Turkey warns EU becoming 'Christian club'

[CaptainHaplo]

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.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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.

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by Skybird

"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.

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.

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.

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.

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by goldorak

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.

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

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by goldorak

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

ok, if they want

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

ok, if they want

Whooosh.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

the US

Your too poor to join