The post that was quoted here has been removedYep. And there's not really much that we can do about it beyond raising awareness.
If the EU opened talks to let Russia in, there would at least be a legitimate claim to measure and point the finger at the lack of transparency (by imposing more transparency as a condition for accession).
Until then, it's only words in the wind that actually do more harm than good as Russians tend to be very, very sensitive to anything that might be seen as interference with their sovereignty.
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree with letting Russia into the EU under stringent accession requirements, but do you think, given Russias sensitivity to such impingements on their sovereignty, that they'd roll with it? More likely they'd pitch for compromises and increased economic and resource ties, which as the gas troubles last year showed, are a dangerous thing to be depending on Russia for.
Yep. And there's not really much that we can do about it beyond raising awareness.
If the EU opened talks to let Russia in, there would at least be a legitimate claim to measure and point the finger at the lack of transparency (by imposing more transparency as a condition for accession).
Until then, it's only words in the wind that actually do more ha ...[text shortened]... be very, very sensitive to anything that might be seen as interference with their sovereignty.
I think we should simply press the awareness issue, reduce dependancy on Russian resources (something we've already been doing with our gas supplies in the last 15 months) and hope in the next 20 years to see a Russia more capable of democratic dealings with which we can hold more constructive accession talks.
Also, any further talk of accessions should be put on hold until the treaty has been passed. (touch wood)
Originally posted by agrysonI think that if the EU posts a unilateral offer, then people will start thinking about it. I don't think Putin would be the first to jump on it, of course, so it will take time.
I agree with letting Russia into the EU under stringent accession requirements, but do you think, given Russias sensitivity to such impingements on their sovereignty, that they'd roll with it? More likely they'd pitch for compromises and increased economic and resource ties, which as the gas troubles last year showed, are a dangerous thing to be depending on ...[text shortened]... rther talk of accessions should be put on hold until the treaty has been passed. (touch wood)
The thing is that it provides a legitimate target for the alternatives within Russia. It gives them a clear objective, other than "we want to be richer and live better lives", and one that Putin's style cannot provide.
PS: I also think that the EU should NOT bargain accession conditions. The reason is that acession conditions should be the same for everyone. Is it 'fair' or 'ethical' that the EU unilaterally imposes conditions? Yes. The EU has no obligation to expand and the EU is also sovereign.
Originally posted by PalynkaOh, I agree with everything you've said, but I wasn't referring to accession conditions, it was more that Russia would likely opt out of key points in several of the treaties during the accession period which would make it a hairy time for all concerned.
I think that if the EU posts a unilateral offer, then people will start thinking about it. I don't think Putin would be the first to jump on it, of course, so it will take time.
The thing is that it provides a legitimate target for the alternatives within Russia. It gives them a clear objective, other than "we want to be richer and live better lives", and ...[text shortened]... mposes conditions? Yes. The EU has no obligation to expand and the EU is also sovereign.
I also stand by my opinion that the EU should halt all further expansion until we've ratified the current treaty and streamlined our institutions.
Originally posted by agrysonPerhaps. I'm just very anti-federalist so I don't see what's the rush. I like the rotating presidency system and I feel the subsidiarity principle is the cornerstone of the EU project that I cherish the most. There has been some pressure to change these points, so I'm not in favour of changes if they go in that direction.
I also stand by my opinion that the EU should halt all further expansion until we've ratified the current treaty and streamlined our institutions.
Originally posted by PalynkaAh, yeah, I'm a federalist and see the treaty as too watered down. The treaty itself is kind of necessary though? It maintains individual sovereignty while providing for Union wide decisions to be made, which given our economic ties is becoming increasingly necessary. Any further accessions would grind the decision making powers of the Union to a halt.
Perhaps. I'm just very anti-federalist so I don't see what's the rush. I like the rotating presidency system and I feel the subsidiarity principle is the cornerstone of the EU project that I cherish the most. There has been some pressure to change these points, so I'm not in favour of changes if they go in that direction.
As for the subsidiarity principle, the new treaty fortifies it rather than weakens it. As far as I'm aware, teh new treaty doesn't overly affect the rotating presidency either.
Originally posted by agrysonHow does it fortify it? It removes veto powers and decreases the majority needed to approve decisions. This reduces the need for either overall consensus and the incentives for decisions where some countries can opt-out.
As for the subsidiarity principle, the new treaty fortifies it rather than weakens it. As far as I'm aware, teh new treaty doesn't overly affect the rotating presidency either.
With this treaty, the rotating presidency would also be over with a president elected by countries' representatives for an office of 2 1/2 years.
Originally posted by PalynkaBut the decisions it would be making would still be the ones that can only be made at Union level, the definition of subsidiarity. What the treaty does is improve the decision making process so that the Union can make these decisions more effectively, reducing the need for member level legal fudges.
How does it fortify it? It removes veto powers and decreases the majority needed to approve decisions. This reduces the need for either overall consensus and the incentives for decisions where some countries can opt-out.
With this treaty, the rotating presidency would also be over with a president elected by countries' representatives for an office of 2 1/2 years.
As for the rotating presidency, the timetable is already set until 2020, and that's for the Council which as far as I'm aware is relatively unaffected president wise, I think the presidency you're referring to is presidency of the Parliament.
Originally posted by agrysonThe changes I mentioned are indeed for the Presidency of the European Council.
But the decisions it would be making would still be the ones that can only be made at Union level, the definition of subsidiarity. What the treaty does is improve the decision making process so that the Union can make these decisions more effectively, reducing the need for member level legal fudges.
As for the rotating presidency, the timetable is already s ...[text shortened]... d president wise, I think the presidency you're referring to is presidency of the Parliament.
Originally posted by PalynkaHmm, then I really messed up, sorry about that. Though the subsidiarity as to the decision making power of the president is left intact. That's a question, ratehr than a statement, I'll obviously have to go back and have another read of the treaty!
I think the schedule you mention is either in case the treaty isn't approved or maybe because the change will enter in force around 2020. I don't know which... But the changes are for the PoEC, this I know.