I see the European Union is taking on new members.
Had a discussion about this somewhere else, so I thought I would ask clarification here: ultimately, do all the present EU members have to approve for a new member to be admitted? Can just one or two nations prevent a new member from becoming admitted? Or is a majority, 2/3, or 3/4 approval?
Also, is there a stated requirement that all EU members must be actually located in Europe? Is it at least conceivable they could admit a nation that does not have part of it lying in Europe or a nearby island, (not that they have expressed interest in doing so)?
Had a discussion about this somewhere else, so I thought I would ask clarification here: ultimately, do all the present EU members have to approve for a new member to be admitted? Can just one or two nations prevent a new member from becoming admitted? Or is a majority, 2/3, or 3/4 approval?
Also, is there a stated requirement that all EU members must be actually located in Europe? Is it at least conceivable they could admit a nation that does not have part of it lying in Europe or a nearby island, (not that they have expressed interest in doing so)?
kelticwizard said:
As far as I understand the rules myself, all major decisions within
the EU, like approving new members, currently has to be ratified
by the governments of all EU countries. That is, in practice, any
country can stop such decisions. Such things has happened on
several occasions. Since the number of members will now grow
even more, it has been suggested to change the rules so a
single country can no longer stop decsicions, but there is no
decision taken on this yet. I understand that some kind of
EU constitution is planned to be decided on during this year,
and that it is intended to include new rules for voting, but
that requires that a concencus on this new constitution can
be reached under the current rules, of course. Something
which not everybody believes will happen.
This is a tricky one. I have no idea if there is anything written
about this at all. Turkey wants to become a member and the
US is pressing EU to to allow them in. However, from a
purely geographical point of view, only a small part of Turkey
is usually considered to belong to Europe. What would happen
if Russia would eventually want to become a member? A large
part of Russia is usually considered to belong to Europe. I suppose
the main problem is that nobody really has a very clear idea of
what EU is supposed to be. The purpose of the union is unclear
and changes over time. Some countries, or at least politicians,
want it to eventually be a federation, while most seem to prefer
it to be a looser union of sovereign states.
1.) They must have stable institutions that can guarantee democracy, the rule of law, human rights and protection of minorities.
2.) They must be functioning market economies with the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the EU.
3.) They must be equipped to take on the obligations of membership and to adhere to the aims of political union and economic and monetary union.
http://www.riksdagen.se/english/eu/eufacts/enlargement.asp
2.) They must be functioning market economies with the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the EU.
3.) They must be equipped to take on the obligations of membership and to adhere to the aims of political union and economic and monetary union.
http://www.riksdagen.se/english/eu/eufacts/enlargement.asp
Thanks, Christer and Bas.
I had a discussion elsewhere where an individual maintained that Turkey had no chance to join the EU because "geography is geography".
Your anwers have now made clear that if Turkey does not get into the EU, it will not be because it fails any geography requirement, but merely because the other EU states decide not to let it in. That is a big difference.
Thanks for the clarification, guys.
I had a discussion elsewhere where an individual maintained that Turkey had no chance to join the EU because "geography is geography".
Your anwers have now made clear that if Turkey does not get into the EU, it will not be because it fails any geography requirement, but merely because the other EU states decide not to let it in. That is a big difference.
Thanks for the clarification, guys.
I keep reading in the Dutch papers about how they're going to limit the number of Eastern Europeans who can get work permits in the Netherlands. Is that true? Can they really do that? Or is it just a lot of political noise? I guess all EU countries are equal, but some are more equal than others. By the time Turkey gets in, they might find it's not worth the trouble.
Inequalities, but only at first...
When borders are opened, there is a possibility of large movement of both working and welfare dependant population from poorer to richer countries. It would be unrealistic to expect unlimited access straight away. Imagine the USA opening it's border with Mexico.
When borders are opened, there is a possibility of large movement of both working and welfare dependant population from poorer to richer countries. It would be unrealistic to expect unlimited access straight away. Imagine the USA opening it's border with Mexico.
John and Rob,
America and Mexico are both part of NAFTA...But very much 2 different countries.
But the European Union is about more than just a trade agreement....taking away borders not putting them up.
The dutch protection of workers is nothing else but Apartheid.
Cheers,
Bas
Yes they can do that. No not political noise. Yes some are more equal than others. ;-) Nothing ever changes does it.
America and Mexico are both part of NAFTA...But very much 2 different countries.
But the European Union is about more than just a trade agreement....taking away borders not putting them up.
The dutch protection of workers is nothing else but Apartheid.
Cheers,
Bas
Yes they can do that. No not political noise. Yes some are more equal than others. ;-) Nothing ever changes does it.
Bas,
Well I don't know the details of the Dutch policy, but we in the UK are led to believe that all the old members including us, are putting limits on Work permits and Welfare benefits.
Surely the only other way for it to work is to delay their membership until their economy is on a level to yours. I do believe that earlier membership will get them to that point quicker.
Now whether the larger Union will work at all, that's another matter....
Well I don't know the details of the Dutch policy, but we in the UK are led to believe that all the old members including us, are putting limits on Work permits and Welfare benefits.
Surely the only other way for it to work is to delay their membership until their economy is on a level to yours. I do believe that earlier membership will get them to that point quicker.
Now whether the larger Union will work at all, that's another matter....
Regarding the special rules for new member states. When
the conditions for the enlargement were taken only two of
the current member states requested an exception that
imposed restrictions on immigration from the new member states.
I think one of these was Eire, but I don't remember which the
other one was. However, although everybody else said they
would not impose any such restriction, there was a backdoor
in the treaty, saying that any member country was allowed
to introduce such excpetions later on. As time went by, more
and more member states has signalled that they want to make
use of this backdoor and impose restrictions. Note howverr that
such restrictions cannot be permanent, but only be operational
for a period of a few years. I think Germany was (one of) the
first countries to send out such signals. Then many others have
followed, inlcuding my own country, Sweden. The worries here
are that we have by tradition a very generous welfare system
and according to current law you are only required to be
employed 10 hours a week to get access to these benefits.
There is a fear amongst some politicians that some people
from the poorer of the new member countries will move here just
to make use of this. Nobody knows if this fear is jsutified or not,
of course. It seems now that the government is not getting
enough support for introducing such exceptions, but nothing
is settled yet. Anyway, the reasoning behind the suggested
exceptions is that since a large share of the EU budget will
be directed towards the new members, their economies are
expected to grow quickly and withing a few years even out
the really big differences in living standard.
Regarding Turkey, the impression one gets from media here
in Sweden, at least, is that most "experts" seem to question
if there is actually any of the current member countries who
really wants Turkey as a member but that no politician dares
to say that outright, so instead they just keep telling Turkey
that they are still not living up to the requirements for a
membership application. Interestingly, it seems noone has
tried to disqualify them for geographical reasons, which seem
to be the simplest way if they really wanted to say no. However,
this is all just media speculations. Obviously, the geography is
not considered a problem. However, as Bas said, there are still
serious issues regarding the human rights situation in Turkey.
It seems though that things have improved somewhat in that
respect since Turkey seem to really want to be eligible for
membership. I understand that although people can still be
sentenced to death in Turkey, the courts has stopped making
use of this as a first step towards harmonizing with the EU
requirements.
However, since nobody seems to have tried disqualifying Turkey
for geographical reasons, we do have the interesting question
of what countries are eligible in theory. At least a part of Turkey
is located in Europe, but so ia a large part of Russia. Although
this has no direct connections with EU, Israel has since
many many years back been allowed to participate in, and
has also on several occasions won, the Eurovision song contest
which is run by the European Broadcasting Union. Does that
mean Israel could eventually be considered a European
country??? BTW, since a few years back also Russia participates,
but at least they are partially European. So if Russia would
be eligible for having some part of its soil in Europe, would
that mean that all other former Soviet republics are also
eligible for once being part of the partially european Soviet
Union?? i seriously doubt there is any clear and coherent
view on these matters.
the conditions for the enlargement were taken only two of
the current member states requested an exception that
imposed restrictions on immigration from the new member states.
I think one of these was Eire, but I don't remember which the
other one was. However, although everybody else said they
would not impose any such restriction, there was a backdoor
in the treaty, saying that any member country was allowed
to introduce such excpetions later on. As time went by, more
and more member states has signalled that they want to make
use of this backdoor and impose restrictions. Note howverr that
such restrictions cannot be permanent, but only be operational
for a period of a few years. I think Germany was (one of) the
first countries to send out such signals. Then many others have
followed, inlcuding my own country, Sweden. The worries here
are that we have by tradition a very generous welfare system
and according to current law you are only required to be
employed 10 hours a week to get access to these benefits.
There is a fear amongst some politicians that some people
from the poorer of the new member countries will move here just
to make use of this. Nobody knows if this fear is jsutified or not,
of course. It seems now that the government is not getting
enough support for introducing such exceptions, but nothing
is settled yet. Anyway, the reasoning behind the suggested
exceptions is that since a large share of the EU budget will
be directed towards the new members, their economies are
expected to grow quickly and withing a few years even out
the really big differences in living standard.
Regarding Turkey, the impression one gets from media here
in Sweden, at least, is that most "experts" seem to question
if there is actually any of the current member countries who
really wants Turkey as a member but that no politician dares
to say that outright, so instead they just keep telling Turkey
that they are still not living up to the requirements for a
membership application. Interestingly, it seems noone has
tried to disqualify them for geographical reasons, which seem
to be the simplest way if they really wanted to say no. However,
this is all just media speculations. Obviously, the geography is
not considered a problem. However, as Bas said, there are still
serious issues regarding the human rights situation in Turkey.
It seems though that things have improved somewhat in that
respect since Turkey seem to really want to be eligible for
membership. I understand that although people can still be
sentenced to death in Turkey, the courts has stopped making
use of this as a first step towards harmonizing with the EU
requirements.
However, since nobody seems to have tried disqualifying Turkey
for geographical reasons, we do have the interesting question
of what countries are eligible in theory. At least a part of Turkey
is located in Europe, but so ia a large part of Russia. Although
this has no direct connections with EU, Israel has since
many many years back been allowed to participate in, and
has also on several occasions won, the Eurovision song contest
which is run by the European Broadcasting Union. Does that
mean Israel could eventually be considered a European
country??? BTW, since a few years back also Russia participates,
but at least they are partially European. So if Russia would
be eligible for having some part of its soil in Europe, would
that mean that all other former Soviet republics are also
eligible for once being part of the partially european Soviet
Union?? i seriously doubt there is any clear and coherent
view on these matters.
Well, the original question was about Turkey, but when it emerged that there really was no geographical requirement, all kinds of possiblilites open up.
Who knows, maybe one day Quebec will ask to join.
In fact, Frank deGrove once called for Canada to join the EU on these very pages. He meant it as a joke at the time, but when you think about it, it might not be that outlandish.
Who knows, maybe one day Quebec will ask to join.
In fact, Frank deGrove once called for Canada to join the EU on these very pages. He meant it as a joke at the time, but when you think about it, it might not be that outlandish.
Lots of folks back East, they say, is leavin' home every day,
Beatin' the hot old dusty way to the California line.
'Cross the desert sands they roll, gettin' out of that old dust bowl,
They think they're goin' to a sugar bowl, but here's what they find --
Now, the police at the port of entry say,
"You're number fourteen thousand for today."
Oh, if you ain't got the do re mi, folks, you ain't got the do re mi,
Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee.
California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see;
But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot
If you ain't got the do re mi.
You want to buy you a home or a farm, that can't deal nobody harm,
Or take your vacation by the mountains or sea.
Don't swap your old cow for a car, you better stay right where you are,
Better take this little tip from me.
'Cause I look through the want ads every day
But the headlines on the papers always say:
If you ain't got the do re mi, boys, you ain't got the do re mi,
Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee.
California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see;
But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot
If you ain't got the do re mi.
Beatin' the hot old dusty way to the California line.
'Cross the desert sands they roll, gettin' out of that old dust bowl,
They think they're goin' to a sugar bowl, but here's what they find --
Now, the police at the port of entry say,
"You're number fourteen thousand for today."
Oh, if you ain't got the do re mi, folks, you ain't got the do re mi,
Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee.
California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see;
But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot
If you ain't got the do re mi.
You want to buy you a home or a farm, that can't deal nobody harm,
Or take your vacation by the mountains or sea.
Don't swap your old cow for a car, you better stay right where you are,
Better take this little tip from me.
'Cause I look through the want ads every day
But the headlines on the papers always say:
If you ain't got the do re mi, boys, you ain't got the do re mi,
Why, you better go back to beautiful Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee.
California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see;
But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot
If you ain't got the do re mi.
Well every member has a veto and only one member can keep any country out of the EU. But there are a lot of compromises going on. For instance " I will vote for your favourate country if you vote for mine"
About Tourkey, they will never be a full member of the EU because nobody in Europe wants them and nobody in Europe wants any countries outside the borders of Europe. Tourkey belongs to ASIA and thats it.
About Tourkey, they will never be a full member of the EU because nobody in Europe wants them and nobody in Europe wants any countries outside the borders of Europe. Tourkey belongs to ASIA and thats it.
You fear the same will happen like when Greece and Portugal joined the union ? Their economy exists because of the union.
You Greeks are so biased when the discussion is about Turkey. Only the expression "nobody in Europe wants them" when you're talking about a country makes clear how *you* think of your neighbours. I've never been able to discuss these matters with Greeks in a normal way, the Ottoman empire seems etched in their minds. Funny thing is that you are so similar to Turks except for religion. Another striking difference is that the Turks are much more positive about Greece and the Greeks whereas a lot of Greeks see the Turks as some kind of Untermenschen. This at a level that I've got the idea that this way of thinking must come from education at home/school or from religion as I otherwise can't explain this collective hatredge for Turkey and its inhabitants. It can't be about things that happened 100nds of years ago, can it ?
Unfortunately both sides seem to want to continue this silly, childish quarreling for a few hundred years to come...
You Greeks are so biased when the discussion is about Turkey. Only the expression "nobody in Europe wants them" when you're talking about a country makes clear how *you* think of your neighbours. I've never been able to discuss these matters with Greeks in a normal way, the Ottoman empire seems etched in their minds. Funny thing is that you are so similar to Turks except for religion. Another striking difference is that the Turks are much more positive about Greece and the Greeks whereas a lot of Greeks see the Turks as some kind of Untermenschen. This at a level that I've got the idea that this way of thinking must come from education at home/school or from religion as I otherwise can't explain this collective hatredge for Turkey and its inhabitants. It can't be about things that happened 100nds of years ago, can it ?
Unfortunately both sides seem to want to continue this silly, childish quarreling for a few hundred years to come...
Well the reason we are so similar is that we made them civilized through our contact for hundreds of years. They were nothing more than nomads who came from the depths of asia. They learned what culture is, science, food etc.
1000 of years? You don´t know anything about history do you.
Things happened in the 70s, in the 60s in the 20s in the 10s etc.
2-3 million people were forced to leave turkey leaving behind houses welth and there life. They had to immigrate to greece having only what they could carry. thousands were killed. The turks did what the germans did to the jews. They burned and destroyd all greek stores and told them to take what they can and leave. that happend in the last 60 years. In costantinopel "istanbul" which means the same there used to be 1,5 million greeks and today not more that 1-2 thousand.
The made a genoside in the past century killing 1,4 million Armenians. Not to mention kurds, greeks from Pontos and others. Thats millions of souls.
The Germans also did the same with jews but they changed and wanted to be a part of europe. The turks have never changed and never have paid for their crimes.
What have they given to the rest of the world the last 600 years? Only stealing and distruction.
Second we changed our policy in europe and actually want them to be a member of the EU. Just to shake off the bad name we have as the ones who don´t want them. The problem is that turks don´t want to intergrate into europe in the first place.
It´s the rest of Europe does want them. Specialy france and Germany.
1000 of years? You don´t know anything about history do you.
Things happened in the 70s, in the 60s in the 20s in the 10s etc.
2-3 million people were forced to leave turkey leaving behind houses welth and there life. They had to immigrate to greece having only what they could carry. thousands were killed. The turks did what the germans did to the jews. They burned and destroyd all greek stores and told them to take what they can and leave. that happend in the last 60 years. In costantinopel "istanbul" which means the same there used to be 1,5 million greeks and today not more that 1-2 thousand.
The made a genoside in the past century killing 1,4 million Armenians. Not to mention kurds, greeks from Pontos and others. Thats millions of souls.
The Germans also did the same with jews but they changed and wanted to be a part of europe. The turks have never changed and never have paid for their crimes.
What have they given to the rest of the world the last 600 years? Only stealing and distruction.
Second we changed our policy in europe and actually want them to be a member of the EU. Just to shake off the bad name we have as the ones who don´t want them. The problem is that turks don´t want to intergrate into europe in the first place.
It´s the rest of Europe does want them. Specialy france and Germany.
You can read my post again, i just edited it.
I wouldn´t say superior. I am not a racist. but what I said is a fact. When you give me the light and i kill you what am I?
I am a fool. Right?
The facts talk for themselves. Maybe you never read anything and you don´t know the facts.
I think you have a very narrow knowledge of europian history to be able to discuss this subject.
I wouldn´t say superior. I am not a racist. but what I said is a fact. When you give me the light and i kill you what am I?
I am a fool. Right?
The facts talk for themselves. Maybe you never read anything and you don´t know the facts.
I think you have a very narrow knowledge of europian history to be able to discuss this subject.
you don´t have to read the wrong books or learn the wrong history to know that germans killed millions of jews in the II WW.
You know that because the ones who survived could tell about the holocaust.
I knew many people who survived the destruction of the greek cities in turkey like Smirni, Ionia , Kostantinoupolis, Mikra Asia in general. Those people lived the destruction. Their family members where killed. I don´t think all those millions of people were lying. There are also photos and films that documented it.
You know that because the ones who survived could tell about the holocaust.
I knew many people who survived the destruction of the greek cities in turkey like Smirni, Ionia , Kostantinoupolis, Mikra Asia in general. Those people lived the destruction. Their family members where killed. I don´t think all those millions of people were lying. There are also photos and films that documented it.
Your version of european history does not interest me. I am glad I live in the present, it is sad to see young people living in a twisted version of the past. Propaganda can change a generation it seems.
Your people have brought nothing but good to the world and they were defeated by savage humans that are still a threat to you and your high civilisation. You were always the victim and you never started conflicts.
Wake up please.
Your people have brought nothing but good to the world and they were defeated by savage humans that are still a threat to you and your high civilisation. You were always the victim and you never started conflicts.
Wake up please.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.