will be revitalising anything.

[Skybird]

Our market already is open to them, Respenus. We already have given them special status, economically. What Erdoighan claims about Turkish membership and how Europe would benefit fromt hat, must be seen in the light of his suual lies, megalomania and propaganda. He will tell you everything to make you think it is nice to have Turkey aboard.

And in germany, we have had most guest workers from mother coun tries after some time returning again indeed, since the late 50s. The only ones who stayed in full strength - are the Turks.

To me it sounds like a harsh ignorration of reality what you say. In principle you say: let'S believe Erdoghan becasue he is Erdoghan, let's get the damage done despite better knowledge about the meger chances, and when damage then finlly has come, then <not explained>.

If you like to take riskjs against all chances, take your own money and carry it into the casino. Play at your own cost - but don't play with the interest of 480 million people and their economies and cultural history. It's already bad enough that the EU already is doing this - and struggles desperately to even come to terms with just what it already has caused in damages.

[Respenus]

Let me restate once and for all that I believe Erdogan as much as I would believe a convicted fraudster and a liar, non can ever again be trusted. If you read my post carefully, you will see that I newer mentioned allowing them integration into EU structures, I even go as far as to say that I am openly and explicitly against it. The one concession that I did make and which you misunderstood is that we allow Turkey to enter the EEA, since they are so willing to enter the common market. Even if that were to happen, Turkey would need to fulfil a large set of requirements, even for the economic freedoms to happen. Yet and this is important, they would NOT HAVE access to the institutions as such and present their interests outside normal diplomatic relations. If they want the market, I say welcome them, after they enacted the appropriate reforms, which would take a long time and would force them also to change their society, but the freedom of movement of goods, capital and services do not present any problems. I concede that the free movement of individuals might be a problem, but they would not join the Schengen group and their citizens would still need to respond to the limitations imposed on any other EU citizen. This way, Erdogan gets the economic integration he wants and the Turks, especially younger people get greater possibilities to study in the West and well, learn. While we cannot force them to accept our values, previous experience has shown that free-er travel to the West does enable the democratisation of societies.

Again, I consider every word uttered by Turkish representatives to be mere propaganda (welcome to diplomacy) and I do not support Turkish entry into the EU. I am more then open to the discussion about the economic consequences of the Turkish entry into the common market with you or anyone, should they wish to do so.

[Gammelpreusse]

Eh, I'd not be so focused on the geographical aspects of any country joining, neither on religious ones. I'd have no problem with Turkey joining on these grounds, neither would I object to Canada, Russia or African countries in general.

Arguably Islam has the incorporates some of the same greek roots as Christianity, much of our science is based on islam, which in return is based on greek philosophy. Heck, even our number system is based on arabian origins.

In this regard it is also interesting that the Chinese regard the European and near eastern cultural areas as union from a historical/cultural perspective. (the same way most germans can't stand Bavaria but foreigners only see Germany)

But I am taking this from a broader perspective, not from a daily political one, where Hungary, for examples, kicks all European values in the nuts currently without many people actually being bothered. So much for the advantages of having a christian club. And Northern Ireland does not make for a better example and do not let me get started on the 30 years war.

So there is a bit of hypocrisies in the treatment of Turkey, too.

In my mind the only real attribute that is a "must", when it comes to countries joining Europe, is an adherence to the values of enlightenment. That one is much much more important to western culture, in regards to political conduct, to science and respect for humanity then any christian/judeo tradition with it's history of book burning, pogroms, crusades, general oppression, witch burning and so on. A tradition that is much closer to today's reputation of current Islam then modern Europe should adhere too. Luckily christianity got pushed back to privacy in most parts of Europe, retaining only the better aspects of it.

On these grounds, and there I agree, Turkey, Russia and other countries that are in talks about joining the EU are not ready for that. And within the EU there must be some better ability to screen and punish countries like Hungary if they want to stay in. If they want to leave for having authoritarian regimes, then they are free to do so.

[Gerald]

well any country who starts blocking internet sites because it insulted its leader is no country i'd ever want to see in the EU. Sorry turkey, i know you want into the EU for a number of reasons, but you'd have to clean up your act. And to clean up, I think they are not capable of doing and have either no interest in it, no Turkey in EU, :nope:

[Skybird]

To be added to my critical statement on Islamic fundamentalism and freedom being given to it: the leading Tunisian fundamentalist leader is reported to have come back to Tunisia today after 20 years of exile:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12318824

[Skybird]

If they want to leave for having authoritarian regimes, then they are free to do so.
The Lisbon dictate includes not known clause or formulation for leaving the union. Demands that such clauses should be included, just in case, were deliberately put down by Eurocrats and politicians. EU membership was intended to be not a lifetime but an existence-time sentence.

Nice, eh? I don't know about you, but to me this tells something.

[nikimcbee]

Most definitely....I can only foresee problems if Turkey are allowed to join....who next?

the US:hmmm:

[Gerald]

Forget it, :hmph:

[Tribesman]

The Lisbon dictate includes not known clause or formulation for leaving the union.
Is that the not known clause that was clearly printed in black and white and was widely debated in several countries but especially over in Britain?
The Lisbon treaty may well be a pile of crap but skybird seems to reverse things entirely, he sees really scary clauses where they don't exist and thinks real clauses which were openly debated are secret:doh:

[Gammelpreusse]

The Lisbon dictate includes not known clause or formulation for leaving the union. Demands that such clauses should be included, just in case, were deliberately put down by Eurocrats and politicians. EU membership was intended to be not a lifetime but an existence-time sentence.

Nice, eh? I don't know about you, but to me this tells something.


Uhm, to my knowledge there is an exit clause within the treaty.

Yes, even Wiki has something about it:

Before the Treaty of Lisbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon) entered into force on 1 December 2009 no provision in the Treaties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_the_European_Union) or Law of the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_European_Union) outlined the ability of a state to voluntarily withdraw from the EU. The European Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Constitution) did propose such a provision and, after the failure to ratify the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constitution_for_Europe), that provision was then included in the Lisbon Treaty.
The Treaty introduces an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. Under Article 50, a Member State would notify the European Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council) of its intention to secede from the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union and that State. The Treaties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_the_European_Union) would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period. The agreement is concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council and shall set out the arrangements for withdrawal, including a framework for the State's future relationship with the Union. The agreement is to be approved by the Council, acting by qualified majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union), after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament). A former Member State seeking to rejoin the European Union would be subject to the same conditions as any other applicant country.
Article 311a, introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon allows the status of French, Dutch and Danish overseas territories to be changed more easily, by no longer requiring a full treaty revision. Instead, the European Council may, on the initiative of the member state concerned, change the status of an overseas country or territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_countries_and_territories) (OCT) to an outermost region (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outermost_region) (OMR) or vice versa.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#cite_note-0)


Article 50 in detail:

Article 50 TEU
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Could you direct me to the place that said otherwise?

[Hakahura]

Personally I have no problem with Turkey or anyone else for that matter joining the EU.

The real question is when will the UK get the referendum it was promised to Leave the EU?

[Skybird]

Gammelpreusse, I was unprecise on the exit clause, I admit (I cut it short). I should have said more precise that there is was no such clause planned, then was included, but being worded in a way and linked to conditions that make it anything but undisputed that any nation dedcfiding to leave, will be able to just do that, regarding formalities. What is being criticised by Euro critics (amongst others: again by former German federal president Roman Herzog) is the phrase saying that there must be mutual negotiations in which the EU agrees to terms of withdrawel. That does not sound like much, but the devil is in the detail here: formally, no nation can leave if the EU does not agree to the conditons of that withdrawing.

That is a criticiosm I do not pick out of my eccentric little brain. I just quote it and refer to it, it has been brought up by critical law experts and politicians first. With the document being some 16 or 17 poages only, the important, critical and elgally binding stuff that goes beyond vague idealistic statements in the main document, is hidden inside the more than 600 pages of complicated appendices - this is where the real deal is set, the first 16 pages of the main document in fact give an impression of being just vague and meaning not much. For a novice, it is almost impossible to find all the critical things and make the links - and I tried it myself, and still have the pdf stored on my HD. You depend on an insider expert to decypher the whole damn thing.


The complicated, deceiving and misleading design of the document is intentional - to prevent wide understanding of the far-leading implications. They could as well have used a small print so small that you cannot read it even when using a magnifier.

[Gammelpreusse]

Gammelpreusse, I was unprecise on the exit clause, I admit (I cut it short). I should have said more precise that there is was no such clause planned, then was included, but being worded in a way and linked to conditions that make it anything but undisputed that any nation dedcfiding to leave, will be able to just do that, regarding formalities. What is being criticised by Euro critics (amongst others: again by former German federal president Roman Herzog) is the phrase saying that there must be mutual negotiations in which the EU agrees to terms of withdrawel. That does not sound like much, but the devil is in the detail here: formally, no nation can leave if the EU does not agree to the conditons of that withdrawing.

That is a criticiosm I do not pick out of my eccentric little brain. I just quote it and refer to it, it has been brought up by critical law experts and politicians first. With the document being some 16 or 17 poages only, the important, critical and elgally binding stuff that goes beyond vague idealistic statements in the main document, is hidden inside the more than 600 pages of complicated appendices - this is where the real deal is set, the first 16 pages of the main document in fact give an impression of being just vague and meaning not much. For a novice, it is almost impossible to find all the critical things and make the links - and I tried it myself, and still have the pdf stored on my HD. You depend on an insider expert to decypher the whole damn thing.


The complicated, deceiving and misleading design of the document is intentional - to prevent wide understanding of the far-leading implications. They could as well have used a small print so small that you cannot read it even when using a magnifier.


Well, I can see where this can be regarded as critical, but no exit clause still is fundamentally different to exit through consensus. That no country can just leave is not that of a wonder, really, because given the economic integration one country just exiting just so without any kind of negotiation whatsoever with the rest might cause quite some turbulence for all others.

That is even more true as the EU is not so much based on fixed law, but compromise with each state having a different mix of extra rules cut for their individual needs.

In this light waht is even more important here is...there is not a single article stating that a member is forced to stay. So in case of disagreement the EU would have no legal means to force a member to stay. And if it tried, all hell would break lose from those countries that are critical to too much EU power, and there are enough of these within the EU. And the EU itself has no military power whatsoever to enforce anything, meaning there would need to be a nation willing and wanting to deploy troops. I seriously see no scenario where this is realistic ever under the current construction and political reality of the EU.


Seen in this light, I am not that alarmed by this clause. It actually makes a lot of sense to me.

[Skybird]

Well, I can see where this can be regarded as critical, but no exit clause still is fundamentally different to exit through consensus. That no country can just leave is not that of a wonder, really, because given the economic integration one country just exiting just so without any kind of negotiation whatsoever with the rest might cause quite some turbulence for all others.

That is even more true as the EU is not so much based on fixed law, but compromise with each state having a different mix of extra rules cut for their individual needs.

In this light waht is even more important here is...there is not a single article stating that a member is forced to stay. So in case of disagreement the EU would have no legal means to force a member to stay. And if it tried, all hell would break lose from those countries that are critical to too much EU power, and there are enough of these within the EU. And the EU itself has no military power whatsoever to enforce anything, meaning there would need to be a nation willing and wanting to deploy troops. I seriously see no scenario where this is realistic ever under the current construction and political reality of the EU.


Seen in this light, I am not that alarmed by this clause. It actually makes a lot of sense to me.

But the problem remains: the EU can prolongue any exit negotiations for eternal time (like Germany tried to do it with Turkey since 40 years just to escape any issuing of a clear "no"). It is to be questioned why the demand for any more direct and precise definitions about timetables and contents of exit negotiations has been put down, it is to be quesationed why even the vague exist clause there is just appeared o slate, in the last draft, and against so much resistence of the EU, and it is to be questioned why the existing vague exit clause is minimised in significance by several key polliticians and leaders and EU representatives. The whole thing is designed to be minimising for any success of exist negotiations, it should reduce chances to a very minimum that is discouraging for any exit candidate, and it should be discouraging by promising endless negotiation s that will go on for long time, if not many years. By this the EU can say that exist is possible ion theory - while i8n reality in fact it is almost impossible, legally and formally. The hurdles have been risen to maximum heights.

And the EU formally always has the option to make an exit of a member state impossible, because a majority of memberstates needs to agree on the results of such exiost negotiations. If this majority is not being gained, formally any EU member is not allowed to leave, period. This is indeed one of the two biggest criticisms against the format of the exist clause, and I jzust say it is extremely suspicious indeed. Of course we speak about Ffrmalities here - if that member state wanting to pull out is clever, it will leave anyway, no matter what the others think of that ands what they do in order to prevent that exit.

Again, this criticism is not just imagined by me. Like most concerns I have about this damn treaty, it was Roman Herzog bringing it to my awareness. And Herzog is no dilletant on legal and constitutional issues, but is an outspoken expert of European treaties and the German constitution. He was heading the Constitutional High Court as it's president before becoming the Federal president. Compared to his competence and reason, the current office holder Wulff is just a charicature and naive "Dummschwätzer"..

[breadcatcher101]

A lot of frank discussion here...as we say, "Let's talk turkey".

Myself I don't know too much about it but Sky has a good point.

Christians have a more open door policy than the muslim religion.

It is strictly forbidden to even set foot in Mecca if you are not muslim--at least I have heard, haven't tried.

I have always considered Turkey to be a part of Asia, Asia Minor in earlier times.

The whole thing sounds to me like political grand standing, hoping some one will yield to avoid being labled.

[Gammelpreusse]

But the problem remains: the EU can prolongue any exit negotiations for eternal time (like Germany tried to do it with Turkey since 40 years just to escape any issuing of a clear "no"). It is to be questioned why the demand for any more direct and precise definitions about timetables and contents of exit negotiations has been put down, it is to be quesationed why even the vague exist clause there is just appeared o slate, in the last draft, and against so much resistence of the EU, and it is to be questioned why the existing vague exit clause is minimised in significance by several key polliticians and leaders and EU representatives. The whole thing is designed to be minimising for any success of exist negotiations, it should reduce chances to a very minimum that is discouraging for any exit candidate, and it should be discouraging by promising endless negotiation s that will go on for long time, if not many years. By this the EU can say that exist is possible ion theory - while i8n reality in fact it is almost impossible, legally and formally. The hurdles have been risen to maximum heights.

And the EU formally always has the option to make an exit of a member state impossible, because a majority of memberstates needs to agree on the results of such exiost negotiations. If this majority is not being gained, formally any EU member is not allowed to leave, period. This is indeed one of the two biggest criticisms against the format of the exist clause, and I jzust say it is extremely suspicious indeed. Of course we speak about Ffrmalities here - if that member state wanting to pull out is clever, it will leave anyway, no matter what the others think of that ands what they do in order to prevent that exit.

Again, this criticism is not just imagined by me. Like most concerns I have about this damn treaty, it was Roman Herzog bringing it to my awareness. And Herzog is no dilletant on legal and constitutional issues, but is an outspoken expert of European treaties and the German constitution. He was heading the Constitutional High Court as it's president before becoming the Federal president. Compared to his competence and reason, the current office holder Wulff is just a charicature and naive "Dummschwätzer"..


I am not dismissing your points nor the general critique. Just to make sure you read this part. Especially your points about timetables and contents of exit negotiations are glaring omissions. I very much agree to that and see those as obvious shortages in the exit clause as well.

I am just not seeing it as one sided as you present it.

For example, I do not share your opinion that exit in praxis is "almost impossible". I simply see it as they way it is presented, that states will have to negotiate their treaty, based on the fact that a simple exit without any kind of negotiation and clearing of contract issues is a huge danger to economic and political stability and thus not very preferable. I see, however, neither a broad agenda nor the political will to intentionally sabotage such an exit. Neither do I see legal nor illegal means to force a member to stay in the Union in case a country wants to break lose without the will to negotiate but eventual political and economic isolation.

The biggest problem in this clause is to bring in a majority of countries voting for this exit. But this is how democracy, even democracy that is based on whole nations instead directly on the people, works. You have to get majorities to get your way, you can't just break lose and go your own way. Neither could Bavaria in Germany, despite them even having a party there with exactly this goal. Or any other region in a nation state in Europe. Just ask the Basques. And any country that joins the EU, which is entirely voluntarily, knows this. So these countries made a choice, and once they made it, they have to stick to their decision and play by the rules. More so, most countries currently in the EU joined on their own free will long before the Lisbon treaty, despite the lack of such an exit clause. So arguably, the EU is improving, not getting worse in this issue.

And I repeat, I see your points and I agree that to bring those issues up is legitimate, just too one sided to only make up an opinion on them alone. And given how the EU is made up and what means she has to force others to follow her ruling, not even overly dangerous nor oppressive if it really comes down to a country wanting to leave at all costs.

Christian Wulff is Merkels laptog. A nice man with his own integrity, but he fits more to Kindergarten Bastelgruppen or as a Waldorfschule teacher then into Bellevue. Completely with you on this.

[Skybird]

"My points", as you ccall them, are not my points, but that of critics whose arguments I follow and just "quote": because they make sense to me, more sense than the official propaganda line at least, and because of the reputation and background of these critics.

It is not my personal conspiration theory, but worries and concerns of insiders knowing the matter and links much better than I will ever do. And in the end the words of a Roman Herzog, Valery Giscard-d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt have much more weight to me than those of an Angela Merkel, Manuel Barosso, Claude Juncker or Nobody Rumpoy. And if even the two fathers of the Eu treateies, Giscard-d'Estaing and Schmidt, criticise the shapew the EU has gotten during the last 20 years, then this tells me something.

And Wulff, I think he jumps with a happy smile to snap the pralines Merkel is throwing to him when he did something the way she thinks he should. Blair was Bush's poodle, and Wulff is Merkel's. Gauck would have been the far better choice for the post, with far more moral integrity and authority. Wulff's submissive basic attitude is - ashaming.So much I rate all he did in office, as failings: that he made a Muslim close friend of a known Islamic and ultranationalistic Turk a minister in his old cabinet befor eleaving, his acting regarding the causa Sarrazin, his infantile christmas appearance on TV that was meant to be "innovative", and his latest stunt during the Auschwitz remembrance when he acted with masochistic submission and implied that generations of even not yet born Germans being responsible for what has happened 70 years ago.

Disgusting, naive, and spineless. Gauck never would have dared to stage appearances like that.

[Castout]

What does Turkey mean.

Europe is an atheist club so no worry or is that worse even? :O:

[goldorak]

Even me (athgeist), even you are influenced by cultural traditions, historical developements basing and deeply rooting in the basis of asncient Greek philosphy and Judaic-Christain tradition, both in good and bad. What we benefit from today, grew in parts by beinbg fostered by this tradition, but also often gre due to bitter resistance to this tradition.

I am no Christian, nor am I a Greek, nevertheless both have had tremendous influence over me actually turning out to be this "me" that I am, especially intellectually, and value-wise.

The late pope Jean Paul II wanted to have a reference to europe's judaic christian roots in the european constitution (or more precisely constitutional treaty). Alas that was not to pass, mostly because we have a bunch of pussy politically correct people governing us. Just shows you how much we are willing to negate in order to appease everyone. There is nothing wrong in stating the historical truth. And europe is not just some abstract concept, it is defined historically, politically and culturally. And all this is being negated because of external influences trying to convert "europe" to some kind of international club comprising not only european countries but also countries in the middle east (there was talking of taking in israel for example :down: ). What the hell ? Those that want some kind of amorphous europe (mostly americans for their own self interests of course) would they be willing to incorporate Mexico and Canada into a greater USA ? You know since they are in the same continent. Doesn't matter that historically, culturally and politically the US is as different from Canada as Canada is from Mexico.
So no to Turkey in the european union, and no to the maghreb countries and no to the middle eastern countries. Europe is a judiac christian club foremost (if you want to put it this way) and lastly a western club and a nato alliance.

[goldorak]

I have my solution. That bit of Turkey which is in Europe can join. The rest cannot.

Welcome back Constantinople!


Nice, do we then accept in the EU the bit of Russia that extends to the Urals, and discard the rest ?

[CaptainHaplo]

EU exit agreement:

The Treaties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_the_European_Union) would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period.

In plain speak: Someone says they want out. They formally notify the EU body politik. The EU drags their feet for whatever reason. 2 years and its done. Kaput. Finished. Fin. Over and done with. The exiting member need only refuse to extend negotiations.

[goldorak]

EU exit agreement:

The Treaties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_the_European_Union) would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period.

In plain speak: Someone says they want out. They formally notify the EU body politik. The EU drags their feet for whatever reason. 2 years and its done. Kaput. Finished. Fin. Over and done with. The exiting member need only refuse to extend negotiations.


Please, getting into the EU is not something that you can at a later date just retract from. Although it is a possibility, the EU is not just an economic zone. Its a vastly more ambitious project, a political one. Thats why it is just preposterous to admit entry to countries that yes could benefit form trade and common security, but that don't have and never will have the same political endgame as that of the founding fathers of modern post ww 2 europe. This is something that has been lost on the current generation of political leaders, and its one of the reasons why the european construction is at a standstill.

Even in the US, some states are granted the possiblity of leaving the union. Texas among them. Can you realistically see Texas getting out of the US ? And would the federal government stay put as they see Texas secede ? Food for thought.

[Gammelpreusse]

"My points", as you ccall them, are not my points, but that of critics whose arguments I follow and just "quote": because they make sense to me, more sense than the official propaganda line at least, and because of the reputation and background of these critics.

It is not my personal conspiration theory, but worries and concerns of insiders knowing the matter and links much better than I will ever do. And in the end the words of a Roman Herzog, Valery Giscard-d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt have much more weight to me than those of an Angela Merkel, Manuel Barosso, Claude Juncker or Nobody Rumpoy. And if even the two fathers of the Eu treateies, Giscard-d'Estaing and Schmidt, criticise the shapew the EU has gotten during the last 20 years, then this tells me something.

uhm...I never called them a conspiracy. I called them valid. And yes, I understood you merely quoted these people. And I also said they made sense to me, too. So please don't write this part as If I contested them while in truth I merely tried for a more balanced look at the issue.


And Wulff, I think he jumps with a happy smile to snap the pralines Merkel is throwing to him when he did something the way she thinks he should. Blair was Bush's poodle, and Wulff is Merkel's. Gauck would have been the far better choice for the post, with far more moral integrity and authority. Wulff's submissive basic attitude is - ashaming.So much I rate all he did in office, as failings: that he made a Muslim close friend of a known Islamic and ultranationalistic Turk a minister in his old cabinet befor eleaving, his acting regarding the causa Sarrazin, his infantile christmas appearance on TV that was meant to be "innovative", and his latest stunt during the Auschwitz remembrance when he acted with masochistic submission and implied that generations of even not yet born Germans being responsible for what has happened 70 years ago. Disgusting, naive, and spineless. Gauck never would have dared to stage appearances like that.

yeeeaaaah. I mean, I agreed to you in regards to Wulf, too, so no necessity to enforce this point anymore, either.
Now how to deal with Auschwitz and all what it stands for is another matter worthy of another thread. Lot's has changed in this regard over the last decade anyways and needs an open debate that I really miss in public discourse.

[Gammelpreusse]

Please, getting into the EU is not something that you can at a later date just retract from. Although it is a possibility, the EU is not just an economic zone. Its a vastly more ambitious project, a political one. Thats why it is just preposterous to admit entry to countries that yes could benefit form trade and common security, but that don't have and never will have the same political endgame as that of the founding fathers of modern post ww 2 europe. This is something that has been lost on the current generation of political leaders, and its one of the reasons why the european construction is at a standstill.

Even in the US, some states are granted the possiblity of leaving the union. Texas among them. Can you realistically see Texas getting out of the US ? And would the federal government stay put as they see Texas secede ? Food for thought.

Big difference here,

on a practical basis:
Washington commands federal forces. Brussels does not.

on a theoretical basis:
Even IF the EU someday commands an army and granted, talks are under way in this regard, but if she ever tried to use it to prevent another country to exit, she would lead herself ad absurdum, as the EU was founded, above everything else, to prevent further war in Europe. That tidbit is at the core of her very existence and too many people within the EU would run Amok if she would ever go to arms over a secession.

The rest of your post is spot on, however

[joegrundman]

Nice, do we then accept in the EU the bit of Russia that extends to the Urals, and discard the rest ?

ok, if they want

[goldorak]

ok, if they want

Whooosh. :O:

[Jimbuna]

the US:hmmm:

Your too poor to join :DL