Quote:
Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse
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"..