Article

2004-12-06 Europe

Chirac sets three conditions for Turkey's EU bid

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-12-06 6:07:55 PM|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Chirac's the conditions:

1) Turkey must declare eternal emnity with the U.S.
2) Turkey must change the name of the country to 'Jacquesland'.
3) Chirac to get $1 billion in a secret numbered Swiss account.

Posted by AJackson 2004-12-06 6:50:28 PM|| 2004-12-06 6:50:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 "It must reliably be ascertained that hell has frozen solid. Verification is the key."

Posted by Matt 2004-12-06 7:02:11 PM|| 2004-12-06 7:02:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 First, it must be clear to Turkey that negotiations could end with much less than full EU membership, Mr Chirac has insisted, according to the Financial Times.

Or, put another way, "you will probably not get what you want."

Mr Chirac has also underlined the ultimate right of the French people to reject Turkish EU membership in a referendum.

Phrance is only one of many members. What about the others? Don't their votes count? Or does Phrance have sole veto power?

Heh, it looks like the Turks are at the end of a losing proposition. And to think, they gave the U.S. the shaft for nothing. Haahahahaha...

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-06 7:25:38 PM|| 2004-12-06 7:25:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 What about the others? Don't their votes count?

Every country has veto power when EU accepts new member states. Which is as should be, I think.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-12-06 7:30:55 PM|| 2004-12-06 7:30:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Blackballed at the Nuclear Club...

Posted by mojo 2004-12-06 8:08:18 PM|| 2004-12-06 8:08:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 So, Aris, if France wanted someone in, Belgium could veto it? Uh-huh.....

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-06 8:12:49 PM|| 2004-12-06 8:12:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 It's just like the King's of Poland, Aris. And we all know where that got them.

Posted by Asedwich 2004-12-06 8:13:11 PM|| 2004-12-06 8:13:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Every country has veto power when EU accepts new member states.

Sounds as if one no vote will torpedo the whole deal, and any one country can say no. Could have the potential to make some people pretty angry, with consequences to follow.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-06 9:53:19 PM|| 2004-12-06 9:53:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 So, Aris, if France wanted someone in, Belgium could veto it? Uh-huh.....

Yes, it could. That's the meaning of the word "veto".

Now if you want to debate that it *wouldn't* because that wouldn't be prudent on its part and ruin valued partnerships and so forth, all that's self-evident, but it has nothing to do specifically with the EU, with France, or with Belgium.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-12-06 10:00:00 PM|| 2004-12-06 10:00:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 :-( Back to realpolitik and Franco-hegemony, is it?

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-06 10:07:26 PM|| 2004-12-06 10:07:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 France sure has a lot of Gaulle. [ok, that being said]

Chiraq is just toying with Turkey like a cat plays with a ball or a mouse. If I was the Turkish govt, I would be furious, insulted, humiliated, and would tell Chiraq just where he would stick it.

The EU has lots of issues to be dealt with before it can have a chance to succeed. But Chiraq's manipulation and his twisted agenda will sink this entity faster than anything. If the EU members don't tell him to take a hike, they can watch the organization go down the tubes.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-12-06 10:16:43 PM|| 2004-12-06 10:16:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 That's your game, not mine.

The wisdom of pissing on the collective desire of 24 other nations is something that all states have to deal with, great or small. That's why solo vetoes tend to be counterproductive IMO. Spain and Poland once blocked the Constitution -- when Spain yielded however, Poland decided it wouldn't do her good to be alone in its objections. So it also yielded rather than veto alone.

"realpolitik"? That's not the way the word is used AFAIK. Realpolitik basically means the giving up morality for benefit. I'm talking about the imprudence of pissing on your partners instead. You veto them, they'll veto you -- and it might hurt more when your turn comes.

And Francohegemony? Alas, most solo vetoes have come from the UK, I believe, so Britohegemony, I'd say.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-12-06 10:18:17 PM|| 2004-12-06 10:18:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 "Every country has veto power when EU accepts new member states. Which is as should be, I think."
I understand you mean that this is a good thing.

"The wisdom of pissing on the collective desire of 24 other nations is something that all states have to deal with, great or small. That's why solo vetoes tend to be counterproductive IMO."

Oops, are you now saying this is a bad thing? Or are you saying it's intentionally designed as a bad thing, so you can piss and moan and gripe and bitch about those nasty nations that exercise the sole veto they're entitled.
"Alas, most solo vetoes have come from the UK, I believe, so Britohegemony, I'd say."
Oh, those damned blasted Brits! Their filthy nationalism and imperialism! Damn them all to burn in hell for exercising the rights granted them as a member state of the Holy EU!

Or not, Aris? It's really rather tiresome, to be so nuanced as to avoid any sort of discrimination whatsoever.

Lest anyone suggest that this is Aris-bait, please note that the door was left wide open.

For fun reference:
"The pacta conventa, imposed on Henri de Valois, in 1573, put all important power in the hands of the diet, fixing the times and places of the sessions, as well as the length of each session. In spite of the unanimous agreement declared necessary to give force to the decisions of the diet, a majority of votes governed in its deliberations up to 1651. Sycinski, a deputy from Upita, gave at that time the first example of the liberum veto, annulling, by his protest, all deliberations taken and to be taken. This abuse, tolerated at first, was constitutionally recognized in 1718, and placed the country, so to speak, at the mercy of a single man. In this way diets were seen broken up by a single veto, pronounced even before the opening of the session. It sometimes happened that the author of the veto, when the gauntlet was thrown down to him, carried his opposition with him into the tomb, and in that way restored full liberty of action to the deputies. The liberum veto was abolished at last by the constitutional diet, which lasted four years, from 1788 to 1792, and which gave to Poland the wise constitution of May 3."
http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Lalor/llCy370.html

Posted by Asedwich 2004-12-06 10:58:14 PM|| 2004-12-06 10:58:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I believe the more 'correct' term would be Anglo-hegemony.

Posted by Pappy 2004-12-06 10:59:57 PM|| 2004-12-06 10:59:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Thanks, Pa, I missed that one. Sorry about the misplaced apostrophe.

Posted by Asedwich 2004-12-06 11:13:59 PM|| 2004-12-06 11:13:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Chirac is probably saying Turkey is going to have to accept an inferior status compared to other EU members. We have already heard of immigration restrictions. Turkey will probably not get agricultural subsidies and will get cut out of industrial coops. If France can get enough poison pills in preconditions,Turkey might say no thanks.

Chirac and the referendum bit is saying Turkey will have to convince the French populace-NOT the French govt.(Chirac is trying to guarantee that his successor doesn't have option on saying Yes to Turkey.)

Posted by Stephen 2004-12-06 11:32:33 PM|| 2004-12-06 11:32:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 No problem and no worries, Asedwich. I think France will veto, and to heck with the consequences.

Posted by Pappy 2004-12-06 11:33:22 PM|| 2004-12-06 11:33:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Asedwich> "I understand you mean that this is a good thing."

Yes, I feel the veto must exist because membership and sharing sovereignty is a huge thing. It's only through the existence of the veto when deciding membership (and ofcourse through the possibility of withdrawal from the Union), that abolishing the veto in other lesser decisions is justified.

Oops, are you now saying this is a bad thing?

No, I'm not. The existence of the possibility of the veto in membership is a good thing. It's a safety measure.

At the same time however the veto is a sign of *failure*, failure to convince the other nations of the rightness of your position. It's a last resort.

For years and years Greece was the one that was using the veto against Turkish membership not as a last resort but as an automatic kneejerk reaction. "Turkish memb--?" "We veto!"

It was a stupid tactic that (among other issues) helped keep Greece isolated from the rest of the EU members. Everyone was pointing at big bad Greece that was stopping the European integration of Turkey. And then suddenly Greece decided to call the bluff of other nations and said that now it *supports* Turkey's EU membership.

At which point other nations, France, Germany so forth, were forced to stop hiding behind Greece's veto and they brought forward their own objections -- they didn't want Turkey in the EU either. See? The veto was counterproductive in Greece's case. It helped her none at all.

Alas, most solo vetoes have come from the UK, I believe, so Britohegemony, I'd say." Oh, those damned blasted Brits! Their filthy nationalism and imperialism! Damn them all to burn in hell for exercising the rights granted them as a member state of the Holy EU!

Yes, exactly. Yawn.

Do you know the difference between "should have the right to do" and "should do"?

For example, I think that everyone should have the right to do drugs. At the same time I despise the very idea of people doing drugs.

Is that "overnuanced" for you? I see it only as a matter of freedom and responsibility. Yes, UK is only exercising the rights given her by the treaties -- that's "freedom". And yes, I have the right to call the UK an obnoxious sabotaging ass that should burn in hell, when I feel its abusing those rights in order to harm the rest of the Union. That's "responsibility".

On other matters, and to make myself clear, I support the existence of the veto when deciding membership. I oppose however the veto in every other decision.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-12-06 11:36:52 PM|| 2004-12-06 11:36:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Of course France will veto. They've got enough problems with unassimilated muslim population, the EU "free travel" rules would open the floodgates...

Posted by mojo 2004-12-06 11:38:46 PM|| 2004-12-06 11:38:46 PM|| Front Page Top

14:45 Anonymous
00:20 Sock Puppet of Doom
00:03 lex
23:57 CrazyFool
23:57 lex
23:47 Mike Sylwester
23:38 mojo
23:36 Aris Katsaris
23:33 Pappy
23:32 Stephen
23:20 ex-lib
23:16 ex-lib
23:13 Asedwich
23:12 Asedwich
23:12 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:11 mojo
23:06 ex-lib
23:03 Frank G
23:02 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:01 Asedwich
23:00 Frank G
22:59 Pappy
22:58 Frank G
22:58 Asedwich