[Beren]

Not exactly, but regardless, accession talks are accession talks, the intention was always clear.

If the accession talks started in the mid-90's and we joined in the mid 2000's (2004 exactly), then it's fair to say the process lasted for a decade (or so). Anyways, retrospectively speaking I wonder whether they really wanted it or they just had to do it and would have rather offered us an associated country status, but I think they elongated the process as much as possible. It took so long that all the enthusiasm was gone when the enlargement finally happened.

[Rugoz]

If the accession talks started in the mid-90's and we joined in the mid 2000's (2004 exactly), then it's fair to say the process lasted for a decade (or so). Anyways, retrospectively speaking I wonder whether they really wanted it or they just had to do it and would have rather offered us an associated country status, but I think they elongated the process as much as possible. It took so long that all the enthusiasm was gone when the enlargement finally happened.

Eh...they all approved it:

The ultimate goal of the negotiations is to prepare an accession treaty. The accession treaty must be approved unanimously by the Council of the EU and must receive the consent of the European Parliament. The treaty is then signed by each of the EU countries and by the acceding country and ratified by each EU country and by the acceding country, each according to its own constitutional procedures.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ ... SUM:l14536

[Beren]

Eh...they all approved it

Sure they did, but you say they were very keen on it. In my opinion it was the common currency they were very keen on, not the enlargement, the enlargement was something they just had to do sooner or later. The Euro is the only grand vision they have, it takes them a decade at least to materialise anything else they decide. Have they decided to set up a common military indeed? Well, let's see if something will have been done about it by the end of 2027...

[Rugoz]

Sure they did, but you say they were very keen on it.

...the enlargement was something they just had to do sooner or later.

That's how I remember it. Maybe the Germans were more enthusiastic about it than the Hungarians. Of course in retrospective many think Bulgaria and Romania joined too early.

Why's that?

[Beren]

That's how I remember it. Maybe the Germans were more enthusiastic about it than the Hungarians. Of course in retrospective many think Bulgaria and Romania joined too early.

Why's that?

I wonder if anyone was more enthusiastic than Hungarians were in the 90's, and I also wonder if the German leadership can be enthusiastic about anything else than the Euro.

I didn't really follow the enlargement process after we'd joined, but I think Poland, Hungary, and the Czechs were allowed to join too late, which is part of the problem they have right now. It damaged their European identities.

[Atlantis]

Oh please, the EU was very keen to expand Eastwards.

Who wanted EU enlargement? There is no EU government that could have wanted EU enlargement. There were a number of national governments that each wanted different things:

a) The UK government wanted (and still wants) enlargement for:
- consolidating Nato
- enlarging the common market
- stopping European integration (a union of 28 with the rule of a union of 7 can't work)

b) Germany had to want enlargement because it was a condition for German reunification. Kohl made that very clear, when he said that "German reunification must not lead to a division of Europe." In other words, if East Germany gets into the EU, then all East Europeans have the right to get into the EU. The other condition for reunification was the euro to bind Germany to the EU. We wouldn't have had those problems with a two-state solution.

c) Every European country with a democratic constitution fulfilling EU criteria has the right to join. That is why after the dictatorships in Greece, Spain and Portugal, they were welcomed to join to consolidate democratic governance in Europe. The same applies to the East enlargements.

The problem was that, while they formally fulfilled EU membership criteria, they never accepted the values that made the EU possible. Once admitted, they started going back on their commitments. There should have been a transition phase of at least one generation, during which membership can be suspended.

The nuclear option of Art. 7 can't work because it requires unanimity. The only solution now is for core Europe to integrate while the others are left behind until they are ready. Macron is prepared to go down that road, while Merkel wants to keep everybody in the same boat. It'll be interesting to see who wins.

[Beren]

The only solution now is for core Europe to integrate while the others are left behind until they are ready. Macron is prepared to go down that road, while Merkel wants to keep everybody in the same boat. It'll be interesting to see who wins.

Which is the traditional difference between the French and the Germans. The French opposed/hindered German reunification and Eastern enlargement for the same reason, they'd rather have French-speaking Bedouins in the EU I guess.

[Rugoz]

Let me sum up:
- EU council approved of accession talks unanimously.
- EU council approved of membership unanimously.
- EU parliament approved.
- Parliaments of EU member states approved.
- German Bundestag approved with 575 to 1 (4 abstentions).

But hey, nobody actually wanted it, right?

[Atlantis]

Which is the traditional difference between the French and the Germans. The French opposed/hindered German reunification and Eastern enlargement for the same reason, they'd rather have French-speaking Bedouins in the EU I guess.

Why is this a traditional difference between France and Germany?

Everybody hindered German reunification, not just the French. In international relations everything has its price. For example, when the French wanted Morocco, they had to accept that the Brits take Egypt.


For reunification:

- the Russians wanted money (that was easy) and no Nato East expansion. The Germans guaranteed to keep Nato out off East Germany, but couldn't prevent Nato East expansion. They still veto Ukraine membership.

- The Brits and Americans wanted German sovereignty, in other words they wanted the freedom to operate (spying, military, etc.) on German territory without being hindered by German law.

- The French wanted to bind Germany to the West with the euro, so that the Germans wouldn't one day become friendly with the Russians.

Kohl, the fool, signed away Germany's future when he was high on reunification.

[Beren]

Let me sum up:
- EU council approved of accession talks unanimously.
- EU council approved of membership unanimously.
- EU parliament approved.
- Parliaments of EU member states approved.
- German Bundestag approved with 575 to 1 (4 abstentions).

But hey, nobody actually wanted it, right?

They all approved it, the Germans even wanted it perhaps, but nobody was keen on it, the French especially.

Why is this a traditional difference between France and Germany?

Because the French usually stand for deeper integration, whereas the Germans want it more inclusive.

[foxdemon]

http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/europes-mixed-martial-ambitions


This is an interesting article from SG. Basicly the Europeans will now be able to punch a slightly higher than well below their weight....after many studies are done, lots of votes not passed, etc. It is yet another example of the ineffectiveness of EU governance.

Some good points are made. Such as Europe (world’s second biggest economy) still hides behind American protection from Russia. Also of interest is Berlin is a shorter range than Boston for N Korean missiles.

Lots of rhetoric but little substance.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Bad news for EU members actually. A first step to making "secession" more difficult in the future.

[Potemkin]

Looks like we got out just in time.

[Beren]

Looks like we got out just in time.

It became possible because you got out, which is the point actually.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

It became possible because you got out, which is the point actually.

An EU army became possible because the UK got out. More cooperation was always possible, as the Anglo countries demonstrate.

[Beren]

More cooperation was always possible

Literally speaking it was always possible perhaps, realistically speaking Trump and Brexit made it possible, or rather happen.

[Baff]

Poor old Brussels and Strasbourg.
They better hope smart munitions are used.

[Baff]

An EU army became possible because the UK got out. More cooperation was always possible, as the Anglo countries demonstrate.

Why would Anglo countries co-operate with countries dedicated to their downfall?

It is ridiculous to on the one hand build a force to counter anglo forces and on the other hand to expect co-operative relations with said forces. How stupid they must think we are.

[Atlantis]

Why would Anglo countries co-operate with countries dedicated to their downfall?

It is ridiculous to on the one hand build a force to counter anglo forces and on the other hand to expect co-operative relations with said forces. How stupid they must think we are.

What are you talking about Baff? To compete militarily with the Anglos, EU countries would have to at least triple or quadruple their defense spending. Nobody in Europe wants such a thing. On the contrary, an important motivation for military cooperation is to reduce duplication and redundancies and to harmonize hardware so as to reduce cost. Cooperation increases efficiency and will permit cuts in defense spending. The Anglos can go and ruin their economies with an arms-buildup because you can't build anything useful.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! ...