Turkey warns EU becoming 'Christian club'

[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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse

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.

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

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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 entered into force on 1 December 2009 no provision in the Treaties or Law of the European Union outlined the ability of a state to voluntarily withdraw from the EU. The European Constitution did propose such a provision and, after the failure to ratify the 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 of its intention to secede from the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union and that State. 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. 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, after obtaining the consent of the 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 (OCT) to an outermost region (OMR) or vice versa.[1]


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]

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.

[Skybird]

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"..