President Van Rompuy

[eurotop40]

That Belgians are the best :biggrin:
But that is old news :wink:

No problems with that, as long as they stop with their language quarrel. They want to build Europe and then make such a mess. It would be time to get over it, don't you think so?

 

[eurotop40]

...

Previously he has expressed views on Turkey joining the EU:

"Turkey is not a part of Europe and will never be part of Europe. An expansion of the EU to include Turkey cannot be considered as just another expansion as in the past ... The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey."

That's one of the reasons why F and NL did not approve the constitution (at that time Germany and France were officially pushing for Turkey in the EU).

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

That's one of the reasons why F and NL did not approve the constitution (at that time Germany and France were officially pushing for Turkey in the EU).

I wasn't aware Germany has ever been in favour of Turkish entry to the EU ? Most of the support for Turkey has been from the UK, Sweden, and provisionally so from Greece, which sees a possible solution to Northern Cyprus.

 

[798686]

President Kharzai may be available for the next term, if we need someone with unrivalled experience in anti-democratic processes. :wink: hehehe

 

[vince]

I've yet to meet a Turkish person who is strongly in favor of joining the EU. Most of them are ambivalent about it at the moment. There is always talk in the press about the process and negotiations, but I think most Turks realise it will never happen. A vote by all members on "accession" to the union must unanimous. A number of nations may (and do) oppose it. Austria is mostly likely to veto it and Cyprus, France and Germany are not warm to the idea.

As well, I think that if it was put to a vote in Turkey, it would likely fail. The project is viewed as something that would be very good for the elites of politics and business, but would be very bad for everyone else. They don't like being dictated to by outsiders (whether or not that would actually happen, I don't know), and think the adoption of European laws and regulations would led to the destruction of Turkish culture.

There is a resentment towards the EU here as well. Turkey has been knocking on the door since the 1950's, made formal application in 1987, and is still realistically looking at another 15 years before the EU would even vote on it. People think the EU keeps moving the goal posts. How many countries joined since 1987 and half of them were ex Warsaw Pact members? Enemies just a few years ago, while Turkey has been member of NATO since 1952 and had Europe's back in the Cold War with the second largest military force in the organization, yet Romania and Bulgaria get welcomed in with their shitty economies while Turkey is held back?

That's how many, many people here feel, and it's very doubtful membership would be accepted if it was ever offered. When Sarkozy says "Turkey has no place inside the European Union", people here think, "get stuffed asshole".

 

[B_Nick8]

Great thread, guys. I'm learning a lot thanks to you.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I've yet to meet a Turkish person who is strongly in favor of joining the EU. Most of them are ambivalent about it at the moment. There is always talk in the press about the process and negotiations, but I think most Turks realise it will never happen. A vote by all members on "accession" to the union must unanimous. A number of nations may (and do) oppose it. Austria is mostly likely to veto it and Cyprus, France and Germany are not warm to the idea.

As well, I think that if it was put to a vote in Turkey, it would likely fail. The project is viewed as something that would be very good for the elites of politics and business, but would be very bad for everyone else. They don't like being dictated to by outsiders (whether or not that would actually happen, I don't know), and think the adoption of European laws and regulations would led to the destruction of Turkish culture.

There is a resentment towards the EU here as well. Turkey has been knocking on the door since the 1950's, made formal application in 1987, and is still realistically looking at another 15 years before the EU would even vote on it. People think the EU keeps moving the goal posts. How many countries joined since 1987 and half of them were ex Warsaw Pact members? Enemies just a few years ago, while Turkey has been member of NATO since 1952 and had Europe's back in the Cold War with the second largest military force in the organization, yet Romania and Bulgaria get welcomed in with their shitty economies while Turkey is held back?

That's how many, many people here feel, and it's very doubtful membership would be accepted if it was ever offered. When Sarkozy says "Turkey has no place inside the European Union", people here think, "get stuffed asshole".

And in truth they're perfectly right to think that, I think Turkey has been treated incredibly shoddily by the EU, but I think at least part of the problem has always been that an unrealistic expectation that Turkey's possible accession was being taken seriously by the EU.

The EU should have been clear from the start that it was always probably going to be fairly unlikely that Turkish accession would happen. And again it's not really because Turkey is majority muslim, or because it's Turkish that it's unlikely to be invited to join the EU, it's because of it's neighbours. Europe simply doesn't want a border with Iran, Iraq and Syria, it doesn't want to become a western Asian state with all the weight of responsibility that would bring with regard to the Isreal/Palestine situation, or the eventual settlement of the Kurdish question or for that matter the settling of scores which may take place in the southern Caucasus. I think those legitimate geopolitical concerns are far harder to communicate than all the claptrap which noone really believes about Europe being a Christian continent e.t.c. which seems to go over slightly easier with the public.


I have Turkish relatives and am very much in sympathy with Turkey and I think it's pretty dreadful that despite Turkey loyally standing between Nato-in-Europe and the chaotic forces at work in western Asia and putting itself on the line by seeming to support Europe and America at the expense of good relations with some of Turkey's neighbours, that the EU refuses to make good on that loyalty. I think EU membership should have been offered to Turkey at the same time it was offered to Romania and Bulgaria. But the EU is an imperfect creature.

 

[Jason]

though why we would claim Central Asia or Siberia as European is completely beyond me, as is Israel I'm afraid.

Siberia has been completely Russified - places like Novosibirsk are as Russian (and therefore European) as anywhere in Russia. If one day Russia comes into the EU (a very big if I know!) it would surely have to be the whole of Russia, not just the European bit. Presumably Belarus and the Ukraine also.

I agree Central Asia is altogether a different matter and it is very hard to see when nations in this region could ever join. The Caucasus region is a special case. If Georgia consolidates its democracy over a decade or so then maybe this European nation with a Christian culture would be a candidate. Israel does already have a special relationship with the EU - there may be a process where this special relationship can be deepened.

It seems to me that there are powerful economic arguments in favour of EU expansion. We're fast running out of countries of any size which may be considered unless we look to Turkey, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia - and right now Russia doesn't want to be part of the EU. Maybe the reality is that the EU is almost as big as it is going to get.

 

[eurotop40]

I believe there are 2 problems about Turkey (and mind you, I have a certain sympathy although I also feel these concerns):
1. it is not much the issue of the muslim religion since Turkey is one of the few secular countries with an islamic religious majority, that therefore should be particularly supported, but much more the fear that islamistic tendencies there could prevail with all the mess we see going on; the election of the current prime minister is also somehow a drift from Europe;
2. Turkey would become the second largest EU country and this is not particularly appealing to France, Germany, Italy and Spain. It was apparently even proposed to fusion Germany and France to counterbalance this (go figure...).
Personally I think that Turkey has two faces, one towards the West and one towards the East and should first come to terms with itself. Furthermore it seems to me (but it is just an impression) that to become a EU country one should a bit forget extreme nationalistic thinking (such as written in the judicial code: for instance penalties for actions of propaganda gegen "turkishism" etc.).

 

[798686]

I believe there are 2 problems about Turkey (and mind you, I have a certain sympathy although I also feel these concerns):
1. it is not much the issue of the muslim religion since Turkey is one of the few secular countries with an islamic religious majority, that therefore should be particularly supported, but much more the fear that islamistic tendencies there could prevail with all the mess we see going on; the election of the current prime minister is also somehow a drift from Europe;
2. Turkey would become the second largest EU country and this is not particularly appealing to France, Germany, Italy and Spain. It was apparently even proposed to fusion Germany and France to counterbalance this (go figure...).
Personally I think that Turkey has two faces, one towards the West and one towards the East and should first come to terms with itself. Furthermore it seems to me (but it is just an impression) that to become a EU country one should a bit forget extreme nationalistic thinking (such as written in the judicial code: for instance penalties for actions of propaganda gegen "turkishism" etc.).

This is pretty much my impression of it (although I didn't put it quite as well, hehehe).

I also agree with Vince and Hilaire's views on Turkey being treated shoddily by the EU, and the goalposts being moved. This has probably been exacerbated by talk of a 'privileged partnership' instead of full membership. I think the EU quite like the idea of Turkey being favourable towards them, wanting to join and having to put various reforms in place, but don't realistically see it as a member anytime soon. I'd be annoyed too if I was Turkish.

Britain tends to be in favour of Turkey's accession - maybe for slightly self-centred reasons though, lol. We hope to further dilute the Franco-German axis, and also prefer widening rather than deepening of the Union, and think that if a huge, very different country like Turkey were to join, it would make political union/a superstate more difficult, and would very much further our goals of scuppering a supranational europe in favour of an intergovernmental one (sorry to keep using those terms, btw - I'm just luvvin the jargon).

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Siberia has been completely Russified - places like Novosibirsk are as Russian (and therefore European) as anywhere in Russia. If one day Russia comes into the EU (a very big if I know!) it would surely have to be the whole of Russia, not just the European bit. Presumably Belarus and the Ukraine also.

I agree Central Asia is altogether a different matter and it is very hard to see when nations in this region could ever join. The Caucasus region is a special case. If Georgia consolidates its democracy over a decade or so then maybe this European nation with a Christian culture would be a candidate. Israel does already have a special relationship with the EU - there may be a process where this special relationship can be deepened.

It seems to me that there are powerful economic arguments in favour of EU expansion. We're fast running out of countries of any size which may be considered unless we look to Turkey, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia - and right now Russia doesn't want to be part of the EU. Maybe the reality is that the EU is almost as big as it is going to get.

Now now Jason, I think the millions of Uralic, Altaic, Yeniseic and Paeleosiberians would have a lot to say about how totally Russified Siberia is.

And essentially if you're talking about the EU absorbing the entire Russian Federation then a considerable number of non-Siberian central Asian constituent states of the federation would be on the cards too, which is why I make the distininction between European and Asian Russia. I don't think the entire Russian federation could ever be incorperated into the EU.


Mind you I agree that Ukraine and Belarus should join eventually.

 

[D_Jared Padalicki]

No problems with that, as long as they stop with their language quarrel. They want to build Europe and then make such a mess. It would be time to get over it, don't you think so?

That is something that bothers us too. But you can't compare that with being the President of Europe.
It's more complicated then you think.

And another issue, now that Van Rompuy is President, be aware that we have to get a new Prime Minister. And that could be a problem since our last elections were a disaster.

 

[Jason]

And another issue, now that Van Rompuy is President, be aware that we have to get a new Prime Minister. And that could be a problem since our last elections were a disaster.

Does the situation where a PM turns his back on his job as PM to be president of Europe mean that the post is perceived as being more important than that of a national PM? How do Belgians feel about their PM acting in this way?

 

[D_Jared Padalicki]

Does the situation where a PM turns his back on his job as PM to be president of Europe mean that the post is perceived as being more important than that of a national PM? How do Belgians feel about their PM acting in this way?

Naah, we are very proud that Herman Van Rompuy beccomes the first president of the EU, very proud.
It's more about what bullshit we will get with electing a new PM. We had elected Yves Lêterme two years ago, but every politician made it very hard for him that after a little year he gave up, he got in the hospital for health reasons because of the pressure. He is too good to be a PM, much to human. He quited as PM and became minister of foreign affairs. But now with Van Rompuy becomming President, they want him back as PM... for now everyone agrees, but I doubt that will be the same in January.

 

[798686]

Hope he doesn't go back if it's gonna damage his health. Who else would do it? Guy Verhofstadt still on the scene? (Keeping him as PM will stop him getting upto mischief in the EU, lol).

 

[Jason]

There's a story in the British media today that Baroness Ashton was the fourth choice put forward for EU foreign minister by Gordon Brown. There is also a story that at least some of the EU leaders confused Baroness Ashton with Baron Ashdown (ie Paddy Ashdown, former MP and party leader, diplomat and UN representative for Afghanistan, seemingly a strong CV for the job).

No one seems to be doubting that Ashton was indeed the fourth choice put forward by Brown. The Ashton/Ashdown confusion is something that is just about credible against a scenario where EU leaders are sitting down to a meeting essentially over dinner. Ashdown was better known than Ashton, and his career and UN role do seem to make him a credible candidate.

What seems strange is that these two very senior jobs were decided behind closed doors and as a result of horse trading. It really seems that the foreign role was given to the UK to decide, and the horse trading eliminated UK three figures other leaders couldn't stomach and settled on someone they surely knew little about. If a company in the UK (presumably anywhere in the EU) wants to appoint a middle manager they have to go through an interview process which is transparent, and rejected candidates can (and frequently do) ask for feedback on how they have and have not met the role specification. The idea is that it should both be a fair competition and be seen to be a fair competition with the bets person getting the job. The EU seems to have managed a process which cannot be seen to be fair.

It seems there is a possibility that one day a politician might reveal (say in their memoirs) that the story that Ashton was confused with Ashdown is true.

 

[houtx48]

What kind of power to govern does the position hold. Is it like the head of the united nations which is much like a bully pulpit and not much more? Sorry don't know much about this.

 

[798686]

Didn't know about the Ashdown confusion - he would've been good tho!
We would've been better seeking the trade commissioner role again, or competition, but nm. I kinda think the Baroness will be a bit ineffective.

If the new Pres and Foreign Minister turn out to be damp squibs, it'll give them the perfect excuse to bring Tony in and some heavy hitters. Gives us a couple of years grace tho...

 

[Jason]

What kind of power to govern does the position hold. Is it like the head of the united nations which is much like a bully pulpit and not much more? Sorry don't know much about this.

The powers are set out in Article 18 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which is very brief and so vague it is almost meaningless. Reproduced below in case anyone is interested. The powers are almost entirely open to negotiation.

In reality the powers weilded by Ashton will be relatively modest and most of her actions will scarcely be noticed. It seems pretty clear that she is Brown's fourth choice and even further down the list of the other 26 dinner party guests who would have known little or nothing about her. They feel they can control the frst High Representative. However the Lisbon Treaty is so constructed that powers can be progressively transferred to the role through ratchet clauses. Ashton may not have all that much power but her successors may well have real power within the same role.

Right now we have an unelected senior post with ill-defined powers and ill defined accountability within a system which has been created with a view to increasing those powers over time without increasing the accountability. Even the government of the USSR didn't come up with anything this fiendish.

As with everything the EU does it displays infinite patience. They have realised that there would be problems right now with high profile appointments so they have made them low profile. This will change in a few years' time.

****
Article 18
1. The European Council, acting by a qualified majority, with the agreement of the President of the Commission, shall appoint the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The European Council may end his term of office by the same procedure.
2. The High Representative shall conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy. He shall contribute by his proposals to the development of that policy, which he shall carry out as mandated by the Council. The same shall apply to the common security and defence policy.
3. The High Representative shall preside over the Foreign Affairs Council.
4. The High Representative shall be one of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission. He shall ensure the consistency of the Union's external action. He shall be responsible within the Commission for responsibilities incumbent on it in external relations and for coordinating other aspects of the Union's external action. In exercising these responsibilities within the Commission, and only for these responsibilities, the High Representative shall be bound by Commission procedures to the extent that this is consistent with paragraphs 2 and 3.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Didn't know about the Ashdown confusion - he would've been good tho!
We would've been better seeking the trade commissioner role again, or competition, but nm. I kinda think the Baroness will be a bit ineffective.

If the new Pres and Foreign Minister turn out to be damp squibs, it'll give them the perfect excuse to bring Tony in and some heavy hitters. Gives us a couple of years grace tho...

I hate to disabuse you :biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1: But having just spoken with my best mate who works at the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs and was involved in negotiating aspects of various of the last few EU treaties and regularly has to work at the EU parliament or with the Commission. He says it's really not credible that they could have confused Paddy Ashdown for anyone else and he's not aware of any kind of rumours of that having been the case :biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1::biggrin1: