NationStates Jolt Archive

Which nations should be accepted into the EU? (multiple answers are accepted)
Balkan follow-up question:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416622

I am agianst the E.U. but if my country should ever join (hope not) the E.U. I think it should only be open to Western European nations and never the couple or few nations that just have a small part of their lands on the European continent like Turkey and
Russia for i.e.

P.S. For those who voted for otion nr. 3. You will not see Iceland joining soon or in our lifetimes for that matter. Tyrant organization the E.U. is.

Also in otion nr. 3 the author forgott one E.F.T.A. nation, Liechtenstein.

It's Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Swiss.

What about the "Let everyone in" option?

Turkey, Russia +every (other) nation in Europe should be allowed to join when they are ready for it
E.g. Bulgaria and Romania which are going to join EU in 2007 are certainly not ready for it. Even the people in those countries think it's way too fast. They are not ready for the capitalism needed in EU countries.

Yes to Balkans

I am agianst the E.U. but if my country should ever join (hope not) the E.U. I think it should only be open to Western European nations and never the couple or few nations that just have a small part of their lands on the European continent like Turkey and
Russia for i.e.


A small part of their land on the European continent like Russia?
The small part of Russia is bigger than any other nation in Europe.

I know about Liechtenstein. I figured that people who would approve of Switzerland would also approve of Liechtenstein. Just trying to keep the poll verbage to a minimum. ;)

A small part of their land on the European continent like Russia?
The small part of Russia is bigger than any other nation in Europe.
But most of it isnt.

In my opinion, every country must be able to join the EU.
But they must be ready and they must not be to far from the EU, I will explain:Sudan is a bit to far, but when Egypt and they other North African states has join the EU, Sudan is near the EU and if they are ready, they must be able to join.

Turkey, Russia +every (other) nation in Europe should be allowed to join when they are ready for it
E.g. Bulgaria and Romania which are going to join EU in 2007 are certainly not ready for it. Even the people in those countries think it's way too fast. They are not ready for the capitalism needed in EU countries.

The '07 date is provisional - if the criteria for membership are not met by then it will be delayed until such time as the accession states have met the social/economic progress targets.

The '07 date is provisional - if the criteria for membership are not met by then it will be delayed until such time as the accession states have met the social/economic progress targets.
I know, but believe me, Bulgaria will be a member of EU in 2007. I'm not 100% sure of Romania. Most of the new members didn't met the criteria when they joined EU (nor did Italy or Greece) but it didn't matter and it won't matter with Bulgaria either.

Romania could still be a bit too far behind.

But most of it isnt.
And 114 500 000 Russians live in Europe and only 32 500 000 in Asia.

And 114 500 000 Russians live in Europe and only 32 500 000 in Asia.

source, please?

i agree with european nations joining, but not north african ones. russia should be allowed, for even though most of it is in asia, the political idiology places it in europe. also, if it isnt concidered european enough, then they should change to asia for all sporting things, which isnt going to happen. turkey is a borderline thing, but i thing that its political idiology is more coherent to europe as well as the aforemention sporting ties. on the other hand, i dont believe israel should join as it would be pushing it a bit, and could strain relations with other middle east countries, not to mention, unlike russia and turkey, no actual part of israel is in europe.

anyone who can meet the human rights requirements should be let in. Which means Turkey is boned.

Oh, and Britain ought to leave

Which nations should be accepted into the EU? (multiple answers are accepted)
Balkan follow-up question:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416622

I have nothing against the eastern-european countries, but they should do something about...well, most things before they join in. I think they get accepted a bit hastily. I mean Poland for example is going to cost the EU a fortune. They're improving alright, but right now I consider them a bunch of peasants, really. But then again, EU already consists of the likes of Italy and Greece and their economies aren't exactly blooming either. But what the hey, sooner or later everybody's gonna be a member anyway.

source, please?
äääähh...google it yourself. Russia's population is 147 (about) million and about 32,5 million of them live behind Ural mountains.

http://www.russiansabroad.com/russian_history_89.html
more than 75% of the population lives in Europe
http://www.stalvik.com/Engelska/laesiberia.htm
Out of Russias 146 million inhabitants only about 30 million live in Siberia...

All european countries should be allowed to join.
Turkey is important symbolically if allowed. It would have an massive positive impact upon Europe/Middle East relations, and help diffuse tensions. Conversely, Turkey not being allowed to join would have a negative impact on EU/Middle East relations, especially considering the efforts being made by Turkey to qualify.
Russia doesn't need to join, but should be able to if they choose to and meet the requirements.

The Eastern European Nations, Turkey and the North African nations should certainly be 'allowed'.

But then the EU is going to fall apart anyway. :D

At the moment EU is really rushing up a bit. In order to build a global balance of power it's important to have a strong Union, but accepting countries that are not 'ripe' isn't doing any good. Turkey, for example, would need loads of agricultural benefits, more than EU is capable of paying. The question of Northern African nations is in my mind irrelevant. Cultural differences are so great I doubt they would even want to join.

It's a question about when but not who. Every country should have the opportunity to join when
a) they reach the democtratic standards of the EU countries
b) the EU is able to work with more members (unlike now)

Personnaly I'm all for the Trade Union that the EU was originally set up to be. A means to make trade easier for its members. It made sound economical sense, and I supported that. What it is turning into is a political union, its trying to become the United States of Europe essentially. Someone somewhere wants to be a superpower. Call me cynical but thats what its gearing up to be. :)

hmmm most of the voters think that EU should try to get Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland (Liechtenstein) to join. Why is that? "Should try to get" sounds too pushy. They can join if they want to but why should we put any pressure on them? Doesn't make sense to me.

Or do you want more rich nations to pay for the costs?

Of course the EU needs more rich countries, but those stingy countries refuse to join. BTW it's a conspiracy, soon the entire world will be ruled from Brussels.

North African Countries and Turkey should not be allowed to join. Other then that all European states are welcome. Although in the case of Eastern Europe it should not have been rushed like they did.

North African Countries and Turkey should not be allowed to join. Other then that all European states are welcome. Although in the case of Eastern Europe it should not have been rushed like they did.
agree with north african, dissagree with turkey. turkey has to many ties on other levels that if it isnt included, sets a precedent. turkey is in the european region for so many sports it isnt funny. the only thing is: has turkey and greece buried the hatchet (and not in each other)?

Turkey should join when they are declared ready to join, which will be 10 years minimum or 20 years from now. Turkey has to change it attitudes on many things before it should be allowed to join. Same with Russia, lawless place where the government does as it wishes while still declaring itself a democracy. I cannot see Russia joining and acting like a normal state, they are too used to having an Empire (Soviet "Empire" and the Russian one before it, and their CIS circle of influence today); they would want the capital of the EU moved to Moscow or something.
North Africa and some Middle Eastern countries have a chance of joining in the long term but they would need huge reform, and they are so culturally different I am not sure they could ever join. It is possible there will be some other organization formed which is almost membership of the EU but not quite (there are similar organizations today but I am not sure if they would work for the Middle East). Israel (after a Palestinian state is formed) or maybe a reformed peaceful Lebanon could be the first Middle Eastern countries to join (not counting Turkey of coarse).
Ultimately being European is as much about common ideals as it is about geography.

I'm against any and all international government organizations - UN, EU, you name it!

The money issue is not worth raising. Portugal was whining because it is by EU standards poor and they will lose much EU money to the new countries. Italy has received much money to improve roads. Spain was a weak economy when it entered and is now fairly strong. I think that the EU should form a military force and other political ties. Not to begin a new cold war, but to help other countries. The main issue would be cultural differences on foreign policies.

As I see it right now, most of Europe will eventually join. The question is only when. If Europe is ever formally made one country, I doubt it, it will take decades, maybe a century or even more.

A common currency, constitution(granting civil rights but leave much to the members), military, etc. is what is more likely. Such a federation would be opposed form both left and right(left calling it imperialistic and right being against giving up supreme sovreignty).

The problem I see with Russia and Turkey(apart from their "interesting" political systems) is the population size. The big four(UK, France, Italy, and Germany) will work against any threat against their influence. We got a taste when they pushed down Poland and Spain(both having about 40m people) to remain strong.

If Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Turkey, etc. joins the power will go east. Russia will have more influence than France and Germany(according to population size) and Turkey will have substantial power as well. The Ukraine has smaller population than the big four but I expect their views to be similar to Russian and neightbouring nations'.

The old Western members will oppose Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine. I mean, the opposition against the recent enlargement was enormous. And that wasn't too far eastwards.

I hope that the European Union can grow beyond Europe, but I am doubtful.

It should enlarge no further, at least for now. We should address the problems of the current member states, both new and old, before we commit to further expansion. That would be the most logical approach.

I am pro-European and pro-federalist in view. However the current institutional arrangement in addition to the large democratic deficit are cause for my view in not supporting the EU in it current form. I am also against the EU constitution for the very reason that it is not a constitution but merely a clarification of existing treaties; there is no real change so why vote for it?

I agree with Fabian Point, we shouldn't enlarge now. To keep the Union strong we must consolidate our ground, not just growing out of control. We must take care of the new States so they can contribute money to the next large group of new nations. The biggest issue now is that many seem to want to keep from growing any further, making the EU a club of only elites. Prosperity in Poland, Czech Republic, etc. will lead to their economies being able to help the older nations'.

What we need to do is to drop the damned agricultural policies! We waste billions to keep the farmers rich. No offense to farmers, but money doesn't grow on trees!

It is vital that the new members are welcomed integrated(I hate the fact that they are by many countries officially seen as second class Europeans!).
Poland in particular has the potential of becoming a Germany-like economy with billions worth of investments. That is key to affording to accept more member States. We must develop.

Turkey is slowly becoming a European-like country, seen from a political view.
It is essential that it is encouraged to remain secular and democratic. A Turkish membership will be a great addition to the multi-cultural EU. I think that enlargements should be limited to at least a decade between them. By 2014 Romania, Bulgaria, and other eastern countries might be included and by 2024 possibly Ukraine and Belarus. It is a long time, but we have to do it slowly and carefully.

I personally think that enlargement was overzelously commited to before the major economic problems of the orignal Eurozone were sorted out, such as the problem with East Germany post communisim.

In terms of Turkish membership, I dont oppose it on principal, I think it would be a good thing. But at present we would be unable to accomadte them within the framework of the CAP and the CFP in the Black sea. France is dead against them because it doesnt like the idea of a country larger than them joining (in terms of population)

The EU should try to get Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland to join.
Switzerland will never join... I don't know why.
Norway will never join because of their oil.
Iceland will never join because of their fishing waters.

Ukraine, Belarus, and other far eastern European nations should be allowed to join.
I agree, if they meet the human rights requirements. Which rules Belarus out.

Turkey should be allowed to join.
I agree, and they are on the way to meeting human rights requirements.

I don't want Russia to join. They are far too corrupt. Their huge population would also make them to dominant in the EU. It would be like the USSR again. "Turns out we only thought we won the Cold war, guys!"

I think that anyone who could be remotely called european should be allowed to join. I'm not to worried about Turkey, in fact I think it would be wonderful. If the EU got Turkey, it would set a multicultural precedent, be seen as offering a hand of friendship to the Muslim world, and reward Turkey for advancing both politically and socially.

Russia worries me. They now appear nominally democratic, but something tells me it's just authoritarianism under the surface. Which is a really bad thing, as Russia shed it's social egalitarian communist ideology and just retained the authoritarian government. They are European, they have been for hundereds of years, but they need to advance democratically. I also wouldn't mind better living condiitons for their people before the EU starts to pay for it.

What we need to do is to drop the damned agricultural policies! We waste billions to keep the farmers rich. No offense to farmers, but money doesn't grow on trees!

I would hardly call the Common Agricultural Policy a waste of money. It has generated price stability because the EU will buy up excess produce for use in times when the crop yields are poor. It also grants to the farmers a guaranteed and tariff protected market into which they can sell their produce thus generating an income for them in a time when industries like farming are declining in favour of service jobs.

Unfortunately, the CAP also needs reform. The cost for it counts towards half the entire EU budget and it is this cost spiral that needs to be addressed. It is caused by high Intervention Prices set by the EU; the price at which the EU will buy the produce. The EU has tried to appeal the high rate but it has met significant opposition from the Farmer's lobby.
In addition, the CAP favours economies of scale; larger farms over the smaller ones. Small farmers eventually are forced out by competition with large multinationals.

'Mon the EU!

It should enlarge no further, at least for now. We should address the problems of the current member states, both new and old, before we commit to further expansion. That would be the most logical approach.

I am pro-European and pro-federalist in view. However the current institutional arrangement in addition to the large democratic deficit are cause for my view in not supporting the EU in it current form. I am also against the EU constitution for the very reason that it is not a constitution but merely a clarification of existing treaties; there is no real change so why vote for it?

I partially agree - with the exception of the constitution.

I do agree that much of it is merely the rationalisation and collation of existing treaties etc, but its significance is that it explicitly sets out the EU as *more* than just a pile of countries sitting around selling things to each other. It's basically a way to say the EU is special - after all, member states have treaties and agreements of all sorts with countries outside the EU.

It's a way to have a sort of 'figurehead' treaty.

I partially agree - with the exception of the constitution.

I do agree that much of it is merely the rationalisation and collation of existing treaties etc, but its significance is that it explicitly sets out the EU as *more* than just a pile of countries sitting around selling things to each other. It's basically a way to say the EU is special - after all, member states have treaties and agreements of all sorts with countries outside the EU.

It's a way to have a sort of 'figurehead' treaty.

But still, there is little new in the constitution. I rationally do not see what the fuss is about.
I would prefer if the 'constitution' were actually a constitution, a document that clearly outlines the rights and responsibilities and relationships between the EU, member states and individual citizens. I have no problem with a federal 'United States of Europe' providing it were advantageous for us to join.

Unfortunately, the CAP also needs reform. The cost for it counts towards half the entire EU budget and it is this cost spiral that needs to be addressed. It is caused by high Intervention Prices set by the EU; the price at which the EU will buy the produce. The EU has tried to appeal the high rate but it has met significant opposition from the Farmer's lobby.
In addition, the CAP favours economies of scale; larger farms over the smaller ones. Small farmers eventually are forced out by competition with large multinationals.
There's a start. Then they should stop paying subsidies for tobacco farmers. I don't like how they handle overproducing problems either. Dumbing causes problems to other producers. Then there's the heavy marketing of some products. E.g. "the healthy olive oil" campaign. They try to make it look better so that even we Scandinavians would rather buy olive oil than some other oil which has been produced around here (like as healthy rapeseed oil). It's misleading and damages our farmers.