Changes to Borders in Europe

[Commodore]

Have they actually overstepped their authority?

No, they haven't. That post was more of a response to those who think the EU should have a say in such a matter.

The EU does not have sovereign authority over its member states, no matter how much it's supporters wishes it did. I think supporters of the EU forget that fact and also forget that member states are allowed to make their own decisions even if they go against established EU policy or EU interests. And they should be allowed to do so without being threatened with statements like the one Synsensa made. Such statements show that whoever makes it does not see all members of the EU as equal partners for international cooperation, but rather see them as nothing more than vassal states that should just do what Brussels wants without any argument or dissent.

That's not how the EU is supposed to work. Hell that's not even how the US works. Even in the US, each state has at least some autonomy to set its own policies and push back against federal policies that conflict with its own interests. And for clarification, I'm not saying that kind of autonomy doesn't exist in the EU, I'm just saying I find it very odd that some EU supporters see such autonomy as a negative that weakens the EU rather than a positive that makes it stronger.

 

[Synobun]

It's not a threat. The EU has the authority of possessing an opinion. The states in question may not be required to abide but it's generally good sense to not antagonize a body that, for the most part, is a net positive for the states in question. If the EU's opinion is particularly problematic to a state, they are free to leave.

 

[AmazonQueen]

It's not a threat. The EU has the authority of possessing an opinion. The states in question may not be required to abide but it's generally good sense to not antagonize a body that, for the most part, is a net positive for the states in question. If the EU's opinion is particularly problematic to a state, they are free to leave.

I think you two are arguing over a non-issue here
The nearest I can recall that the EU has come to an opinion over a border issue is saying that if somewhere like Scotland or Catalonia seceded from the state they are currently part of they would not automatically become a member but would have to apply.

 

[Commodore]

It's not a threat. The EU has the authority of possessing an opinion. The states in question may not be required to abide but it's generally good sense to not antagonize a body that, for the most part, is a net positive for the states in question.

It is a threat. You just essentially said "abide by the EU's opinion, or they will make life uncomfortable for you." That's a threat. And a threat the EU has shown it will make good on given their proposals for sanctions against rebellious members like Poland.

If the EU's opinion is particularly problematic to a state, they are free to leave.

Are they? Given what's going on with Brexit and how the EU is making the whole process as difficult and uncomfortable for the UK as it possibly can, it would seem one is not free to simply leave the EU.

 

[Synobun]

It is a threat insomuch as saying "screw you" to a friend may result in that friend not being as eager to help you out in the future. The EU is reliant on its signatories being team players.

They're free to leave the EU, but economies that have been intertwined with it for decades obviously have some overhead to work through in order to do so.

 

[Commodore]

It is a threat insomuch as saying "screw you" to a friend may result in that friend not being as eager to help you out in the future.

Except it's not so much them saying "screw you" as it is them saying "stay out my personal matters that don't concern you." Just because you are friends with someone doesn't mean they have the right to inject their unsolicited opinion into every aspect of your life.

And if a friend is not willing to help you out simply because you disagreed with them, then that friend is a bad friend.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Every single matter the EU has a say on, is regulated in the traties UK signed in its day. So it is not a "personal matter" anymore.

The EU is an extremely complex mountain of relationships of all kinds with very solid legal foundations. If you get in, you are not going to get out easily, it is going to be traumatic per se.

On the oher hand the remaining members are going to look for his own interests, individually and through the EU institutions, which are there to protect member's interests after all.

So it is more like the UK saying "screw me".

 

[brennan]

Borders would seem to be a national security and sovereignty issue. Afaik EU treaties explicitly say such matters are the affair of individual countries and not subject to EU rulings.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Again, the EU is a whole juridical system with laws based on the treaties signed by the member states. If any EU institution at any level had ruled against or beyond EU laws, any offended member, as the UK in this case, could simply appeal to EU's justice tribunal and get it abolished with all the consequences for the offender. Has this happened?

 

[The_J]

Could we just have all our lands back please ?

 

[Traitorfish]

It sounds good until you think about the precedent it sets.

The existence of both Serbia and Kosovo as independent states is itself precedent for drawing and redrawing borders along ethnic lines, this is just fine-tuning. Leaving it to diplomats rather than warlords can't be our least-bad option.

 

[innonimatu]

As long as Hungary and Romania stays in the union, there's no reason to move the borders around. Same with Sud-Tirol, the border areas in Scandinavia or Alsace-Lorraine/Grand Est between France and Germany.

Know what happened when someone gave a chunk of land away to another country because they were in a union and it wouldn't matter?

 

[Cheetah]

Know the difference between a chair and an electric chair?

 

[Silurian]

This is a land swap. In none of the other examples you give would there be any possibility of a land swap.

But sure, if two countries agree to modify their common border, why shouldn't they be able to do so?

It is also a people swap.

In 2001 there was fighting to the north of Skopje.
My wife watched on many evenings from an apartment block balcony Mi-24s strafing villages 10km to the north.
I think that the people who were fighting thought that there was a possibility of the border being moved.

Countries are free to modify their common border unless there is some treaty restricting the change.

The problem is the precedent that it sets.
It gives hope that other ethnic groups can get the border changed where you think there is no possibility.
And where there is hope but no possibility there is often war.

Why should the EU be consulted at all? Member states are still sovereign nations and should be allowed to make such decisions without "approval" from Brussels.

Well the EU is hosting talks between Serbia and Kosovo. So if Serbia and Kosovo put up the border for discussion by definition they are asking for comment from the EU. The EU has not rejected the idea but is cautious.


https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/eu-ministers-wary-of-kosovo-serbia-border-changes/


The EU has been involved in talks for a few years. See Quote and link Wiki article on 2013 Brussels Agreement.

15. An implementation committee will be established by the two sides, with the facilitation of the EU. .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_Agreement_(2013)

Or the EU can stop overstepping their authority.

Serbia and Kosovo are not in the EU but are in talks to join it. As such the EU has been given an interest in their counties by Kosovo and Serbia.

It is a threat. You just essentially said "abide by the EU's opinion, or they will make life uncomfortable for you." That's a threat. And a threat the EU has shown it will make good on given their proposals for sanctions against rebellious members like Poland.

So if some Caribbean Island raised the possibility of the Chinese building a small naval base to help boost the economy the US would express no opinion. What if the island also wanted to become the 51st State.

The US has expressed a positive opinion over the possible Kosovo and Serbia border swap, did they overstep their authority. If the US feels it can express a positive view for one outcome of a negotiation it is by implication giving itself the possibility of also disagreeing with that outcome.

Could we just have all our lands back please

?

No.

The existence of both Serbia and Kosovo as independent states is itself precedent for drawing and redrawing borders along ethnic lines, this is just fine-tuning. Leaving it to diplomats rather than warlords can't be our least-bad option.

I would agree with you for the most part I just do not think it is a good idea to start chopping up countries again in Europe again along ethnic lines.

 

[Traitorfish]

I would agree with you for the most part I just do not think it is a good idea to start chopping up countries again in Europe again along ethnic lines.

I would agree if there as a clear indication that Balkans states were moving towards civic identities, but I'm not sure that's the case. In the mean-time, any move that might be seen to reduce ethnics tensions is at least understandable.

You're right, though, that a lot of this depends on how it is perceived elsewhere, whether it's accepted as a final, delayed bit of tidying-up after the breakup of Yugoslavia, or as opening the door to a new wave of irredentist claims. My hope is that Serbian and Kosovar leaders have the sense to frame this as an equal exchange, that each are gaining as much as they're losing and losing as much as they're gaining- although I'll admit that I'm not nearly well enough acquainted with Balkan politics to pretend that assumption is well-founded.

 

[Silurian]

If the people who want divisions along ethnic lines get the upper hand it will be at the expense of the people who what to identify with the country rather than their ethnic and or religious background.

After this land with population swap there will still be Serbs in Kosovo and some Serbs in Serbia will be transferred to Kosovo and vice versa. So there will be some happy people and some unhappy people, unhappy people make more noise than happy people.

The Prime Minister of Kosovo does not think the swap is a good idea.

From Irish Times

Kosovo prime minister Ramush Haradinaj has warned that any land swap with Serbia “would mean war” and called on world leaders to swiftly quash an idea that he believes only boosts Russian efforts to destabilise the Balkans.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/wor...r-change-with-serbia-would-mean-war-1.3611717

 

[warpus]

In 2001 there was fighting to the north of Skopje.
My wife watched on many evenings from an apartment block balcony Mi-24s strafing villages 10km to the north.
I think that the people who were fighting thought that there was a possibility of the border being moved.

Countries are free to modify their common border unless there is some treaty restricting the change.

The problem is the precedent that it sets.

I feel sympathy for your wife and the other people affected by that particular situation, but I also don't think it's fair to limit everyone's ability to perform civil agreements just because a couple morons somewhere are using these dynamics to cause harm to others.

I agree that first and foremost the rule of law and treaties must be followed.

 

[Silurian]

I feel sympathy for your wife and the other people affected by that particular situation, but I also don't think it's fair to limit everyone's ability to perform civil agreements just because a couple morons somewhere are using these dynamics to cause harm to others.

I agree that first and foremost the rule of law and treaties must be followed.

There was some BBC correspondent talking on the radio a few days ago about how he was interviewing an ordinary family in Bosnia when someone come into the room and said they had just shot the postman. The BBC correspondent said the family were quite pleased that one of the other were dead even though all he had done was deliver letters.

 

[Hrothbern]

If the people who want divisions along ethnic lines get the upper hand it will be at the expense of the people who what to identify with the country rather than their ethnic and or religious background.

After this land with population swap there will still be Serbs in Kosovo and some Serbs in Serbia will be transferred to Kosovo and vice versa. So there will be some happy people and some unhappy people, unhappy people make more noise than happy people.

The Prime Minister of Kosovo does not think the swap is a good idea.

From Irish Times



https://www.irishtimes.com/news/wor...r-change-with-serbia-would-mean-war-1.3611717

wow
If I understand that article correctly the President and the PM of Kosovo disagree,
and the EU, NATO, US and Putin are also involved in some way.

If it only would be a swap between two countries, preferrably having a proven track record of stability and reliability.... reliable nations.... it would be just that: a swap.
But apparently it isn't. It is more a pawn move on the chessboard with complications. And who is interested in that ?

 

[innonimatu]

It is my guess also, from what scant information I found, that this is being proposed from outside (read: the ones who created Kosovo the supposedly independent country), because the situation created in Kosovo remains untenable. And it won't be a solution.