Volt EuropaApr 22

The EU's current "veto" system is like a car with square wheels. When one country hits the brakes, everyone stops. We can’t wait for the least ambitious politician to act on climate or defence.

Volt supports a "multi-speed" Europe: a coalition of the willing. An inner core can move toward a United States of Europe today, while others join when ready. This "European onion" model keeps us moving forward without leaving anyone behind.

https://volteuropa.org/news/why-volt-embraces-a-multi-speed-europe

#Volt #EUpol #NoVeto #Veto #EU

Show threadJochenDerSucherApr 22
@VoltEuropa A really great article by #Volt #MEP Reinier van #Lanschot, very much recommended. I particularly like the footnote "Volt considers any country in which a majority of the population has democratically expressed an aspiration for EU membership to be a European state" 🙂 (no, I am not joking). This reminds one immediately of #Canada, of course. Anyway, I cannot understand the claim that membership of Canada in #EU was impossible. Article 49 says nothing about non- european countries.
Show threadVeza85UEApr 22

@JochenDerSucher @VoltEuropa I'd love to hear all the Canada yearners try to argue the "Any European State" bit of Art. 49 in front of CJUE. Genuinely... why? Also, what makes any EUropean longing for a good anglo to look up to (now that the previous holders of that status both caught brainworms) think that a resource-rich country on another continent would want to be under the jurisdiction of the CJUE?

Wouldn't that energy be best devoted to getting the CETA stragglers to ratify it? #CanadaJar

Show threadJochenDerSucherApr 22
@Veza85UE @VoltEuropa No point in "looking up" to somebody. With Canada as a member, the EU would quite certainly be stronger, that's all. And why I think such a country *might* want to join the EU - did you hear about the latest polls? We should at least not exclude the possibility. If - and that is, of course, a big if - but if Canadians should really want to join the EU, we should enter the normal negotiations and see whether it fits.
Show threadVeza85UEApr 22

@JochenDerSucher How would the EU be stronger with ANY extra members under the current Treaties, let alone one on another continent that doesn't even have an internal Single Market of its own and lives on top of a meth lab?
We don't need to exclude the possibility, EU law already does, it does not fit and Canadians answering those polls have NO idea what the EU is or what adopting the acquis entails. The question is: why do EUropeans not know and why do they value the 🇪🇺 so little?

@VoltEuropa

Show threadJochenDerSucherApr 23
@Veza85UE @VoltEuropa Sure, different opinions are possible about the question whether it makes sense to admit Canada to the EU. And I agree that the existing integration should not be weakened by extending the EU, no matter whether we are talking about Canada or any other country.
My problem is this: People like to claim that article 49 forbid entry of non-european countries into the EU. When in fact, this article talks about european countries, but doesn't say a word about
1/n
Show threadJochenDerSucherApr 23

@Veza85UE @VoltEuropa countries outside Europe. At least in my logical understanding, this means that the article does not forbid entry of non-european countries into EU.
And what about Cyprus, which belongs to Asia geographically? Also for Turkey (which is not a member, but a candidate) it is questionable whether we should call it a european country.

2/2

Show threadVeza85UEApr 23

@JochenDerSucher I'm glad you mentioned the country that controls the access to the sea around which the current war against the EU is being fought, as well as crucial trade routes and is a key player in the continent's security architecture and has been for CENTURIES, and yet it is somehow less desirable as an EU member than Saskatchewan.

So can I ask...: why should we not call Turkey a European country?

(Cyprus is not an Asian country either.)

@VoltEuropa

Show threadVeza85UE

@JochenDerSucher "this article talks about european countries, but doesn't say a word about countries outside Europe."

Why WOULD it? What kind of constitutional logic is that? It doesn't mention Mars or Jupiter (despite it being orbited by a moon named Europa) either, does that mean we're colonising them and putting them under the jurisdiction of the CJUE?

The German GG doesn't mention Ukraine. Does that mean it gets to "join" as a German Land if it so wishes?

@VoltEuropa

Apr 23 at 9:21pmWeb
Show threadJochenDerSucherApr 23
@Veza85UE @VoltEuropa well the point is just that the article grants a right to some countries, but from that we cannot conclude that we could not grant the same right to other countries if we want, without contradicting the article. Note that it does *not* say that *only* european countries may join.
Show threadVeza85UEApr 23

@JochenDerSucher Because it doesn't need to, that's not how Constitutions work. Yes, yes we can conclude exactly that, that's what "European state" means.

Again... I don't understand the NEED for these mental contorsions. "Makes the EU stronger" isn't an argument, it's just vibes. No extra veto does. Bulgaria and Sweden trade more freely with each other inside the EU's ricketty, incomplete Single Market than Saskatchewan and Manitoba do inside Canada. The EU is not a miniUN, it's

@VoltEuropa

Show threadVeza85UEApr 23

@JochenDerSucher not an NGO, it's not a theme park with trade agreements.

Besides, if the Canada yearners cared about trade, they'd put this effort of recovering their lost anglo betters into convincing the 10 EU states that haven't ratified CETA yet to do just that.

@VoltEuropa

Show threadJochenDerSucherApr 25

@Veza85UE @VoltEuropa Some final notes from my side:
I do not "yearn" for Canada. Not at all. But if Canada should, for whatever reason (perhaps an aggressive neighbour?), desire to become an EU member, I would suggest to simply begin negotiations, which could then lead to Canada's membership, or some "privileged partnership", or just fail.

1/n

Show threadJochenDerSucherApr 25

@Veza85UE @VoltEuropa
We should not claim that such membership is forbidden by article 49 (as it has been done when that discussion came up again recently, just like last year, when we also had that discussion already).
Such claims are what frustrates me, because they are based on flawed logic. That (almost) all swans are white does not mean that everything that is white is a swan (more formally: A => B does not imply B => A).

2/n

Show threadJochenDerSucherApr 25

@Veza85UE @VoltEuropa
And yes, I am convinced that logic can, and should, be applied to legal issues. That's all. If that for you are "mental contortions", then so be it.
If, however, someone comes up with an article in the EU treaties that *really* forbids membership of countries outside Europe, well, then that's a different story.

3/3