|
Yes Or No To Romania & Turkey Into The EU (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by ali92
I agree here. Many may disagree with me here, as I'm not from Europe, never been there, and know only a few people who live there, but I believe that more nations joining the EU could only benefit the EU at the minimum. Isn't the core of the EU charter (or is it constitution now?) about diversity and being accepting to everyone equally no matter what? Plus, wouldn't countries that are not up-to-par with EU standards & law be forced to change to EU standards if they were to choose to join the EU? It seems like a win-win situation to me with countries farther east joining up. Again, if anyone objects here, at least explain why to us non-EUers and not just a debate over keeping or losing 'nationalism' (whatever of it that still truly exists today)... |
i'm also no expert but i have many sources from first hand experience not just internet "polls" that are often bull. the problem is that the EU doesn't know what the hell it's doing. they can't even make a budget for themselves. when you have countries that are weak entering that means that the rest of the EU has to start helping them. and right now it's not looking too good for France and Germany who have a very big problem with their unemployment and economy. that's why the euro currency weakened. when i went to europe in the summer i paid one dollar and about 30 cents per euro, when i left i didn't sell it cause it went down to about a dollar and 20 cents. all in the course of a month.
EU is moving too quickly they have to establish their own first before jumping all over the place. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by InterMilan31
Lepanto Ukraine is way away. The 2 that are closest are Romania and Turkey both to may even be voted on by early next year.
I have to belive that 70% is somewhat wrong completley. Im Swiss not in the EU but have an Italian passport(dual citizenship) and my Italian friends say no to Turkey by far. We have seen how the Muslim culture has come into to these countries and destroy them where they dont obey the rules and kill or harm or threaten anyone that doesnt agree or pokes fun at the religion. Putting the Turks in the EU would be horrible ugh I gotta stop |
You're kinda wrong in your interpretation of a few things. The closest ones to entrance are Bulgaria and Romania, closely followed by Croatia. Turkey is still decades away. Personally I wouldn't even be surprised if Croatia gets in before Bulgaria and Romania since we do have some 2-3 times higher income, and financial issues have already postponed the entrance of those two countries.
As for Turkey, it is a western style nation, politically closely alligned with the EU, so in 20-30 years that will take it to satisfy all the criteria, it probably will be a pretty acceptable country. Turks aren't arabs, and although they are muslims, they don't cause trouble like those french immigrants from Algeria and Morroco and wherever. I did, however, vote only Romania, because in the near future (next 5 years or so) it is more acceptable than Turkey. Eventually, though, I believe Turkey should join too if they fill the necessarry criteria, so in that way I could have voted for both.
As for Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Ukraine and so on, I hardly think any of them will enter before 2020. They're all simply too unstable and poor. |
|
|
| InterMilan31 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
You're kinda wrong in your interpretation of a few things. The closest ones to entrance are Bulgaria and Romania, closely followed by Croatia. Turkey is still decades away. Personally I wouldn't even be surprised if Croatia gets in before Bulgaria and Romania since we do have some 2-3 times higher income, and financial issues have already postponed the entrance of those two countries.
|
Mate last time when I was in Italy about 2 weeks ago the talk was of Romania and Turkey:conf:
Also Lepanto lol I guess your right lol we can agree on 1 thing...Booker rocks |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by InterMilan31
Mate last time when I was in Italy about 2 weeks ago the talk was of Romania and Turkey:conf: |
Well, I don't know what you've heard but Romania pretty much comes in packet with Bulgaria and that's already an agreed upon issue, the only reason they still aren't in yet is because of their crappy economy. Their likely date of entrance is somewhere in 2007 or later. The only country that could have somehow been associated with Turkey was Croatia because they both started talks on joining the EU on the same date, but they too have totally different timeframes and predicted dates of entrance, which are about 2008 for Croatia and 2020+ for Turkey. |
|
|
| bass drive |
I think Ro- and Bg would be the last to enter for some time (maybe excpet for Croatia)
----------
The European Commission has in a new strategy paper responded to wary public opinion about enlargement by stating the EU should be "cautious" about further expansion - with serious possible consequences for states like Ukraine.
Enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn on Wednesday (9 November) said while presenting Brussels´ 2005 enlargement strategy paper: "We need to consolidate our enlargement agenda but be cautious with new commitments."
The report defines the current agenda as "the Balkans and Turkey", clearly leaving out other countries knocking on the EU door like Ukraine.
A high-ranked commission official said he "did not object" to the analysis that the commission strategy paper represents bad news for Kiev´s EU aspirations.
The blow to the Ukrainians comes after commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said last month after a meeting with Kiev's new prime minister Yuri Yekhanurov: "Our door remains open. The future of Ukraine is in Europe".
But commissioner Rehn said today that the EU should "avoid overstretch," adding that the current enlargement agenda is already very heavy.
Brussels recently got a clear signal of concern over further enlargement prospects from general public scepticism on expansion, with the unnamed EU official saying "We have to listen to citizens´ concerns."
Absorption capacity and public opinion
Mr Rehn highlighted that the term "absorption capacity" now figures more than ever in reports on the various candidate states and EU hopefuls.
"Absorption capacity" relates to the EU´s own capacity to welcome new member states and is defined in commission documents in terms of, for example, EU financial costs and institutional reforms.
But recently, following public scepticism with enlargement expressed in states like France and Austria, the term has also been used by politicians in connection with public opinion.
Although officials deny a connection between absorption capacity and public opinion, a statement by commissioner Rehn on Wednesday was less clear:
"All European citizens benefit from having neighbours that are stable democracies and prosperous market economies. The EU cannot abandon its responsibilities. But the pace of enlargement also has to take into consideration the EU’s absorption capacity."
"The EU´s absorption capacity is stretched to its limits," he added.
Austria, which faces some of the most sceptical public feelings on enlargement, claimed victory on 3 October after it introduced a strengthened "absorption capacity" clause in the EU negotiating framework with Turkey.
Nice treaty
Commissioner Rehn today urged member states to use their "reflection period" following the French and Dutch no votes to the EU constitution to tackle one specific problem that stands in the way of enlargement after the planned accession of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007.
The proposed EU constitution, voted down by the French and Dutch, had provided for institutional arrangements for integrating Turkey and Balkan states.
But the Nice treaty currently in force only covers 27 member states - the 25 plus Romania and Bulgaria.
"I hope member states can soon agree on what the accession of a 28th member state would mean in terms of the composition of the commission and voting rights in the council," Mr Rehn urged. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
Personally I don't see why we wouldn't let in all countries willing to join and that fulfills the Coppenhagen criterias!
Also, the more countries that join, the bigger is the need for reform of things like CAP :) |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Personally I don't see why we wouldn't let in all countries willing to join and that fulfills the Coppenhagen criterias!
Also, the more countries that join, the bigger is the need for reform of things like CAP :) |
Agree. EU needs reforms anyway, and hopefully they'll get on as soon as possible. As for Ukraine and other countries that have historically been a part of Europe, I am also for letting them all join. |
|
|
| The Greek |
| I think the title "European Union" has to be dropped. If they plan on allowing countries that are really not in Europe then they should at least change the name. Should they let the U.S. in because it owns land such as an embassy or an air base in one of those countries? I am speaking of Turkey. While the issue of letting them in from a political standpoint is one that does not concern me much, let's get real. They are barely on the European continent. And, how about that NATO? wow do we have a diverse crowd in there! No where near the North Atlantic! Anyway, European officials have to stop thinking they are America Part 2. Diversity and immigration works here (sort of) because that is what the U.S. was founded upon. There are no far reaching historical ties to this land (the people that had it are long gone now unfortunately for them, but let's not get into that now.) You can see that immigration and illegal immigration does not work well at all in these countries. That is the reality. If Turkey gets in the door would be wide open for illegal immigration. It's already to damn easy through Greece and they have a border of water almost the whole way with Turkey for crying out loud! Ok i'll stop now. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Greek
I think the title "European Union" has to be dropped. If they plan on allowing countries that are really not in Europe then they should at least change the name. Should they let the U.S. in because it owns land such as an embassy or an air base in one of those countries? I am speaking of Turkey. While the issue of letting them in from a political standpoint is one that does not concern me much, let's get real. They are barely on the European continent. And, how about that NATO? wow do we have a diverse crowd in there! No where near the North Atlantic! Anyway, European officials have to stop thinking they are America Part 2. Diversity and immigration works here (sort of) because that is what the U.S. was founded upon. There are no far reaching historical ties to this land (the people that had it are long gone now unfortunately for them, but let's not get into that now.) You can see that immigration and illegal immigration does not work well at all in these countries. That is the reality. If Turkey gets in the door would be wide open for illegal immigration. It's already to damn easy through Greece and they have a border of water almost the whole way with Turkey for crying out loud! Ok i'll stop now. |
Don't get stuck with the name, I seriously don't have any problem with EU growing outside Europe. The only problem I see with the EU is when they try to get too much power in areas where they have nothing to do, which could potentially (or is already) making them make laws that will make no sense whatsoever in some countries. EU needs a clearer document of what it really should do. Like a new constitution... |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Don't get stuck with the name, I seriously don't have any problem with EU growing outside Europe. The only problem I see with the EU is when they try to get too much power in areas where they have nothing to do, which could potentially (or is already) making them make laws that will make no sense whatsoever in some countries. EU needs a clearer document of what it really should do. Like a new constitution... |
Ok... Now I'm a little confused. Please define the EU for me and it's purpose. |
|
|
| Chris Larkin |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Ok... Now I'm a little confused. Please define the EU for me and it's purpose. |
Taken from Wikipedia:
| quote: | The most important EU institutions are the Council of the European Union, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. The European Union or the EU is an intergovernmental and supranational union of 25 European countries, known as member states. The European Union was established under that name in 1992 by the Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty). However, many aspects of the Union existed before that date through a series of predecessor relationships, dating back to 1951.
The European Union's activities cover all areas of public policy, from health and economic policy to foreign affairs and defence. However, the extent of its powers differs greatly between areas. Depending on the area in question, the EU may therefore resemble:
* a federation (for example, on monetary affairs, agricultural, trade and environmental policy)
* a confederation (for example, on social and economic policy, consumer protection, home affairs)
* an international organisation (for example, in foreign affairs)
A key activity of the EU is the establishment and administration of a common single market, consisting of a customs union, a single currency (adopted by 12 of the 25 member states), a Common Agricultural Policy, a common trade policy, and a Common Fisheries Policy. |
|
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Ok... Now I'm a little confused. Please define the EU for me and it's purpose. |
EU is a group of contries that share similar values, and want to form an area where people, goods and services can move freely. It is also a union where everyone in the union is treated the same as the citizen of a country if they are in another country (like a Swede in Germany should have the same rights/obligations/benefits/etc like a German). It should also care about world matters, such as environment (only that matters to more than one country), conflicts, and foreign policies.
Anyone who agrees to these values and fullfills certain criteria (being in Europe not one of them) should be able to join. I really don't see why not.
Now how the EU actually works is another story entierly... |
|
|
|
|
