Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Happy Times
I have been pro Union for its economical benefits and stabilizing affect on Europe but now that i have had time to read more of the proposed treaty im getting little nervous. Somebody know if i have understood correctly that secession isnt guaranteed for a state that so wishes? If so, the reasons behind it raise questions of the federal system being built. When money rules, liberties are under threat, i may have to revise my position.:hmm:
|
that is one of the many tricky points, causing much criticism and bitter debate.
Part IV, article 50, section 2 says:
Quote:
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.
|
So, in principle secession is possible, BUT: consider the formulations in the above text (and such things are important in the legal and political field). You see cross-reference to the "Guidelines of the European Council" (wich are a chapter for themselves, and are under fire), and the fact that a qualified majority of the Council and the european Parliament'S agreement must be secured. the criticism now is that it is not clear wether this adresses only the terms and conditions of the new politiical relation between the leaving nation and the EU, or if it even decides about the EU's allowance for the single nation leaving. this is not so obvious to answer as Eurocrats make it sound, the criticism comes for legal experts, whereas political critics and eurocritics also point at the fact of how much democratically totally unlegitimised power is held in the EU hierarchy by ministry officials that mostly act without being responsible in the understanding of owing responsibility to somebody who voted for them. then there is the still questioned lacking legitimation of the EU commission itself, the self-made (non-legitimised) expansion of power and competences of varous levels and offices of the EU institutions including the commission, and the most often ignroed violation of EU-laws taking it for granted to overrule national constitutional rights and parliamentary sovereignity. If you add all this together, you have a bureaucratic mechanism that could delay any demand by a member state to leave for years if not decades to come. The process to leave the union in principle is "allowed", but in reality if would last through so many legislation periods that it is extremely unlikely that it ever would successfully reach that far. So, secession is possible by the rules - while it has been made sure that in reality it never will happen by making the secession ambition suffering a slow many-years-long death bye negotiating through the levels of the EU offices.
you are allowed to leave, yes - but only if you do not do it. Compare to: you are allowed to vote over the EU constituion - but only if you vote in favour of it.
As I often said: the basic text of the lisbon treaty does nto seem like a problem, everything looks bright and nice. the problems become apparent when checking the appendices, the cross-references, the hidden complications.
This is not my private mislead criticism only, but it has been raised by many legal experts, and again, my favourite insider and heavyweight expert is amongst them: Roman Herzog, who has been federal president of Germany and hea dof state, and before that he was president of the german constitutional high court. His level ox expertise cannot just be wiped off the table by saying he does not truly understand what it is about - he has understood it better than most of those politicians who think they need to open their big Eurocratic mouths about things they did not understand at all.