Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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.