European Union - General discussion

[haku]

Originally Posted by spyretto

How exactly will they unbalance a European Union of over 25+ member states?

The EU will have about 500 million people and Turkey about 100 million at the time of Turkey's proposed membership, that's a significant addition! You don't add 100 million to a group of 500 million without some major disturbance in the European balance of powers, especially when those 100 million belong to a single state.

Originally Posted by spyretto

the EU's parliament can hardly bear any significant weight onto how each member run its business fundamentally.

The EU parliament will have much more power at the time of Turkey's proposed membership, and with 100 million people Turkey would have even more seats than Germany, becoming the major power in the assembly.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Can you tell me a moral issue that the EU has tackled, decided upon and imposed over its states lately?

The EU hasn't had to impose anything in that area lately to its members simply because EU members, even the former communist ones, were already advanced enough to respect human rights as we see it in Europe. But Turkey is not at all in phase with European values, death penalty is still in effect whereas death penalty is forbidden by the EU for example, and not so long ago, Turkish MPs proposed a law that would allow to sentence adultery women to jail, something totally unthinkable in any EU member, the fact that the Turkish parliament can still be working on such backward laws that clearly belong to the Middle-Ages tells volume on the level of advancement of the Turkish society.

Originally Posted by freddie

It's not like we're accepting Syria or Lebanon.

And what's to stop Syria or Lebanon to apply once we've accepted Turkey? Turkey is just as non-European as Syria and Lebanon, accepting Turkey is opening a pandora's box that will cause the destruction of the EU itself, European populations won't accept to see the EU expanding to Asia and North Africa, they already have a hard time with the Eastern expansion, and if European politicians think that they will be able to 'sell' to their populations an expansion of the EU outside Europe, they are totally blind and out of touch with what European people are thinking.
The EU is NOT an empire, it can't expand indefinitely further and further, some final borders have to be set, and the sooner the better. Surveys in France and the Netherlands after the negative votes to the EU constitution have showed that people were concerned by the fact that the EU was expanding uncontrollably and nobody could tell them clearly *where* exactly the expansion would stop. This is a cause of great worries and people now want to know exactly where the EU will stop, they want clear external borders, it is now urgent for the EU to stop its expansion and consolidate the EU as it is now, a final list of future potential members can be defined but that is all, the time for growth is now over, it is time to set final Eastern and Southern borders so people will have a clear idea of the final shape of the EU.

Originally Posted by freddie

What if Israel would want to join once as an European enclave?

Israel and Morocco have actually approached the EU (in the 70s-80s if i remember correctly) to see if an eventual EU membership would be possible, they have both been turned down because they are not in Europe and the decision is definitive.

Originally Posted by freddie

Semitic nations have no place inside the EU?

No they don't, it's obvious that Arab countries do not qualify to join the EU, all Arab countries are in North Africa and the Middle East, clearly outside Europe. Like i said above, Morocco applied for EU membership a few decades ago and it was immediately refused, and this is a permanent decision, the EU has made it clear at the time to its Southern neighbors that the EU would not expand outside the European continent, and Israel was also turned down for the same geographical reasons (not to mention that all those countries have some serious human rights issues, but since they do not meet the geographical requirements, there is no need to go into that anyway).

[freddie]

There's no reason for Israel as a direct result of European history not to be - eventually - accepted into EU - though I'd imagine they wouldn't even want to join these days, seeing as though most European countries had serious reservations on the US "war on terror", which Israel (of course) supported.
Anyway... if you go by that totally ortodox and elitist mindset on who can be qualified as European and who can't then countries like Ukraine or Belarus? And how about Russia? Historically it's just as European as France is.
And no matter what authority the parliament gets it'll never ever get full legislative power like national parliaments have. That's not what it was designed for. So imo there's no real threat of a Turkish political dominance.

[haku]

Originally Posted by freddie

if you go by that totally ortodox and elitist mindset on who can be qualified as European and who can't then countries like Ukraine or Belarus? And how about Russia? Historically it's just as European as France is.

Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine are undeniably European, however those 3 countries are part of another economic organization, the CIS, it is in my opinion best for those countries to continue their development within the CIS which is much more fitted to their needs and level of development. So i am opposed to any of those countries joining the EU.
This is a moo point for Russia anyway, we all know that Russia will never ask to join the EU, Russia still sees itself as a superpower and wants to be at the center of its own regional organization (the CIS) and not simply an additional member to another regional organization (the EU). Furthermore, let's not forget that the oldest EU members have to fund the development of new members which is quite a strain on their finances, and Russia is way too big for the EU, the amount of money required to fund Russia would be unbearable for the EU. So i think it is best for the CIS and the EU to develop separately.
That being said, i think it will be possible at some point to create some kind of North hemisphere trade agreement between CIS, EU, and NAFTA, especially with the Arctic ocean becoming open to new trade routes because of the global warming.

For me, in addition to Bulgaria and Romania that are already scheduled to become EU member states, only the remaining former Yugoslav countries and Albania should be allowed to join the EU. After that, admissions should be permanently closed, the EU will have in my opinion reached its maximum size, that would be 32 member states (possibly up to 35 since Iceland, Norway and Switzerland all have bilateral agreements with the EU that allow them to become members at any time) with a total population of about 0.5 billion. That's enough to have a flourishing internal market and a significant weight on an international level.
And i don't see that as an elitist position, the EU is not the UN, it was never meant to include the whole world, it's a regional union. I just want the EU to only include countries that have enough in common to actually make it work, and i don't want the EU to become too big as it would only end up collapsing under its own weight.

[freddie]

Enough in common? That's just the reason why any kind of European integration was pondered (even before WW2) in the first place: Euro countries, and even the core EU members never had enough in common to coexist in peace without centuries of bloody wars. If anything Europe was the direct consequence of these differences.
I know Russia itself would never venture into a political union with EU - I only gave it as an exampe too expose how bannal that stance on "closing the borders and throwing away the key" is. Though I wouldn't put it past Ukraine to apply for the membership in a few years - especially after the orange revolution. CIS can coexist paralel to the EU.
And while we're on the subject of ex Yugoslav republics - Turkish invasion left a huge influence on Serbia and especially Bosnia - it literaly shaped the two countries and gave them a typical "eastern" mentality. It even gave Bosnia it's official religion. So by your criteria it should be far to estranged by now since such a foreign culture played an integral part in the development of the nation (even their genotype shows turkish influence).

[simon]

Originally Posted by Amber

Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine are undeniably European, however those 3 countries are part of another economic organization, the CIS, it is in my opinion best for those countries to continue their development within the CIS which is much more fitted to their needs and level of development. So i am opposed to any of those countries joining the EU.

What about the Orange Revolution? Ukraine doesn't want to be in the CIS, it wants to be in the EU.

This is a moo point for Russia anyway, we all know that Russia will never ask to join the EU, Russia still sees itself as a superpower and wants to be at the center of its own regional organization (the CIS) and not simply an additional member to another regional organization (the EU). Furthermore, let's not forget that the oldest EU members have to fund the development of new members which is quite a strain on their finances, and Russia is way too big for the EU, the amount of money required to fund Russia would be unbearable for the EU. So i think it is best for the CIS and the EU to develop separately.

Russia in the EU wouldn't work in the foreseeable future. But you haven't given any real reason why Ukraine and a post-revolutionary democratic Belarus shouldn't join the EU.

For me, in addition to Bulgaria and Romania that are already scheduled to become EU member states, only the remaining former Yugoslav countries and Albania should be allowed to join the EU. After that, admissions should be permanently closed, the EU will have in my opinion reached its maximum size, that would be 32 member states (possibly up to 35 since Iceland, Norway and Switzerland all have bilateral agreements with the EU that allow them to become members at any time) with a total population of about 0.5 billion. That's enough to have a flourishing internal market and a significant weight on an international level.
And i don't see that as an elitist position, the EU is not the UN, it was never meant to include the whole world, it's a regional union. I just want the EU to only include countries that have enough in common to actually make it work, and i don't want the EU to become too big as it would only end up collapsing under its own weight.

But it seems completely arbitrary to draw the line at the boundaries of the Hitler-Stalin pact. Moldova, which you would exclude, is a small corner of Romania that was under Russian occupation 1806-1918 and 1944-1991. Do you really think the EU would collapse under its own weight it was admitted too? And why do you regard Ukraine as a less promising EU member than Albania? It's not that big - it's not much bigger in population than Poland, and smaller than the combined eight ex-communist states that joined last year. I can't help feeling it's just because Ukraine has a population of over 50 million and you can't stand the idea of another 'big' country to join France, Germany, Britain and Italy. You don't want France's status diluted.

[YLuelniaa]

Belarus would never join the EU at this point in time given that fact that Lukachenko (dictator) is in power an is isolating his country from EU countries.

[haku]

Originally Posted by simon

What about the Orange Revolution? Ukraine doesn't want to be in the CIS, it wants to be in the EU.

Russia in the EU wouldn't work in the foreseeable future. But you haven't given any real reason why Ukraine and a post-revolutionary democratic Belarus shouldn't join the EU.

My reasons are political and economic. Belarus and Ukraine remain strongly tied to Russia, those 3 countries are still very much interdependent (80 years of soviet economy will do that to you) and they are actually the 3 founding members of the CIS, which tells a lot (the 3 Baltic states refused to be part of the CIS for example, a clear political sign). Russia still considers that Belarus and Ukraine are vital to its national interests and sees the joining of any of them to the EU as a threat, at this stage, it would be unwise to corner Russia and make it feel threatened.
I also think that Ukraine would be too much of a burden for the EU. The first former communist country to join the EU was East Germany when it reunited with West Germany, 15 years later Germany still hasn't recovered from the cost of the reunification, and East Germany had less then 20 million people! The EU just admitted 8 new former communist countries, and 2 more in 2 years, from the East German experience, we can tell that it's going to take decades for the EU to assimilate those new members and bring them up to EU standards, adding to that a former soviet republic like Ukraine with a large population and a totally crippled economic infrastructure would be unbearable.

Originally Posted by simon

Moldova, which you would exclude, is a small corner of Romania that was under Russian occupation

Moldova is a special case, if it were to reunite with Romania, like East Germany with West Germany, that would be acceptable, but i am opposed to Moldova joining as a full member.

Originally Posted by simon

And why do you regard Ukraine as a less promising EU member than Albania?

Well, i don't see Albania joining anytime soon anyway, the country is a mess, but once Romania and Bulgaria will have joined, the remaining western part of the Balkans will be totally surrounded by EU territory, and it will be only natural for those countries to join eventually.

Originally Posted by simon

you can't stand the idea of another 'big' country to join France, Germany, Britain and Italy. You don't want France's status diluted.

That's a legitimate concern and i'm not going to apologize for it, France, Germany and Italy along with the Benelux are founding members, they have dedicated a lot of resources for 50 years to the development of the EEC and then the EU, and of course they have a particular vision for the future of the EU.
I've already said that i am willing to go very far in terms of transfers of sovereignty, i support the idea of France transferring its permanent seat at the UN Security Council to the EU, i also support the idea of France transferring its nuclear capabilities to a future EU defense ministry so the EU as a whole would become a nuclear power. But of course, i'm not willing to do that with just *any* members within the EU.

Anyway, my main point is that the recent eastern expansion of the EU has caused great concerns among western populations, in another post i used the expression "uncontrollable expansion", this is something that i've heard a lot for the last couple of years. Until then, the EU had only grown by small steps, 1 to 3 countries at a time, no more, and with the eastern block, people had a good idea of the maximum shape the EU could take. But with the collapse of communist regimes, everything has changed, and it's not 3, but 10 more countries that have joined during the last enlargement, and we already know that 2 more will follow shortly, and we are already talking of Turkey, Ukraine, even Russia sometimes. From 15 member states, we went to 25 in one step, and people have been told that it could reach 35 or even 40 in the near future! The populations of the oldest members have become extremely worried, they no longer know how many countries will join, they don't know how far the EU is going to expand, and most importantly, they don't know where it's going to stop. This is something i've heard a lot as well, people now want to know exactly what countries the EU will include in its final form, they want to know where will be the final external borders, they want to hear that the current expansion is a final phase and that once it's completed the EU won't get any new members ever.
To me, those concerns that didn't exist before mean that the EU has somehow reached its critical mass, the maximum size that populations are willing to accept, anything beyond that won't be accepted by people and it will only cause rejection and instability within the EU itself. In France the topic of the "uncontrollable expansion" has become so acute, that under public pressure, the government had to go as far as to add a new article to the French constitution, an article that states that from now on, any new candidate to EU membership will have to be approved by referendum, and so if the referendum is negative, France will veto the candidacy of that particular country thus blocking its admission since unanimity is required for a new candidate to be approved.
Those concerns have to be taken into account, enlargement won't be possible if the populations of the oldest members don't support it.

[simon]

Originally Posted by Amber

My reasons are political and economic. Belarus and Ukraine remain strongly tied to Russia, those 3 countries are still very much interdependent (80 years of soviet economy will do that to you) and they are actually the 3 founding members of the CIS, which tells a lot (the 3 Baltic states refused to be part of the CIS for example, a clear political sign).

That was 1991, Ukraine has now come over to the pro-western camp. The argument about economic interdependence could have been (and was) made about the Baltic states 15 years ago. I'm not talking about Ukraine joining now, an obviously impractical notion, I'm talking about in 15 years time. You're saying that the EU must annouce that Ukraine can never join.

Originally Posted by Amber

Russia still considers that Belarus and Ukraine are vital to its national interests and sees the joining of any of them to the EU as a threat, at this stage, it would be unwise to corner Russia and make it feel threatened.

Russia said that about the expansion of Nato. Russia was unhappy about the Orange Revolution, but we were right to back it. We shouldn't kowtow to Russia's desire to dominate its neighbours.

Originally Posted by Amber

I also think that Ukraine would be too much of a burden for the EU. The first former communist country to join the EU was East Germany when it reunited with West Germany, 15 years later Germany still hasn't recovered from the cost of the reunification, and East Germany had less then 20 million people! The EU just admitted 8 new former communist countries, and 2 more in 2 years, from the East German experience, we can tell that it's going to take decades for the EU to assimilate those new members and bring them up to EU standards, adding to that a former soviet republic like Ukraine with a large population and a totally crippled economic infrastructure would be unbearable.

The expansion of the EU isn't like the reunification of Germany. Those kind of huge financial transfers to the new states aren't being made. I agree that the EU is going to have a problem absorbing the new members and Romania and Bulgaria when they join in 2007/8. But once they have been absorbed, the EU could then absorb Ukraine. Economically, it's at a similar level to Romania and Bulgaria.

Originally Posted by Amber

Moldova is a special case, if it were to reunite with Romania, like East Germany with West Germany, that would be acceptable, but i am opposed to Moldova joining as a full member.

I'm sure you know that Moldova can't reunite with Romania because there is a large Russian minority, like in Estonia and Latvia. I don't see why its admission as a member in its own right is a problem.

Originally Posted by Amber

Well, i don't see Albania joining anytime soon anyway, the country is a mess, but once Romania and Bulgaria will have joined, the remaining western part of the Balkans will be totally surrounded by EU territory, and it will be only natural for those countries to join eventually.

But once we've admitted Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Kosovo and Albania, it's going to be rather unfair to say to Ukraine, "those countries can join, but you can't join because France doesn't want any more big member states, only little ones it can push around more easily."

Originally Posted by Amber

That's a legitimate concern and i'm not going to apologize for it, France, Germany and Italy along with the Benelux are founding members, they have dedicated a lot of resources for 50 years to the development of the EEC and then the EU, and of course they have a particular vision for the future of the EU.

This charming French attitude that all EU member states are equal, but one or two are more equal than the others, is what really pisses off everyone else. You know, Chirac's remark about how the new members states had "missed a good opportunity to stay quiet". The idea that if Britain or the Netherlands rejected the constitution they could be ignored or expelled from the EU (as you suggested), but if France rejected it then of course the constitution was dead. I don't think it's acceptable for France to reject Ukraine as an EU member because they don't want another country the same size as them joining. Although I'm pleased that you've been honest enough to admit it.

Originally Posted by Amber

Anyway, my main point is that the recent eastern expansion of the EU has caused great concerns among western populations, in another post i used the expression "uncontrollable expansion", this is something that i've heard a lot for the last couple of years. Until then, the EU had only grown by small steps, 1 to 3 countries at a time, no more, and with the eastern block, people had a good idea of the maximum shape the EU could take. But with the collapse of communist regimes, everything has changed, and it's not 3, but 10 more countries that have joined during the last enlargement, and we already know that 2 more will follow shortly, and we are already talking of Turkey, Ukraine, even Russia sometimes. From 15 member states, we went to 25 in one step, and people have been told that it could reach 35 or even 40 in the near future! The populations of the oldest members have become extremely worried, they no longer know how many countries will join, they don't know how far the EU is going to expand, and most importantly, they don't know where it's going to stop. This is something i've heard a lot as well, people now want to know exactly what countries the EU will include in its final form, they want to know where will be the final external borders, they want to hear that the current expansion is a final phase and that once it's completed the EU won't get any new members ever.

It's already clear that the EU isn't going to admit any country that doesn't have European territory. I do think that accepting Turkey (97% in Asia) is stretching that idea. Beyond the ones you would admit, I don't see a real problem with admitting Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova (when the latter two have become democracies too). I wouldn't want Russia until it's a real democracy, but I still think Russia might change one day, become a real democracy, accept that it's no longer a superpower and start acting like a normal European country. Putting Ukraine and Belarus on the membership track would be a good way to get Russia to wake up and smell the coffee. That's a long way off. France would hate the idea of Russia becoming the biggest member state, but the strategic advantages of Russian membership would be huge. I'd also admit Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan too. That's it - I'm not going to consider Kazakhstan, it certainly isn't a European country.

Originally Posted by Amber

To me, those concerns that didn't exist before mean that the EU has somehow reached its critical mass, the maximum size that populations are willing to accept, anything beyond that won't be accepted by people and it will only cause rejection and instability within the EU itself. In France the topic of the "uncontrollable expansion" has become so acute, that under public pressure, the government had to go as far as to add a new article to the French constitution, an article that states that from now on, any new candidate to EU membership will have to be approved by referendum, and so if the referendum is negative, France will veto the candidacy of that particular country thus blocking its admission since unanimity is required for a new candidate to be approved.
Those concerns have to be taken into account, enlargement won't be possible if the populations of the oldest members don't support it.

There's a lot of concern about Turkish membership in several member states, but it's only in France that the 'Polish plumber' has become a bogey figure. And that's what it's about, not some grand geopolitical strategic vision that French people have. They don't want poorer countries in the EU. The referendum is going to give the French elite a mechanism to get the French public to do their dirty work for them and say 'Non!' to any further expansion. The important thing for the French elite is try to revive the federalist vision. If it means that the Balkans eventually slips back into war, tough. They want to show the other countries it's their way (a narrow but deep federalist union) or no way. Unfortunately for the French elite, the constitution referendum shows that the French public doesn't want either a wider or a deeper union. The EU is going to be stalled - by the French.

[KillaQueen]

Not meaning to disturb your exciting politics discussion, boys , but just to mention something.

Originally Posted by Amber

Moldova is a special case, if it were to reunite with Romania, like East Germany with West Germany, that would be acceptable, but i am opposed to Moldova joining as a full member.

moldova won't be reunited with romania any time soon, because well, that country will only pull us down with its economical and political status. i mean we're already bad enough by ourselves. imagine how we'd be dragging along the poorest country in europe then again, there is the cultural and historical issue. most romanians hate moldovans (we've got an area here called moldova as well, the romanian moldova, to the left of the border with moldova the country; together they used to form the whole moldovan territory which would often change borders - it was either part of romania in its wholeness or part of ukraine - and was definitely split from romania in ww2). there is this popular/traditional belief that moldovans are the laziest and stupidest of all romanians. we even use their names in bad words and mock their russian accent. and plus, we're too busy with our own crap to take moldova under our wing. all we've done is try to restore our language in the area, EVEN THOUGH a good majority of moldovans REFUSE to re-learn it, if you will. plus, ever since '89, romanians don't look eastwards, but suck up to the west, so there you have it. truth be told, under these conditions, i doubt moldova will EVER re-unite with romania.

Originally Posted by simon

I'm sure you know that Moldova can't reunite with Romania because there is a large Russian minority, like in Estonia and Latvia. I don't see why its admission as a member in its own right is a problem.

i'd have to say i agree with Amber here, Simon. i guess you can only compare estonia and latvia to moldova when it only comes to the nearly 50 year period of communist regime, but not after. i mean moldova has 'developed' VERY differently than estonia and latvia. russia has a higher influence on that country than in the baltic states, and the romanians there are only so in ethnicity and/or name. and actually the majority of names are russian there, and there's only a few that take pride in the fact that they are in fact romanians, unlike estonians, for example, where i've seen great patriotism. i mean those people are proud to be who they are, related to finns and all, and detest russians still clinging onto the remains of their power. and lets not forget they went through more or less the same ordeal the moldovans went through during russian domination. yet look at how estonians came out of it, and look at how moldovans ended up. i mean antithesis is the word here. on absolutely all levels. that on the one hand. on the other hand, like i said, moldova is the poorest country in europe. the EU raise their eyebrows at the economical status of romania and bulgaria even, so i dont see why they should even consider moldova as a potential member. then there is the fact that moldova has other internal issues, what with the restless transnistrian area.

[simon]

Originally Posted by KillaQueen

moldova won't be reunited with romania any time soon, because well, that country will only pull us down with its economical and political status. i mean we're already bad enough by ourselves. imagine how we'd be dragging along the poorest country in europe

In 1989, Romania was the second poorest country in Europe (after Albania) and Moldova was significantly better off. Moldova experienced a peculiarly terrible economic collapse after the dissolution of the USSR. A main reason for that is that there was a civil war in 1992-3 when Russia armed and financed the separatist Republic of Transnistria. Russian 'peacekeepers' intervened, shelling the Molodovan side, and set them selves up protecting the Russian separatists in the eastern part of the country. Moldova found itself largely separated from its former markets to the east by Transnistria, effectively an economic blockade by Russia, while its agricultural produce was not of sufficiently high quality to sell to markets to the west. Moldova experienced the worst economic collapse of any post-communist country except Bosnia.

Originally Posted by KillaQueen

then again, there is the cultural and historical issue. most romanians hate moldovans (we've got an area here called moldova as well, the romanian moldova, to the left of the border with moldova the country; together they used to form the whole moldovan territory which would often change borders - it was either part of romania in its wholeness or part of ukraine - and was definitely split from romania in ww2). there is this popular/traditional belief that moldovans are the laziest and stupidest of all romanians. we even use their names in bad words and mock their russian accent. and plus, we're too busy with our own crap to take moldova under our wing.

Romanian prejudice against Moldovans and indeed people from Romanian Moldavia is just that - a stupid prejudice. Moldavia is the least advanced of the three main Romanian provinces, but that's not because Moldavians are stupider than other Romanians, it's because of Moldavia's geography, largely cut off by the Carpathians. Romania sold out Moldova in a territorial deal with Ukraine in 1995. Stalin had taken Moldova's outlet to the sea and given it to Ukraine, swapping it for Transnistria. Romania, the former sovereign power which had given the USSR Moldova under duress, in 1995 signed away Moldova's territorial claims against Ukraine. This was done in a failed Romanian attempt to get into Nato by giving up its territorial claims to the east. Romania didn't care that it was throwing away one of Moldova's bargaining chips. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Originally Posted by KillaQueen

all we've done is try to restore our language in the area, EVEN THOUGH a good majority of moldovans REFUSE to re-learn it, if you will.

That's completely incorrect. About 65% of Moldovans speak Romanian as their first language.

Originally Posted by KillaQueen

plus, ever since '89, romanians don't look eastwards, but suck up to the west, so there you have it. truth be told, under these conditions, i doubt moldova will EVER re-unite with romania.

Romania has indeed sucked up to the west and sold Moldova down the river.

Originally Posted by KillaQueen

i'd have to say i agree with Amber here, Simon. i guess you can only compare estonia and latvia to moldova when it only comes to the nearly 50 year period of communist regime, but not after. i mean moldova has 'developed' VERY differently than estonia and latvia. russia has a higher influence on that country than in the baltic states, and the romanians there are only so in ethnicity and/or name. and actually the majority of names are russian there,

Romanian names were forcibly Russified in Soviet times.

Originally Posted by KillaQueen

and there's only a few that take pride in the fact that they are in fact romanians, unlike estonians, for example, where i've seen great patriotism. i mean those people are proud to be who they are, related to finns and all, and detest russians still clinging onto the remains of their power. and lets not forget they went through more or less the same ordeal the moldovans went through during russian domination. yet look at how estonians came out of it, and look at how moldovans ended up. i mean antithesis is the word here.

It's quite true that Moldovans lack the strong sense of identity that Estonians have. Estonia and the other Baltic States were always the most advanced parts of the Russian Empire and the USSR. More advanced nations dominated by less advanced nations always retain a profound sense of national pride because they strongly regard themselves as superior. Moldova was not advanced compared to Russia, it was largely agricultural. People from less advanced nations often find foreign domination much more challenging to their identity. Moldovans' Romanian identity emerged from Soviet repression much weakened. Moldova's identity had survived the first century of occupation by the Russian Empire (1806-1918) largely intact, but the Soviets were more determined and ruthless, and succeeded to a substantial extent, in a way that they didn't in the Baltic States.

Originally Posted by KillaQueen

on absolutely all levels. that on the one hand. on the other hand, like i said, moldova is the poorest country in europe. the EU raise their eyebrows at the economical status of romania and bulgaria even, so i dont see why they should even consider moldova as a potential member. then there is the fact that moldova has other internal issues, what with the restless transnistrian area.

Moldova is the poorest country in Europe because Russia has occupied part of the country and systematically destroyed its economy. First, Russian occupation of Transnistria needs to be ended. But Moldova also needs help to recover. Free access to western markets and the prospect of eventual EU membership is required.

[haku]

Originally Posted by simon

The referendum is going to give the French elite a mechanism to get the French public to do their dirty work for them and say 'Non!' to any further expansion.

It's kind of a deal that politicians had to make with the population.
It is now clear that the EU constitution (unchanged) will be submitted to a new vote in France after the next presidential and parliamentary elections (2007), this time though, it will be submitted to the parliament to ensure its adoption, not to the population. There isn't even a need to find a justification for the change of method, in France it's the president alone who decide if a vote will go through the parliament or a referendum, and each president takes different decision, so the justification will simply be that the new president has taken a different decision from the previous one. And the fact that both the president and the parliament will have been freshly elected will allow them to say that they obviously have the legitimacy to adopt the EU constitution in the name of the people since they've just won the elections!
However, in exchange for this future parliamentary adoption of the EU constitution, politicians had to give something to the population, some kind of control over what worries people a lot: the expansion of the EU. And this is where the new law of having referendums for each new member get into play. With that law, politicians will be able to say to the population: "Yes, the parliament is adopting the EU constitution, which is good for the country, but the people will now have control over the expansion of the EU and will be able to veto any new member they don't approve of".
That's the deal.

Originally Posted by simon

Unfortunately for the French elite, the constitution referendum shows that the French public doesn't want either a wider or a deeper union.

It's a bit more complicated than that, the left wing of the socialist party, the communist party, and various extreme left parties that caused the 'no' to win the referendum are not anti-EU, and they are certainly not anti-federalist, quite the contrary, what they are is anti-capitalistic.
They rejected the EU constitution because they think it is too liberal, too close of the ultra capitalistic US model, those people indeed want a deeper EU, they support the idea of a highly centralized EU, they want an EU president directly elected by the people, they want a central government, they want centralized public administrations. For example they are opposed to the privatization of electricity companies and to have an open EU market where all electricity companies from all EU members can compete, they see that as the US ultra capitalistic way of doing things and they don't want that for Europe. What they want is to create at the EU level what was done at the national level of many European countries, they want the nationalization of all electricity companies in the EU and their merging in a huge EU public company which would have a monopoly within the EU, same thing for railroads or the post office, they want an EU railroad company and an EU post office.
Basically, they want to keep the same level of quality in social and public services that most European countries currently have, and they don't want those national public services to compete with each other in a big capitalistic EU market, they want those national public services to merge in order to create EU public services.
They want a social Europe, not a capitalistic jungle like in the US or China for that matter.

So even though those people on the left have voted no to the EU constitution, it's only because they see it as capitalistic, they want a socialist constitution, they are indeed in favor of a much more deeply integrated EU with highly centralized administrations. And this is why they are also opposed to a further expansion of the EU, because they consider that the priority is to strengthen the EU with its current members, they see the expansion as a way for big private companies to expand their market and to exploit workers in the poorest new members by paying them 10 times less than what they pay in older members (but still selling their products at the same price which means huge profits for a few and poverty for millions), putting workers in older members out of jobs or blackmailing them into accepting lower salaries.

[haku]

Slovenia to join Euro zone in January 2007.

Slovenia is going to adopt the Euro next January. Congratulations to Slovene people for being the first former communist country to reach EU economic levels and monetary standards.

[freddie]

Thanks!

It's gonna be a bitch to get used to those big-value Euro coins... if you drop a coin worth 1 or 2 Slovene Tolars you aren't really bothered to go back and look for it, or even arch your back and pick it up if it's right in front of you. Now I'm presuming we're gonna see many people on the floor looking for their lost 5 Euro coins (1 Euro= approx. 240 Slovene Tolars). So the Euro will literaly bring us to our knees by default.

Estonia was scheduled to adopt the Euro as well, but they pulled out at the last moment. I was kind of surprised since their economic growth is blistering. They could have easily adopted it without any major shake-ups.

[coolasfcuk]

Bravo Slovenia.. and we cant even get IN yet wonder how those things happen

Originally Posted by freddie

. Now I'm presuming we're gonna see many people on the floor looking for their lost 5 Euro coins (1 Euro= approx. 240 Slovene Tolars). So the Euro will literaly bring us to our knees by default. \

there are 5 euro coins? I only recall 1 and 2 ... 5 is a bill, no?

[freddie]

Originally Posted by coolasfcuk

Bravo Slovenia.. and we cant even get IN yet wonder how those things happen

Don't be hurt. It's just business.

Originally Posted by coolasfcuk

there are 5 euro coins? I only recall 1 and 2 ... 5 is a bill, no?

Yeah, apparently so. I could have sworn I saw a 5 Euro one somewhere. Must have been dreaming. 2 Euro is still huge though. 480 Tolars in a single piece of crafted metal. Yikes. We have a big bill for 500 now.

[haku]

Originally Posted by freddie

Estonia was scheduled to adopt the Euro as well, but they pulled out at the last moment.

I didn't know Estonia was planning to and pulled out, strange indeed. With their ties to Finland, it can only be a positive step for them.
Oh well, joining the Euro zone is a yearly process, they can refile next year.

Originally Posted by freddie

I could have sworn I saw a 5 Euro one somewhere. Must have been dreaming

Must be, there's never been a 5 euro coin.

[spyretto]

They just postponed it for later i think. There will be more countries joining in 2008 ( correction ), Lithuania, Cyprus among others.
Well, i haven't seen the 5 euro coin either. Maybe soon, though.

[dradeel]

Heh.. EU. Funny thing this. The Norwegian populations have said no twice, and I have split feelings... I'm thinking no only because I'm afraid of changes and the fact that our economy will possibly be weakened by the membership.

But I'm thinking yes as I'm a big supporter of the European Union and having a big powerful union competable with USA, China, Russia and so on. European countries are small, but together we do posess a great deal of might and influence. Allthough I really would favor a Scandinavian Union I guess EU is a good second choice. Hehehe.

I've tried to read through some of issues that has been brought up in the discussion (I know it's an old one tho), and I agree with haku pretty much over the whole line. However, I hope Switzerland will never join EU and stay out of any european issues as far as possible. I admire Switzerland for its democracy and independance. Hehe. Complicated to explain, but it's just my thought of the dream country really I'm not ruling out the fact that I'll move to switzerland sometimes if I get the choice. Hehe.

Hmm... but Norway won't join EU any time soon tho. The Red-green government had to make some agreements to make it possible to rule together, and the little green shitty party got their say in that - no EU-membership. (I dislike the red parties as well tho. Hahaha. Half-socialistic shitty parties.) Anyways, I hope we're able to rebuild a great blue bastion to the election in 2009. They have talked about a voting over a EU-membership sometimes in 2010 or the first following years. I think today that I will vote yes.

[Linda16]

Originally Posted by haku

I didn't know Estonia was planning to and pulled out, strange indeed. With their ties to Finland, it can only be a positive step for them.
Oh well, joining the Euro zone is a yearly process, they can refile next year.

We wanted to join the Euro zone in January 2007.
However, Estonia has decided to postpone its euro zone entry until January 2008. The reason: high inflation.

Citing higher than expected inflation figures, the government of Estonia has decided to put off the country's joining the euro zone by one year, to 1 January 2008. On 26 April, the Central Bank of Estonia, Eesti Pank, released its latest inflationary projection for 2006, which increased the previous figure from 3.2% to 4.4%. The ceiling set by the Stability and Growth Pact is currently at 3%. According to Estonian officials, the criteria for joining the euro zone could be met by the second quarter of 2007, which would enable the country to adopt the common European currency in 2008. The government will adjust its National Changeover Plan accordingly.

According to EU rules, the inflation rate of the new euro zone entrants must be within 1.5% of the average of the three EU countries with the lowest rates. For now, Slovenia appears to be the only country that could join the euro zone in January 2007.

Source: http://www.euractiv.com/en/euro/esto...article-154767

[fanoff]

Originally Posted by haku

Well, i don't see Albania joining anytime soon anyway, the country is a mess

albania is going to take its place in EU in 2010.Its not a big problem for some but the ones who think we should be an Eu member cant stand that a little country that will always be futrher to follow the eu standarts is joining that community sooner than us.Turkey doesnt even have a date ahead.Greeks and Cypriot greeks have the weapon not to agree the membership.but our prime minister is not that convinced by them.anyway well wait and see whats gonna happen