NationStates Jolt Archive

With the capture -due to the efforts of the serbian police if I've got it right - of Karadzic, some of the most heavy obstacles blocking Serbia from joining the EU fall: that is, there is a clear will on the serbian part (at least the part that won the elections) to meet with international requests and standards.

There's always plenty of proposals for more countries joining the EU, some coming from said countries, some coming from european politicians.

These are the countries who are, to various degrees, candidates or potential candidates for EU membership (too many for a poll, sadly).

Northern Europe:
Norway: EU would be most happy to welcome Norway, but the Norse prefer to remain outside right now.
Iceland: same as Norway... plus it's not "geographically" Europe - being a micro-continent of its own

Eastern Europe:
Russia: the big guy of the old continent plus Siberia, nuclear and tech superpower, with enormous shortcomings when it comes to democracy, freedoms, and income divides
Belarus: like Russia for shortcomings, without the riches and the power
Ukraine: economically interesting (mines and crops), with strong ethnical tensions though
Moldova: Romania would be happy to have Moldova in the EU (it would become de facto a Romanian protectorate), but is EU ready for more people moving from East to West in search of better wages?

Southern Europe:
Croatia: on EU borders, has known vast improvements in the last decade, and ultranationalistic fringes are falling back
Bosnia-Herzegovina: still a problematic country (serbs vs muslism and croats), and the big backdraw of having a substantial muslim population, which isn't going to make the "christian Europe" supporters very eager to have BiH join
Serbia: already much has been said about it, allowing it as EU candidate would mark a reappeasement with the West
Kosovo: recognized by some EU countries, making it a candidate would make Turkey and Albania happy and Serbia very angry - risk for more conflicts? Plus the muslim issue, again.
Montenegro: same as Kosovo but less controversial - there wasn't a war with Serbia about Montenegro
Albania: still quite backwards, expecially in the some areas, and with lots of mafia... hey wait, this makes Albania look like Italy! ;) - muslim issue again

Near East:
Turkey: the big guy of the area, NATO key member, a muslim country but very different from arab countries... still got a lot of work to do about human rights, political power of the military, and Kurdistan. Geographically most of Turkey lies in Asia.
Israel: yeah, sometimes someone here in Italy launches the idea of Israel in the EU. Meh... not european, and not exactly the most shiny record about peace and human rights. And would the israeli ever accept an union with Germany, or Turkey?

Central Europe:
Switzerland: land of the cheese with holes, hole in the EU territory: clearly, if it would apply EU would allow it immediately... still the Swiss don't want to yet, although the pro-EU opinion is generally on the rise since about 20 years.

Microstates:
Andorra, S.Marino, Vatican, Monte-Carlo, Liechtenstein...
come on...

So, what do you think? Who should join first, who should after some time, who should never?


errata corrige: Monaco (not Monte-Carlo), also I forgot Macedonia and Faer Oer

No one, at the moment. The EU needs to do some serious reforming to sort itself out first before it thinks about getting any bigger.

DOWN WITH THE EU. It's simply a puppet of NATO/IMF imperialism.

I'm not gonna talk about the ones who don't want to.

I think first comes Croatia, they've been committed from the start and probably deserve it more from an institutional perspective than Romania and Bulgaria did.

Second on my list is Turkey, provided they can get their government in order, and the EU does the same with the CAP.

Ukraine should also make it, though I'm not looking forward to the next "Eastern Hordes" panic.

Macedonia you left out, but they seem to be on the right track.

Not so big a fan I'm of Belarus (brutal dictatorship and all that), Israel (always fighting and all that), Moldova (that place is just a dump - sorry to any Moldovians here) and what remains of the Balkan mess. I am in favour of using EU membership as a carrot to get them to sort it out, but until they do they shouldn't be let in.

Croatia makes sense, as does Ukraine and Moldova; these states are relatively stable, have fair economic power and would contribute to the EU. Turkey is also in this category, but the question of whether the EU wants to expand beyond Europe must be answered first.

The Serbia-Kossovo problem needs to be solved before they could be considered.

Everywhere else is either politically unstable, economically unworthy, does not want it, or is Russia. Russia should not join with the EU - too large a power bloc would be created.

[Moldova has] fair economic power and would contribute to the EU.
I really don't think so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Moldova). Not yet, anyways.

I think a lot of the micronations are already de facto members of the EU due to their relationships with their respective member states. eg. The Vatican, San Marino and Italy.

Monte-Carlo isn't a nation, it's part of Monaco.

Monco also is under French jurisdiction so...no for them.

I'd say Norway and Switzerland have the best chance. I really dont think that people would accept more from the East as it's getting into Asia.

I'm from Serbia and I'm hoping we will be admitted into the EU between 2012 and 2015. Croatia will get in probably 2010-2012, they do deserve it most. Ukraine and Turkey are too large to be absorbed into the EU at the moment. Belarus is a dictatorship and has a long way to go. Montenegro, Albania, Bosnia and Macedonia, Moldova probably the same time as Serbia or soon after.

I'm not too thrilled with Turkey being in the EU. There are enormous cultural differences, the Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide, the problem with North Cyprus, sabre rattling concerning Greece, the PKK and Kurdish issues and most importantly they are too big. 70 million people and growing rapidly, I'm not sure anyone in Europe wants such a growing muslim population, even if they are rather secular compared to most muslims in the world.

I'd say the most likely are Ukraine, Croatia and Turkey, provided they can sort out their respective ethnic tensions/human rights issues. Personally I don't think the presence of a large Muslim population is going to be a particular issue with joining for Turkey. If anything has often been put forward as a selling point as a bridge between Eastern and Western cultures. And as a sign that the Christian and Islamic countries can co-exist peacefully.

Secularity however is a different issue. Currently Turkey is having a number of issues with it's government and their secularity (or lack thereof) and there are worries that religious tensions may erupt. Also the human rights issues and the treatment of the Kurds are hardly helping.

Ukraine and Croatia also have a way to go, socially, politically and economically but are working towards it. They are probably the most likely next candidates for expansion but even that won't be for a few years. Which is good, because although expansion is generally beneficial to both the rest of the EU and the countries expanded to, there also needs to be pauses between expansions so the EU can stabalize and get used to it's new size.

Before we accept any more countries into the EU we need to make sure that they have reached EU standards on issues like corruption before they join rather than after. I'm looking at Bulgaria and Romania here.

Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and the micro Euro-states are definitely EU-compliant from what I've read. They just need incentive to join.

And exactly how does Israel qualify for the EU? It's in the Mid East. It's even less qualified than Turkey and Turkey is not really qualified. It's in Asia (or rather Asia Minor). But still, geographically speaking, neither are in Europe, so why consider either for the EU?

It makes as much sense as having Russia (or Turkey) in NATO.

Tonga.

And exactly how does Israel qualify for the EU? It's in the Mid East. It's even less qualified than Turkey and Turkey is not really qualified. It's in Asia (or rather Asia Minor). But still, geographically speaking, neither are in Europe, so why consider either for the EU?

Because geography is irrelevant compared to the potential benefits of inviting new members?

Turkiye is not a Muslim country, it is a secular country with most of the population are Muslims.

Cheerio!

I would say Ukraine just to piss Russia off.

Putin's been getting a little "EVERYONE FEAR OUR 1950'S BOMBERS!!1!!11" lately (and yes, it's Putin, despite what the name on the door says), and I think we need a little bit of a buffer there, as well as the fact that Ukraine's acension would spur in their acension to NATO. Now that would be a giant :upyours: to Russia--having one of their most powerful former republics join their arch-enemies.

Croatia. I think it's more than ready for EU membership than some of the recently admitted members...

It makes as much sense as having Russia (or Turkey) in NATO.

Turkey's been in NATO for a long time and its membership actually made a lot of sense at the time.

Croatia. I think it's more than ready for EU membership than some of the recently admitted members...
Like the UK, for example.

Before we accept any more countries into the EU we need to make sure that they have reached EU standards on issues like corruption before they join rather than after. I'm looking at Spain and Italy here.

Fixed those typos for you. You're welcome!

Fixed those typos for you. You're welcome!

Don't worry, I'm not forgetting the problems our oldest members have. The reason I picked up on those two was because they are relatively new and relatively awful.

Fixed those typos for you. You're welcome!

Spain isn't THAT corrupt.

Because geography is irrelevant compared to the potential benefits of inviting new members?

Then why call it the EU if you're going to have non-European members?

Turkey's been in NATO for a long time and its membership actually made a lot of sense at the time.

Strategically it may have been beneficial, but last I checked, Turkey isn't in the North Atlantic...

Then why call it the EU if you're going to have non-European members?
They could just change the name again. Remember the EEC? The Common Market? The Coal and Steel Community?

DOWN WITH THE EU. It's simply a puppet of NATO/IMF imperialism.
I agreed with half of your post. That's a new record Andaras.:D

Then why call it the EU if you're going to have non-European members?



Strategically it may have been beneficial, but last I checked, Turkey isn't in the North Atlantic...

Why would NATO require people being the North Atlantic?

As for EU, as someone else already mentioned, the name has been changed before.

They could just change the name again. Remember the EEC? The Common Market? The Coal and Steel Community?

Obviously not. :D

why don't we just throw a dart on the map like the good old days?

With the capture -due to the efforts of the serbian police if I've got it right - of Karadzic, some of the most heavy obstacles blocking Serbia from joining the EU fall: that is, there is a clear will on the serbian part (at least the part that won the elections) to meet with international requests and standards.

There's always plenty of proposals for more countries joining the EU, some coming from said countries, some coming from european politicians.

These are the countries who are, to various degrees, candidates or potential candidates for EU membership (too many for a poll, sadly).

Northern Europe:
Norway: EU would be most happy to welcome Norway, but the Norse prefer to remain outside right now.
Iceland: same as Norway... plus it's not "geographically" Europe - being a micro-continent of its own

Eastern Europe:
Russia: the big guy of the old continent plus Siberia, nuclear and tech superpower, with enormous shortcomings when it comes to democracy, freedoms, and income divides
Belarus: like Russia for shortcomings, without the riches and the power
Ukraine: economically interesting (mines and crops), with strong ethnical tensions though
Moldova: Romania would be happy to have Moldova in the EU (it would become de facto a Romanian protectorate), but is EU ready for more people moving from East to West in search of better wages?

Southern Europe:
Croatia: on EU borders, has known vast improvements in the last decade, and ultranationalistic fringes are falling back
Bosnia-Herzegovina: still a problematic country (serbs vs muslism and croats), and the big backdraw of having a substantial muslim population, which isn't going to make the "christian Europe" supporters very eager to have BiH join
Serbia: already much has been said about it, allowing it as EU candidate would mark a reappeasement with the West
Kosovo: recognized by some EU countries, making it a candidate would make Turkey and Albania happy and Serbia very angry - risk for more conflicts? Plus the muslim issue, again.
Montenegro: same as Kosovo but less controversial - there wasn't a war with Serbia about Montenegro
Albania: still quite backwards, expecially in the some areas, and with lots of mafia... hey wait, this makes Albania look like Italy! ;) - muslim issue again

Near East:
Turkey: the big guy of the area, NATO key member, a muslim country but very different from arab countries... still got a lot of work to do about human rights, political power of the military, and Kurdistan. Geographically most of Turkey lies in Asia.
Israel: yeah, sometimes someone here in Italy launches the idea of Israel in the EU. Meh... not european, and not exactly the most shiny record about peace and human rights. And would the israeli ever accept an union with Germany, or Turkey?

Central Europe:
Switzerland: land of the cheese with holes, hole in the EU territory: clearly, if it would apply EU would allow it immediately... still the Swiss don't want to yet, although the pro-EU opinion is generally on the rise since about 20 years.

Microstates:
Andorra, S.Marino, Vatican, Monte-Carlo, Liechtenstein...
come on...

So, what do you think? Who should join first, who should after some time, who should never?

Eligibility should be based on membership in the Eurovision Song Contest.

/thread

Eligibility should be based on membership in the Eurovision Song Contest.

run by the Russians and financed by the UK?

With the capture -due to the efforts of the serbian police if I've got it right - of Karadzic, some of the most heavy obstacles blocking Serbia from joining the EU fall: that is, there is a clear will on the serbian part (at least the part that won the elections) to meet with international requests and standards.

There's always plenty of proposals for more countries joining the EU, some coming from said countries, some coming from european politicians.

These are the countries who are, to various degrees, candidates or potential candidates for EU membership (too many for a poll, sadly).

Northern Europe:
Norway: EU would be most happy to welcome Norway, but the Norse prefer to remain outside right now.
Iceland: same as Norway... plus it's not "geographically" Europe - being a micro-continent of its own

Eastern Europe:
Russia: the big guy of the old continent plus Siberia, nuclear and tech superpower, with enormous shortcomings when it comes to democracy, freedoms, and income divides
Belarus: like Russia for shortcomings, without the riches and the power
Ukraine: economically interesting (mines and crops), with strong ethnical tensions though
Moldova: Romania would be happy to have Moldova in the EU (it would become de facto a Romanian protectorate), but is EU ready for more people moving from East to West in search of better wages?

Southern Europe:
Croatia: on EU borders, has known vast improvements in the last decade, and ultranationalistic fringes are falling back
Bosnia-Herzegovina: still a problematic country (serbs vs muslism and croats), and the big backdraw of having a substantial muslim population, which isn't going to make the "christian Europe" supporters very eager to have BiH join
Serbia: already much has been said about it, allowing it as EU candidate would mark a reappeasement with the West
Kosovo: recognized by some EU countries, making it a candidate would make Turkey and Albania happy and Serbia very angry - risk for more conflicts? Plus the muslim issue, again.
Montenegro: same as Kosovo but less controversial - there wasn't a war with Serbia about Montenegro
Albania: still quite backwards, expecially in the some areas, and with lots of mafia... hey wait, this makes Albania look like Italy! ;) - muslim issue again

Near East:
Turkey: the big guy of the area, NATO key member, a muslim country but very different from arab countries... still got a lot of work to do about human rights, political power of the military, and Kurdistan. Geographically most of Turkey lies in Asia.
Israel: yeah, sometimes someone here in Italy launches the idea of Israel in the EU. Meh... not european, and not exactly the most shiny record about peace and human rights. And would the israeli ever accept an union with Germany, or Turkey?

Central Europe:
Switzerland: land of the cheese with holes, hole in the EU territory: clearly, if it would apply EU would allow it immediately... still the Swiss don't want to yet, although the pro-EU opinion is generally on the rise since about 20 years.

Microstates:
Andorra, S.Marino, Vatican, Monte-Carlo, Liechtenstein...
come on...

So, what do you think? Who should join first, who should after some time, who should never?

You do realize Turkey and Israel have a very good relationship? As I'm sure they do with Germany.

Strategically it may have been beneficial, but last I checked, Turkey isn't in the North Atlantic...

Neither are Greece, Italy, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria among others. NATO and EU are just names, they are not going to limit their strategic initiatives just because they don't fit their names. The reasons EU rejected Morocco and are stalling Turkey have nothing to do with their locations...

Neither are Greece, Italy, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria among others. NATO and EU are just names, they are not going to limit their strategic initiatives just because they don't fit their names. The reasons EU rejected Morocco and are stalling Turkey have nothing to do with their locations...

Maybe it's that Muslim thing... perish forbid that Europeans be considered Islamophobes...

Maybe it's that Muslim thing... perish forbid that Europeans be considered Islamophobes...

More likely it has something to do with human rights reputations, internal economies, and governmental ability to live up to reasonable levels of corruption-proofing, etc.

But sure, hey - not enough hate in the world for you today?

Maybe it's that Muslim thing... perish forbid that Europeans be considered Islamophobes...
For the Austrian government last year it, partly, was "that Muslim thing", though some countries' administrations were pushing for an Islamic-majority country to be allowed into the EU to help Middle East tensions, etc.

See what information you can learn when you don't make silly generalisations and lump people into meaningless groupings?

For the Austrian government last year it, partly, was "that Muslim thing", though some countries' administrations were pushing for an Islamic-majority country to be allowed into the EU to help Middle East tensions, etc.

See what information you can learn when you don't make silly generalisations and lump people into meaningless groupings?

Heh. You're only saying that 'cos you're Scottish...

:D

Heh. You're only saying that 'cos you're Scottish...

:D
*tosses caber in anger*

For the Austrian government last year it, partly, was "that Muslim thing", though some countries' administrations were pushing for an Islamic-majority country to be allowed into the EU to help Middle East tensions, etc.

See what information you can learn when you don't make silly generalisations and lump people into meaningless groupings?

Sounds like I was right though. Either we let one in because we need a token, or we're against it because we're Islamophobes.

*tosses caber in anger*

Ow. Injured by a stereotype. How ironic.

Ow. Injured by a stereotype. How ironic.

At least he didn't throw the haggis

MY 1 2 3 is

1-Crotia
2-Turkey
3-Serbia

im not puting norway etc. they getin when they want to

1-Crotia they deserve it they worked for it
2-Turkey : being a seculer state (exxept for a few lunatics) its a brige betwean easth and west i see islam causing no problems it whode actualy be good for the eu and 70 mil is good and bad think abaut you got abaut 60 mil young people (18-41) think of the work force it whode give etc
3-Serbia the barriers are down there free


Russia will never join because they are more powerfull alone because no one can slow them down or stop what they do

or the pipes . . . .hoots mon that wouldna hay done ye ne good at all.

Sounds like I was right though. Either we let one in because we need a token, or we're against it because we're Islamophobes.
But only if by 'we' you mean the couple of hundred people that make up the collective governments of EU nations. Austria's Foreign Minister at the time (I can't remember her name, nor quickly find it) may be an 'Islamophobe' for not wanting Muslims in the EU, and Tony Blair may be one for making token gestures to Islamic countries, but this doesn't make other contries' populations 'Islamophobes' or not.

At least he didn't throw the haggis
It'd only be a vegetarian haggis, so you're all right there.

or the pipes . . . .hoots mon that wouldna hay done ye ne good at all.
Goan yersel pal.

or the pipes . . . .hoots mon that wouldna hay done ye ne good at all.

Ack. My schemes. Gang aft agley. Again.

1-crotia (deserv it
2-Turkey(look at its good sides
3-serbia (most of whats wrong is gone

Norway icelandetc. not counted they enter the seconed they want anyway

Ack. My schemes. Gang aft agley. Again.
In the name o' the wee man...

In the name o' the wee man...

Rabbie?

Rabbie?
No, the big yin upstairs.

No, the big yin upstairs.

I had my suspicions, but the only vernacular usage I really know for that phrasing ends up comparing me to a singing whale, or something...

:o

For the Austrian government last year it, partly, was "that Muslim thing", though some countries' administrations were pushing for an Islamic-majority country to be allowed into the EU to help Middle East tensions, etc.

See what information you can learn when you don't make silly generalisations and lump people into meaningless groupings?

Overall it is a "Muslim" thing. Look at France and how they are starting to turn. The "French" are talking in terms of "protecting" their culture. This is just code for no more outsiders and that is mainly N African Muslims. I watch TV5 on a regular basis and can see it on the nightly news reports. They are talking about laws to deport that make the anti-Mexican situation in America look tame.

Clearly everybody here has forgotten the central pillar of European politics for the last million years. Tajikistan.

Putin's been getting a little "EVERYONE FEAR OUR 1950'S BOMBERS!!1!!11" lately

1950's bombers like the Tu-160? The Su-34?
1950's missiles like the Iskander-M? The Topol-M? The Bulava?

I'm not fond of Putin, but the russian military is still in the world's top 5.
That said, this poses a crucial issue: what should be the relationship between NATO membership and EU membership? Does NATO need a reform, or a phase-out? What should be the EU defence policies?

You do realize Turkey and Israel have a very good relationship? As I'm sure they do with Germany.

Yes, the relationship are good: but somewhat I don't see many the descendants of the victims of the Holocaust being happy of sharing a political union (a loose confederation) with the states who had antisemitic laws, not yet.
Also the opinion of the ultraorthodox jews in israeli politics looks quite important, and I don't think they would be happy to form an union with Turkey, whose population (80M iirc) is largely muslim.

Friends, but not living the in the same house.

I'm not gonna talk about the ones who don't want to.

I think first comes Croatia, they've been committed from the start and probably deserve it more from an institutional perspective than Romania and Bulgaria did.

Second on my list is Turkey, provided they can get their government in order, and the EU does the same with the CAP.

Ukraine should also make it, though I'm not looking forward to the next "Eastern Hordes" panic.

Macedonia you left out, but they seem to be on the right track.

Not so big a fan I'm of Belarus (brutal dictatorship and all that), Israel (always fighting and all that), Moldova (that place is just a dump - sorry to any Moldovians here) and what remains of the Balkan mess. I am in favour of using EU membership as a carrot to get them to sort it out, but until they do they shouldn't be let in.

For once I agree with Neu Leonstein. Weird

Anyway, I'm not a citizen of an EU member state, but it's always seemed to me that the EU is basically a club with benefits and rules. To get the benefits, you have to follow the rules of the club. Turkey wants to be in, for the benefits (economic and the way it is seen worldwide) but must first adjust its policies so as to follow the rules (human rights and such).

Spain isn't THAT corrupt.

Nah, it's not even as corrupt as Belgium

Overall it is a "Muslim" thing. Look at France and how they are starting to turn. The "French" are talking in terms of "protecting" their culture. This is just code for no more outsiders and that is mainly N African Muslims. I watch TV5 on a regular basis and can see it on the nightly news reports. They are talking about laws to deport that make the anti-Mexican situation in America look tame.

France isn't starting to turn, they've always been excessively protective of their culture. But it's not about religion, it's about an influx of immigrants generally occupying the lower social classes, into a country with relatively high unemployment and overly strained services. You see similar reactions to the, very catholic, Polish and other eastern european immigrants across Europe, including France. Only because of the way the EU works, they can't do anything about these.

1950's bombers like the Tu-160? The Su-34?
1950's missiles like the Iskander-M? The Topol-M? The Bulava?

I'm not fond of Putin, but the russian military is still in the world's top 5.
That said, this poses a crucial issue: what should be the relationship between NATO membership and EU membership? Does NATO need a reform, or a phase-out? What should be the EU defence policies?

I'm not sure if that's really such a crucial issue. NATO and EU are two very different organisations. NATO doesn't move an inch unless every member nation agrees to it, and it's purely a military alliance.

EU however, as we all know, is mainly economical, and also holds the power to do stuff if there's a majority for it, not necessarily agreement. While EU is trying to get into defence, so far it's mostly just asking their member countries if they'd be willing to lend out some of their forces and slap the EU badge on them before shipping them out.

So when it comes to military, NATO can move as one, while all EU can do is to ask member states to contribute forces. Now, EU has plans to set up a small force that can respond to emergencies, that would be under direct control of the EU bureacracy, but understandably, member nations are somewhat hesitant to this. When you give a union like EU more powers than economical, you're starting to enter federal territory.

I'm not sure if that's really such a crucial issue. NATO and EU are two very different organisations. NATO doesn't move an inch unless every member nation agrees to it, and it's purely a military alliance.

mhhh... not quite.

http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm

Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Article 4
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

,,,

each of them, individually and in concert with the other Parties... such actions as IT deems necessary.

that is, not necessarily military actions even in the case of armed attacks.

NATO, by its founding treaty, is more of a political-economical treaty. WEO is far more military - and it enforces the obligation to military intervention in case of attack.

Anyway, it must be noted that most of the EU countries are NATO members. Is NATO membership becoming a prerequisite for EU membership? Should it be so?

Also, the EU already has some rapid-deployment forces.
wiki: military of the european union
Military forces and groups
EUFOR Althea (peacekeeping force composed of 7,000 troops stationed in Bosnia and Herzegovina)
European Union Force - the title used for EU peacekeeping deployments, which have included Bosnia/Hercegovina in 2002-, Chad/CAR, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Eurocorps (independent military force composed of 60,000 troops that can be deployed for various missions)
Eurofor (rapid reaction force under command of the Western European Union)
European Gendarmerie Force (crisis intervention force composed of 900 personnel, with 2,300 additional personnel that can be deployed as reinforcements)
Helsinki Headline Goal (listing of rapid reaction forces composed of 60,000 troops managed by the European Union, but under control of the countries who deliver troops for it)
European Union Battlegroups (closest thing to an EU military, composed of 15 battlegroups, each one numbering 1,500 troops)
European Union Military Staff (supervises military operations carried out by the EU; its chief is General Henri Bentegeat, a former chief of the French Defence Staff)
Euromarfor

I dont think Turkish people love EU and USA. America is behaving like crazy in Iraq, killing every civil each day for petrol and EU says to Turkey "human rights are important" . Everyday in near of Turkish borders(ıraq) americans kill some civil but nobody cares. When it comes to america "human rights are not important". Only a fool can believe human rights lie.
EU is saying "armenia armenia genocide genocide". But how EU made south cyprus a member country? Rules and regulations say that if you have a problem with your neighbours etc... you cant be a member. Where is god damn laws?

I watch TV5 on a regular basis and can see it on the nightly news reports.
I watch CNN/CBS/Fox a lot. Doesn't mean what comes out of their mouths isn't any less bullshit than other 'news' station.

They are talking about laws to deport that make the anti-Mexican situation in America look tame.

They're building a fence along their border now?

Croatia. Because it's a not-pish state which is in a not-pish state.

As to the whole muslims thing, you're quite right - despite the motto being 'unie dans la diversité' (may be grammatically incorrect, if so ah well), certainly Sarko, also the Austrians are against them point blank. And since everyone has a veto, not going to happen soon.

And Kosovo can fuck right off, the Spanish will block their accession, anyway.

Let me put it this way, if i were the Emperor of Europe, i'd immediately accept and/or invite Andorra, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, San Marino & Switzerland.

I'd hold off acceptance, pending further investigation, of Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova, Serbia & Ukraine.

I'd hold off acceptance, pending internal improvement, of Belarus, Russia & Turkey

I'd never accept the Vatican, though. As far as i'm concerned, it's a suburb of Rome, and as such, part of Italy.

1950's bombers like the Tu-160? The Su-34?
1950's missiles like the Iskander-M? The Topol-M? The Bulava?

I'm not fond of Putin, but the russian military is still in the world's top 5.
That said, this poses a crucial issue: what should be the relationship between NATO membership and EU membership? Does NATO need a reform, or a phase-out? What should be the EU defence policies?

IMO, NATO should be phased out & a European defense pact formed. We don't need US mind control, thankyouverymuch.