How far should the EU spread?

[lewislewis]

There is a view that modern Germany is a state which is prone to expanding and fighting it's neighbours. My old history teacher held such a view actually.

 

[Gmart]

I quite like the idea of expanding the EU as far as is possible because if someone wants to join and we say NO because they aren't European, then that is unreasonable discrimination.

The same goes with the Islamic debate. If we can get the EU to enshrine the separation of church and state and an Islamic State accepts this then that would lead to a good system. For example Albania is very close to Italy, both historically and geographically, and at the same time it is Islamic mostly and undeniably European, so this should lead to dealing with the issues which prevent Turkey from joining.

I do NOT feel that Europe is a conspiracy against the British, it is just that some issues need to be cooperated with by their nature.

Big business is a problem worldwide NOT just because of Europe. Indeed Europe standing together is MUCH more able to deal with the negative consequences than divided, a fact which the antis conveniently forget.

Germany doesn't have a monopoly on aggression.

It all depends if one has the attitude that actually "THEY" are different from "US". If one accepts that they share the same biology, and thus share the same aspiration of life then we can cooperate and even share knowledge in the interest of adopting best practice.

I would be interested in allowing the Northern African Nations in if they wanted to and if they were prepared to adopt the necessary changes. This could turn into a wonderful advantage if we advance a couple of steps in solar power because they have so much sun down there!!!!

 

[MikeMcc]

Let me take issue with some of your points.
So you are saying that Nato rather than the EU is responsible for peace in Europe? Germany (as west germany) didn't even join Nato until 1955, which is well after the wartime alliance with the USSR unravelled, and well after the Steel & Coal deal was made between France and Germany (which was the precursor to the EU)!
'The Nato pact to make sure we responded as one' yet Nato has become even more irrelevant to European security since then, and the EU has become more relevant because the economic alliance underpins everything.

Wealth and big business, obviously the EU is a system which upholds capitalism. There is a case to democratise the EU, but looking at wealth, there is a fact that through the EU's Regional Policy a third of the EU's budget has been redistributed from richer countries to poorer nations & regions. This is a fact so don't bother arguing it.

The Napoleonic Code does not apply to the UK.

Illegal immigration is something that is the mandate of the UK government to resolve. Migration from member states of the EU is legal with a work permit. If we are in a single trading bloc then we have to allow people to move freely! People from my town have been leaving to go and work in England for generations, this is not much different.

Scotland is already part of Europe indirectly through the UK. Why would Scotland choose to leave the EU?

Germany didn't join until then because it was effectively still an occupied country rebuilding after WWII. If NATO was irrelevant, how comes it was a NATO operation in Kosovo, rather than a UN or EU one?

I don't have a problem with economic ties, EFTA fits the bill nicely on that one, though trade alone doesn't always stop wars. Nor do I really have too much of a problem with legal migration, there are pros and cons for that. Illegal migration is another matter, the lack of adequate border security between EU nations means that there are large numbers of people who manage to get to the Channel that could have been stopped much earlier.

And long may the Napoleonic Code not interfere with our lives, though if there was closer integration with the EU we would need to 'harmonise' our system (i.e. ditch it). Yet another reason to have nothing to do with the EU.

I don't understand why anyone would want to be in the EU, Scots or English. It's effectively yet another tier of government, wasting taxes. It's also inconsistant logic for Scots to say that they want self-determination form London, but embrace Brussels.

 

[Gmart]

we would need to 'harmonise' our system (i.e. ditch it).

I am not so negative about our system. I think that we have a lot to offer Europe, but to assume that they would not listen to us is just that, an assumption. Also, if their system is good we should swallow our pride and adopt the changes needed.

 

[nino_savatte]

How can Morocco and Tunisia think they are part of Europe.

If that's the case, how can Israel think that it's part of Europe.

It's all black and white for you, isn't it?

 

[nino_savatte]

How can Morocco and Tunisia think they are part of Europe.

If that's the case, how can Israel think that it's part of Europe?

It's all black and white for you, isn't it?

 

[rhys gethin]

Yeah and the Great British Empire was called such because it was only in Britain instead of spanning the globe.

Its the idea of a union of countries to the benefit of all thats the important part not the continent themed name.
We can always rebrand the name the same as a company does when its business outgrows its beginnings.

The point about 'Europe' is that there is, by and large, a coherent cultural background connecting the populations, which wouldn't work if countries from the Middle East and Africa were included. 'Israel', as a racist foreign colony, is obviously not a suitable member.

I was against the EU while I thought some sort of socialist Britain was possible. Now it would be a brake on the growth of a nail-bitting, worried-nurse-maidish, to-hell-with-the-law-ish tory police state that's developing.

Apart from increased prosperity, the main reason for supporting the EU is that the traditional bully-cultures - England, France, Serbia, (maybe)Turkey and so on - will restrained by all the other populations and gradually civilized.

 

[N_igma]

It had sod all to do with the EU.

Bollocks. Ever heard of the ECSC? European countries consolidated their material wealth initially to arm itself against possible Soviet threat which developed more into economic trade between member states and formation of the Union.

It's impossible to define "Europe" by geographical means alone, I do however believe countries need to share a cultural affinity with Europe, share certain European ideals. Turkey is miles of that as we speak.

 

[N_igma]

how comes it was a NATO operation in Kosovo, rather than a UN or EU one?
.

Security policy in the EU is decided inter-governmentally. The EU has no standing army, therefore NATO stepped in. The EU did fund certain projects though to help the area stabilize afterwards.

NATO had fuck all to do with the threat from the Soviets, it has fuck all influence now and will never have any influence.

 

[London_Calling]

You don't think the word 'European' is just one of those labels that can just be adjusted as circs require - the EU is not about Europe, it's about harmonisation across borders, initially in the interests of business but now . . across the breath of society.

What makes it such a diff beast to get a handle on is the implications of all of this, short and partic long term.

For example, I really don't like the way computers are increasingly talking across all borders with more and more powers accessing more and more aspects of life.

 

[Gmart]

The point about 'Europe' is that there is, by and large, a coherent cultural background connecting the populations, which wouldn't work if countries from the Middle East and Africa were included.

IMO this is rubbish and even could be used as an excuse to keep "THEM" out, thus leading to racism. On what grounds do you think that someone should be kept out?

We have common humanity which means that Europe could spread as far as it wants. Moldova? Why not? Albania is mostly Muslim but still why not? I would even suggest that we should have a decent democratic system as a pre-requisite for entry. Then it could be put forward as liberating the oppressed populations. Why not North Africa? The sun there is a great resource which if we organised and if the technology took just a small step forward would mean that EVERYONE could have cheap energy.

Also the EU gives any government an excuse to introduce needed reforms but blaming the EU. A necessary scapegoat. After all many laws have been introduced because of EU regulations which have led to saved lives. (Eg safety on the Rail Network).

 

[N_igma]

IMO this is rubbish and even could be used as an excuse to keep "THEM" out, thus leading to racism. On what grounds do you think that someone should be kept out?

It would be harder for the Commission to decide policy and have policy implemented in Parliament with countries who don't share at least some social/cultural affinity to Europe.

 

[Gmart]

I challenge you to give an everyday example as you seem so sure.

 

[N_igma]

I challenge you to give an everyday example as you seem so sure.

What do you mean by "everyday example?" Do you know how the EU works? They don't decide "everyday" issues. Policy is implemented on wider social and economic factors, what's good socially and economically for Europe. Countries with different cultural heritages and religious affilliations can disturb that ideal. I'm not saying Turkey as I know it's secular and I very much would welcome it into the EU if it sorted out some of the other shit that holds it down.

 

[Peet]

Not really, it was more that the European states needed to co-operate to avoid another World War. The idea of conflicting powers existing in Europe was no longer palatable especially with the Cold War starting to develop. Peace in Europe was the main motive for the foundation of the economic unions that preceeded the EU. So far it has been a success story and the 'German question' has been resolved.

It was to stop Germany and France fighting over coal and steel. It's only a success story because coal and steel are not major factors for their economies anymore.

It was supposed to be a binding trade agreement but it has warped into a vehicle for political union without a democratic mandate and therefore needs to be stopped.

 

[Gmart]

Generally all examples have to be everyday or else people produce untypical examples to prove a point. Like a stopped clock being right twice a day.

I just thought you might have some thing in mind when you said that some countries could be part of Europe and some could not, and I wanted to find out what country you were thinking of specifically.

For example some have suggested that Morocco might not be able to join the EU, but actually they are working hard to try and meet some of the criteria with a view to join (see here).

I don't see a problem with this and would be keen to find out what others fear from it.

 

[rhys gethin]

IMO this is rubbish and even could be used as an excuse to keep "THEM" out, thus leading to racism. On what grounds do you think that someone should be kept out?

We have common humanity which means that Europe could spread as far as it wants. Moldova? Why not? Albania is mostly Muslim but still why not? I would even suggest that we should have a decent democratic system as a pre-requisite for entry. Then it could be put forward as liberating the oppressed populations. Why not North Africa? The sun there is a great resource which if we organised and if the technology took just a small step forward would mean that EVERYONE could have cheap energy.

Also the EU gives any government an excuse to introduce needed reforms but blaming the EU. A necessary scapegoat. After all many laws have been introduced because of EU regulations which have led to saved lives. (Eg safety on the Rail Network).

Moldova, certainly - and quite a lagre part of Europe has been Muslim at one time or another. It's not a big thing with me, but the more different people are, by and large, the harder they find it to live together. A formal-democratic system already is a condition for entry to the EU. I am most concerned with very European problem of national oppression, and I think that beyond the present borders that issue is going to get more and more difficult to deal with.

 

[Peet]

Each nation needs the capacity to legislate for its own unique problems. The more central the legislation, the more irrelevant it is. Also the bigger the EU gets the less common agreement there is so further integration will not be possible unless it is forced through by the larger states in which case you're heading into USSR territory.

 

[lewislewis]

Germany didn't join until then because it was effectively still an occupied country rebuilding after WWII. If NATO was irrelevant, how comes it was a NATO operation in Kosovo, rather than a UN or EU one?

I don't have a problem with economic ties, EFTA fits the bill nicely on that one, though trade alone doesn't always stop wars. Nor do I really have too much of a problem with legal migration, there are pros and cons for that. Illegal migration is another matter, the lack of adequate border security between EU nations means that there are large numbers of people who manage to get to the Channel that could have been stopped much earlier.

And long may the Napoleonic Code not interfere with our lives, though if there was closer integration with the EU we would need to 'harmonise' our system (i.e. ditch it). Yet another reason to have nothing to do with the EU.

I don't understand why anyone would want to be in the EU, Scots or English. It's effectively yet another tier of government, wasting taxes. It's also inconsistant logic for Scots to say that they want self-determination form London, but embrace Brussels.

Germany may have been occupied but of course could have joined Nato, it was already making other Intl. agreements such as the Steal & Coal pact.

It was a Nato operation in Kosovo rather than EU because the EU didn't at the time have a provision for security or indeed a desire to do so, and it was because America turned to Nato rather than the UN after having problems with the UN during their operation in Somalia.

A united Europe is better than a divided one, in the same way a united British isles working together in a federation would be better than the current Britain which is divisive and centralised.

 

[lewislewis]

Security policy in the EU is decided inter-governmentally. The EU has no standing army, therefore NATO stepped in. The EU did fund certain projects though to help the area stabilize afterwards.

NATO had fuck all to do with the threat from the Soviets, it has fuck all influence now and will never have any influence.

Precisely. It is high time NATO was abolished.

 

[rhys gethin]

Each nation needs the capacity to legislate for its own unique problems. The more central the legislation, the more irrelevant it is. Also the bigger the EU gets the less common agreement there is so further integration will not be possible unless it is forced through by the larger states in which case you're heading into USSR territory.

Each bullying national group, has, as you say, the ability to make life very 'relevantly' unpleasant for national groups imprisoned within these 'nations', as was done in Franco Spain, France, Britain and so on, while the 'irrelevant' centre can, given more power, stop this. The legislation the 'historic nations' are likely to adopt for their own problems is identified by the Turkish massacres of the Armenians and the Russian treatment of Chechnya. Ohne mich!

 

[Gmart]

Each nation needs the capacity to legislate for its own unique problems. The more central the legislation, the more irrelevant it is.

Sounds good but perhaps an example of what law you feel one set of people should have different to another?

 

[lewislewis]

But let's be honest how much 'centralised legislation' from the EU is really determining the way I live? Realistically, it is the UK government and not Brussells that is responsible for undermining civil liberties, turning the UK into a police state, and messing things up with Iraq etc.
When it comes to things like the tax harmonisation plan I do agree the central legislation is going too far, but all member states can resist things like that whilst remaining part of the EU.
Albeit probably wrongly, there are a myriad of EU laws that the UK has signed up to but is not enforcing...it isn't a black and white issue of us surrendering government functions over to Europe.

I'm for a peaceful and co-operative Europe, with states retaining control over their own relationship with Europe, whether that's a relationship where you a) do everything Brussells says, b) accept some and ignore some of it or c) have nothing to do with it.

 

[Detroit City]

Precisely. It is high time NATO was abolished.

you forget that Russia still had approx 6,000 active nuclear warheads and another 10,000 inactivated warheads that could be reactivated if needed.

the cold war isn't over even though the pundits may say it is. theres still an extreme amount of distrust between US and Russia and I don't see that going away anytime soon.

 

[Pete the Greek]

I like Russia. The commies before the collapse of the Soviet Union could have sucked the cheese right out of my arse the cunts. But I have a good deal of time for Putin. Man of balls. No nonsense, wants to set things right, put his country back on the map, regain respect, stamp on those islamist cunts on his doorstep.

EU? We should be making them honourary members and sucking their cocks. As for Turkey, they can swivel off my left testicle and take a flying leap into the Black Sea.

 

[lewislewis]

Interesting analysis there (next time, less anal, more ysis please).

 

[Pete the Greek]

Interesting analysis there (next time, less anal, more ysis please).

Thank you, I thought it was particularly inspired.

 

[nino_savatte]

Thank you, I thought it was particularly inspired.

You really have some brass neck, friend. Would you care to explain this piece of 'analysis'?

I like Russia. The commies before the collapse of the Soviet Union could have sucked the cheese right out of my arse the cunts. But I have a good deal of time for Putin. Man of balls. No nonsense, wants to set things right, put his country back on the map, regain respect, stamp on those islamist cunts on his doorstep.

EU? We should be making them honourary members and sucking their cocks. As for Turkey, they can swivel off my left testicle and take a flying leap into the Black Sea.

 

[Gmart]

So the Balkans, yes, even Albania, which is Muslim yes (coz it would be a good dry run for Turkey later), Moldova? Why not? Macedonia sure, Cyprus, sure. What about Belorussia? Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia all want in too!

Russia might be too far in the short term.

What should be the conditions for membership?

I would say that certain democratic requirements such as the separation of church and state needs to be a basic requirement. Beyond that tho, what else?

 

[Bear]

Accepting for a moment that the EU is staying with us, and seeing as there seem to be a large number of countries lining up to join, we could ask if there are any limits to it. Or will it turn into an example of the best system, able to interact with all cultures on the basis of common humanity?

Recently Morocco and Tunisia have expressed the wish to join, whil the Balkans and Albania are keen too. Many of these countries are Islamic but I would suggest that so long as they seperate the church and state then that should be fine. What about Maldova and Russia?

What d'ya think?

There are certain standards a country has to meet before it can be part of the EU. Turkey isn't there yet, but appears to be trying. Russia as basically a dictatorship again and could not be considered for EU membership. It's not distance that is the problem when expanding the EU, it's the state of the countries we're expanding into interms of democracy, freedom of the press, independence of the judicuary, rule of law etc...