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.

"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.

What does Turkey mean.

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

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.

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

EU exit agreement:

The Treaties 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.

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.

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.

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

ok, if they want

Whooosh. :O:

Your too poor to join :DL