European Union - General discussion

[spyretto]

The main objection has to do with the fact that its largest part belongs to Asia both geographically and culturally; so does its capital. Another reason is that Turkey is a very poor country. A third reason is that it's not a very democratic country. Some stress its distinct religious and cultural difference with the rest of the EU. Are those enough reasons?
Say, I think Puerto Rico is more American than Turkey is European. Why is it not part of the US? I see no reason why it shouldn't be

[thegurgi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Say, I think Puerto Rico is more American than Turkey is European. Why is it not part of the US? I see no reason why it shouldn't be

It's because the Puerto Ricans like being a territory, for some reason.

I know the objectiosn, bu they seem so silly. And Turkey isn't THAT poor, it's not as bad off as Moldova, or Haiti or some African countries (Haiti and Moldova are two of the poorest countries on the Planet)

I think the reason is the free passport, I'm sure there are people uncomfortable with that thought... but i still think it's sillyness

[spyretto]

If that's what it means to be European, then ummm, I guess, Canada, The States, Australia and most of South America are pretty European eh? But i'm sure you'd whine just as much if we were admitted to the Union as well... which we wouldn't be... we've got our own little union (but it's debatable about it's success)

I think the Union was made so that Europe can become an economic superpower again and reduce the aforementioned countries to mere spectators. So Canada, the US, Australia and the rest joining would be a no-no Though, personally, I'd like to see Canada join
Are we getting a bit rediculous here?

Careful not to confuse Hungary with Moldova. Poor Moldova is officially the most destitute country of Europe, while Hungary's economy is doing quite well, in fact it's one of the new member states. Hungary's economy is a lot better than Bulgaria's or Serbia's. As for Moldova they are to join the EU sometime in the next century.

[thegurgi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Careful not to confuse Hungary with Moldova. Poor Moldova is officially the most destitute country of Europe, while Hungary's economy is doing quite well, in fact it's one of the new member states. Hungary's economy is a lot better than Bulgaria's or Serbia's. As for Moldova they are to join the EU sometime in the next century.

i made a mistake, i meant to say HAITI... i dunno why i said Hungary... i fixed it

Originally Posted by spyretto

I think the Union was made so that Europe can become an economic superpower again and reduce the aforementioned countries to mere spectators

That's the ticket i believe...

[spyretto]

Haiti or Jibudi, Burkina Faso, Netherland Antilles...

I think we should go back to the US elections thread - for our Europeans amusement - and wait for the decision about Turkey's membership. As it stands right now, Turkey will be monitored for the next 15 years by the EU and if they meet all the requirements they will join. The EU is also in a position to stop any negotiations should they see that the democratization of the country is not moving as it should be.

I think the reason is the free passport, I'm sure there are people uncomfortable with that thought... but i still think it's sillyness

An educated guess...as well as the fact that you can freely live and work in another member state indefinitely, and basically enjoy the same rights as everybody else...

[haku]

Originally Posted by thegurgi

I always thought the EU was an economic issue

The EU is a political and economic union, it's the only organization of this kind in the world, it's almost a confederation.

When a country joins the EU, a part of its sovereignty is transfered to the EU, legally an EU member is no longer fully sovereign.
France has had to modify its constitution a dozen times in 50 years to transfer parts of our sovereignty to the EU.

Like a federal state, the EU has an executive branch (the EU commission), a parliamentary branch (the EU parliament), a judiciary branch (The EU Court of Justice), and a central bank.

The EU has a lot of powers over its member states, the EU can force a national government to apply a law for example, the EU can also declare null a law voted by a national parliament which is in contradiction with EU laws.
In a lot of ways, the EU has more power over its member states than the Federal US government over the US states.

Within the EU, borders no longer exist, any EU citizen is free to settle and work wherever they want, any EU citizen can buy whatever they want in any member states, money and goods also travel freely as if the EU was one single state.

The EU is also about redistribution of money among member states, the richest member states pay a lot of taxes to the EU, this money is then redistributed to the less rich members.

If you don't understand why EU citizens are discussing the admittance of Turkey as a member, try to imagine what kind of debate there would be in the US if Mexico was bound to become the 51st state of the United States of America, it is of the same magnitude.

Originally Posted by thegurgi

i'm sure you'd whine just as much if we were admitted to the Union as well.

Excuse me... I whine?

Are you denying me the right to debate about what people will become co-citizens of mine, about which country is going to participate in the writing of laws i'll have to abide by?

[spyretto]

If you don't understand why EU citizens are discussing the admittance of Turkey as a member, try to imagine what kind of debate there would be in the US if Mexico was bound to become the 51st state of the United States of America, it is of the same magnitude.

exactly!

But I have a better idea: since thegurgi has mentioned Haiti, I'd propose Turkey to be the 51th state. They're a long-term US ally and they've more in common than Haiti has with the EU - CNN a la Turk, for example...

[thegurgi]

Originally Posted by haku

, try to imagine what kind of debate there would be in the US if Mexico was bound to become the 51st state of the United States of America, it is of the same magnitude.

i think it'd be cool if Mexico became a State... i also think it'd be cool if a state succeeded too, so how knows how i feel, i'd be fine with both Haiti and Turkey... i also like the idea of Newfoundland becoming a state....

Originally Posted by haku

Are you denying me the right to debate about what people will become co-citizens of mine, about which country is going to participate in the writing of laws i'll have to abide by?

--- and what the hell is wrong with Turks then? why would it be SO HORRIBLE to have a different view put in?

I think people seem to forget that you know, we're all human, and no matter how many stupid labels you find ways to divide us... we're gonna have to realise that we're all just people, and maybe that will end some the stupid crap that's going on... it's a simple as that. Tolerance...

sorry to get into a little "can't we all get along tangent" but it's really pissing me off (it's election time and every pro-life and fastidious conservative is telling me i'm going to hell... i'm a bit on edge)

[haku]

Originally Posted by thegurgi

what the hell is wrong with Turks then? why would it be SO HORRIBLE to have a different view put in?

Right now, Turkey is run by a fundamentalist muslim party which, among other things, is planning to vote a law to send adultery women in jail, only women, not men guilty of the same felony.

Call me crazy but i don't want that kind of people in the EU parliament at Strasbourg voting laws i'll have to follow.

Of course there's nothing illegal about adultery in any European country, not since the 19th century anyway.

That just shows the huge gap that there is between European countries and Turkey, Turkey still lives in the 19th century.


That's ironic, we are the ones being called close-minded because we don't want Turkey to join the EU, but at the same time political opponents are tortured in Turkish prisons and people praise Turkey for being such a great country.

[thegurgi]

Why don't you think about how than the Europeans could affect the Turks then instead of vice versa? Why is it never a positive thing... like "Hrmm, maybe we could help the Turks" instead of just turning away and letting them pass those votes, and if they came into the EU, than would the majority be AGAINST that law and it be shut down? ... you have yet to sway me on how this is BAD thing?

[spyretto]

Originally Posted by thegurgi

Why don't you think about how than the Europeans could affect the Turks then instead of vice versa? Why is it never a positive thing... like "Hrmm, maybe we could help the Turks" instead of just turning away and letting them pass those votes, and if they came into the EU, than would the majority be AGAINST that law and it be shut down? ... you have yet to sway me on how this is BAD thing?

You're probably right but let the politicians decide whatever they want to do. Nothing that you, haku or I say will make any difference ( unless there's a referendum on whether Turkey should join. ) It's damn politics anyway...

[haku]

Originally Posted by thegurgi

you have yet to sway me on how this is BAD thing?

Well, i'm not really trying to convince you, i'm just saying what i think.

But i've already said several times why i think it's a bad thing.
I'm what we call a Eurofederalist, i want the EU to become eventually a tightly integrated federation. I support the German project for the future of the EU, which is basically applying the German model to the EU scale, each member state becoming a "lander" of the EU.
I want European nations to fade into one single European nation. I want a strong federal government and i want an EU president directly elected by EU citizens.
I want one single army for the EU, and when the time comes, i want France to transfer its nuclear weapons to the EU armed forces and to transfer to the EU its permanent seat to the UN Security Council.
Eventually, we won't be a sovereign state at all, but just a part of a larger one.
This is a huge task, one that will take generations, and it can only be done with countries that share a common culture, a common history, common languages.

Turkey belongs to a totally different cultural area, one that stretches from Turkey in the west to the Uighur region in China in the East and includes most of the countries that end in "stan" in between.
Turkey happens to be in 'contact' with the European cultural area, but it is not a part of it, it won't fit, it's just too different. It will block all EU decisions, the EU will be in a deadlock.
For people like me, once Turkey is in, the dream of European unification is dead.


France will have a referendum on the admittance of Turkey anyway, and i'm convinced that the "no" will win. The latest polls showed that about 80% of people are against it, even the 10% of French citizens who are of Arab origin and mostly muslim are against it (they see Turks as a threat for their jobs).

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Show me where you got that. Or is it your personal view? But if you think that way, Turkey should not have pursued to join the EU in the first place. Does it make sense?

How many EU member coutnries are muslim?

Originally Posted by spyretto

UK is a member of the EU

Exactlly.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Personal opinion or fact?

See my first response.

Originally Posted by spyretto

Very welcome, indeed, if... and it won't be in 20 years. For now there's not much to be said, because you express your opinion which might be proven right or wrong. I think it will be wrong, and we'll known about it very shortly.
I have faith in my fellow Europeans that they're neither bigots nor racists.

Having fait is one thing. Having blinders is another.

Originally Posted by spyretto

As for Moldova they are to join the EU sometime in the next century.

Well, they have 97 years to get their economy on track.

Originally Posted by haku

When a country joins the EU, a part of its sovereignty is transfered to the EU, legally an EU member is no longer fully sovereign.

WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON, WRONG WRONG. Oh, did I say this is wrong?

Country can enter an agreement that states that certain decisions are not made by that county. But if country has ability to withdraw from that agreement they retain sovereignity.

Some Himalaian states have agreed to allow India to conduct their foreign affairs. As they can withdraw from this at any point they maintain their sovereignity.

[spyretto]

Welcome back

I think there are only a few muslim countries around Europe anyway; and none of them is partucularly strong economically. But they belong in Europe, so eventually they're to be allowed into the European Union if they wish and make progress towards that goal.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Welcome back

I think there are only a few muslim countries around Europe anyway; and none of them is partucularly strong economically. But they belong in Europe, so eventually they're to be allowed into the European Union if they wish and make progress towards that goal.

Don't count on it....

[simon]

I don't think Turkey should be admitted to the European Union unless it changes completely, but it would be a big mistake to reject them now. It would just confirm all the negative opinions that Muslims have about Europe. I'm pleased that they've said that Turkey and other post-2004 will have to face much tougher assessments of actual implementation of the policies Europe insists on than the new ten did. I'm still very unhappy that the Czech Republic and Slovakia were admitted when they discriminate so much against Gypsies. But if they were really serious about it, they wouldn't have given Romania a clean bill of health for entry in 2007 - there are still problems with treatment of Gypsies, torture and lack of child protection. All this talk that it will be 10 or 15 years before Turkey is admitted, that's allowing us to spin out indefinitely negotiations with Turkey. But maybe it's just a ruse and then they want to wrap up the negotiations much faster.

I'm certainly not a Eurofederalist, in fact I opposed Maastricht (although fortunately it turned out to be nothing like as federalist in practice as it looked on paper) and the Euro. But I think there's a difference between countries like Britain, Denmark and Sweden, which are sceptical about the Eurofederalist project, and Turkey. Its voting weight would always be on the conservative side and make it almost impossible to enact any progressive measures.

[haku]

Originally Posted by simon

I don't think Turkey should be admitted to the European Union unless it changes completely, but it would be a big mistake to reject them now.

Well, i don't think Turkey should be admitted to the EU ever, but i don't think it should be rejected either, but there are other ways than EU membership to achieve that.

Originally there were two competing organizations in Europe, the EEC (Benelux, France, Germany, Italy) which represented the French-German vision for Europe with economic and political integration (inspired by the BENELUX agreements), and the EFTA (Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, UK) which represented the UK vision for Europe with only economics in view. At some point, for a reason that i have never understood, the UK decided to leave the EFTA to join the EEC even though it didn't agree with the EEC project (it was a big mistake to accept the UK in the EEC in my opinion).

Then the EEC evolved into the EU and several EFTA members joined the EU, but the EFTA still exists today (it has 4 members: Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein). Nowadays the EU and the EFTA are no longer competing, the EU and the EFTA have even created a new organization called the EEA which creates a free trade zone between the EU and the EFTA members that agreed to it (Switzerland refused to adhere to the EEA).
Basically, the EEA was designed for countries who want to be a part of the economic area of the EU but don't want to be a part of the political integration of the EU.

Personally, i would have no problem with Turkey joining the EFTA and the EEA, that way Turkey would be economically tightly integrated with the EU (which is the only thing that interests Turkey) but would remain outside the political aspects of the EU (which don't interest Turkey). I think that would be a satisfactory solution for everybody.

I'll add that with the adoption of the EU constitution which is a step forward federalism, the eurosceptic members of the EU are going to have to make a clear choice. The EU constitution has no chance of being adopted in the UK for example (i don't know for Denmark and Sweden), once the UK has rejected the EU constitution, it will be a logical conclusion in my opinion that it should withdraw from the EU and go back to the EFTA/EEA, that way the UK will continue to enjoy the free trade market with the EU but won't have to deal with the political side of the EU which it profoundly rejects and despises.


For people who are not Europeans and my not be familiar with the acronyms:
EEC: European Economic Community
EFTA: European Free Trade Association
EEA: European Economic Area

[simon]

Your EEA idea is interesting, but I can see a number of problems. First, Turkey has been an associate member since 1963, so it's not just about trade. There are other reasons for being in the EU rather than having an associate status, a point which I'll return to later.

Second, being in the EEA now brings with it the right to free movement. Since one of the major obstacles to Turkey's EU membership with the French and German publics is the prospect of Turks getting free movement, that would be a political difficulty.

Third, another reason why Turkey would want to join, just like Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia wanted to join, rather than be in EFTA is because of EU regional aid. Being so poor, Turkey would be entitled to a lot of regional aid.

Fourth, EFTA isn't exactly a thriving organisation. Norway and Iceland are considering joining the EU. Without them, the only other EFTA members would be Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and only Liechtenstein is in the EEA.

Fifth, would Switzerland let Turkey into EFTA? I can imagine the Swiss reacting with even more disfavour to the idea of letting Turkey in and so granting Turks free movement to Switzerland (Switzerland has a free movement agreement with the EEA) than the French and German publics. I mean, these are people who won't even let people of non-Swiss ancestry born in Switzerland become citizens!

Why did Britain join if we don't believe in federalism? We joined because EFTA was free trade with a few small countries. The EEC was free trade with the other big countries in western Europe. At the time, there was no free trade between the two, because the EEC wanted to break EFTA. It only became more friendly to EFTA after Britain left.

At the time, the EEC itself was little more than a free trade area and a huge subsidy scheme for farmers, particularly French and Italian ones. The British didn't much like the idea of subsidising the French, but felt the other economic benefits were worth it. The British also joined to counter the French. If Britain hadn't wanted to do that originally, that was certainly the intention after General de Gaulle said 'non' to the British application in 1963.

Countries like Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU in recent years because if you aren't in the EU you have to comply by many EU standards if you want free trade. So you have to follow the rules without having a say in them. It's better to be, as President Johnson once said, inside the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in.

Regarding Britain having to leave if it rejects the EU constitution, we aren't the only ones who are likely to vote no in a referendum. Denmark and Poland are both likely to vote no too. Polls suggest that the Dutch and even the French might vote no. If the French people say 'non' to the constitution, do you think France should have to leave the EU? Or are some EU members more equal than others, haku?

The problem for European federalism is that the people of Europe don't want it. European integration has been a project of the political elites. The British and the Danes have been the awkward squad for many years, but nearly all the new members are anti-federalist too. That's why the constitution turned out to be such a small step towards federalism. The populations of these countries don't want to hand any more power to the European institutions. Some of that is because of a suspicion of centralisation (which I share) and some of that is because of nationalism (which I don't share), but it's a fact that Eurofederalists are going to have to face up to.

[haku]

There is a big difference between the certain no of the UK to the constitution, and the possible no of France to the constitution.
The UK is going to vote no because it doesn't want a constitution at all, in France the socialist party is thinking about calling for a no vote because it thinks the constitution doesn't go far enough and is too liberal, the socialist party wants a stronger more federal constitution, it doesn't want France to leave the EU, it wants an even more integrated EU than what the constitution proposes.

I'm not saying that the UK should be kicked out of the EU, but i do think that after it rejects the constitution, the UK will have to reassess its position. For the past ten years the UK has rejected every further integration in the EU, at the last EU elections (if i'm not mistaken) the BNP has made a huge score, from what i've seen in British media, the large majority of British people want the UK to leave the EU, the British tabloids trashes the EU every chance they have and are also campaigning for the UK to leave the EU. If the British people are so unhappy about being in the EU, why force them to stay in? The UK should withdraw, the British people would be much happier obviously.

Whatever happens, the constitution is a turning point for the EU. Next year, the EU member sates will be divided in two groups, those that will have adopted the constitution, and those that will have rejected it. The EU will have to be reshaped, because there will be a huge gap between the members tied together with a common constitution which will continue toward further integration, and the "outsiders" which will remain pretty much where they are now.

[simon]

Originally Posted by haku

There is a big difference between the certain no of the UK to the constitution, and the possible no of France to the constitution.
The UK is going to vote no because it doesn't want a constitution at all, in France the socialist party is thinking about calling for a no vote because it thinks the constitution doesn't go far enough and is too liberal, the socialist party wants a stronger more federal constitution, it doesn't want France to leave the EU, it wants an even more integrated EU than what the constitution proposes.

The irony is that the main effects of the constitution is to reduce the number of areas where nations can use their vetoes. Who caused the introduction of the veto? France.

I'm not saying that the UK should be kicked out of the EU, but i do think that after it rejects the constitution, the UK will have to reassess its position. For the past ten years the UK has rejected every further integration in the EU, at the last EU elections (if i'm not mistaken) the BNP has made a huge score

The BNP didn't do very well. It was the UK Independence Party (UKIP) that did very well, with 15%. They're not neo-fascists like the BNP, they're just xenophobic right-wing nationalists.

from what i've seen in British media, the large majority of British people want the UK to leave the EU

No, in a recent poll only 22% wanted to leave the EU, although another 29% wanted a less integrated EU. Even putting both Eurosceptic options together, that's only just over half. The British people are pretty evenly divided between pro- and anti-Europeans. It's just that a large majority oppose the constitution - only 21% would vote in favour, according to another poll.

If our referendum is last and all the others are carried, then they will tell us that we have to vote yes or leave. Faced with a forced choice of the EU constitution or leaving, perhaps most people will prefer to stay in the EU. I expect that Poland and Denmark will vote no first and we'll vote no in solidarity, so they don't get picked on.

the British tabloids trashes the EU every chance they have and are also campaigning for the UK to leave the EU. If the British people are so unhappy about being in the EU, why force them to stay in? The UK should withdraw, the British people would be much happier obviously.

The British people don't really want to leave. They just enjoy complaining about the EU.

Whatever happens, the constitution is a turning point for the EU. Next year, the EU member sates will be divided in two groups, those that will have adopted the constitution, and those that will have rejected it. The EU will have to be reshaped, because there will be a huge gap between the members tied together with a common constitution which will continue toward further integration, and the "outsiders" which will remain pretty much where they are now.

We'll have to see how many countries vote no. Legally, the constitution can't enter into force unless all members agree. There's no provision for a country to leave the EU (the constitution will create a procedure for secession). I don't know how a two-speed Europe would work where some countries agree to majority voting and others can opt out. I think they'd go back to the drawing board and agree a new much more modest treaty.