Your opinions about the EU

[Britkid]

Do you think all these recent Eastern European countries should have been allowed to join, or do you think that the EU should have been kept as it was, or do you think that Turkey among others should be allowed in as well?

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 9/29/05 04:11 PM, Britkid wrote: Do you think all these recent Eastern European countries should have been allowed to join, or do you think that the EU should have been kept as it was, or do you think that Turkey among others should be allowed in as well?

The EU will keep using the "Human Rights' argument against Turkey, for certain. God forbid a Muslim nation should join an all-Christian club.

[lapis]

If Romania can join then so can Turkey in my opinion. But the voters just don't want more poor nations to join. The nightmare of cheap labour migrating to the west pushing the locals out of the market is pretty real and politicians can't ignore the people without losing votes the next election. And Turkey is the least popular of all the candidates after muslims bombed London and Madrid, even though they outlawed headscarfs in schools and are probably the most secular muslim country in the world. And they've been a loyal NATO-member for over 50 years.

I think that EU membership will help to stop the growing muslim radicalisation in the country and will benefit the union. It will bind Turkish migrants in Germany and my country more to the union and help the economy of all members in general. But that's just my opinion. Most of my relatives would throw a fit if Turkey joined.

[Kirk-Cocaine]

At 9/29/05 04:11 PM, Britkid wrote: do you think that the EU should have been kept as it was,

Yes it should have stayed as it was; a trading bloc, not a political union.

Fuck Off Brussels

[Jinzoa]

meh the eu isnt really a bad thing in all honesty, it has its ups and downs but really where stronger to be part of it than not with it, being in the uk it can be good with all the trade etc. but the thing i dont get is is that people still act af it is still ging to exist when france and denmark wasnt it who rejected joining again plus the uk is putting off its referendum(if it has one god knows)

[Kirk-Cocaine]

At 9/29/05 04:40 PM, Jinzoa wrote: people still act af it is still ging to exist when france and denmark wasnt it who rejected joining again

The referendum wasn't about continued membership, it was about the EU consitition (effectivly making Europe a national state). Do your research before posting.

[RedSkunk]

At 9/29/05 04:15 PM, -Ubermensch- wrote: The EU will keep using the "Human Rights' argument against Turkey, for certain. God forbid a Muslim nation should join an all-Christian club.

Accession talks with Turkey will begin if they satisfy a few painfully need prerequisites. I watched the Parliament vote to do such. But I wouldn't downplay human rights concerns in Turkey. The concerns voiced by the European Parliament yesterday seemed quite understandable to me. The EU already includes a sizable Muslim minority of around 5%, and these are lowball estimates. All of Europe, the figure is 10%. To call it a Christian club is short-sighted and ignorant.

[Britkid]

Still, I don't think that Turkey is really the source of all the radicalism.

[Loch-Ness-Monster]

At 9/29/05 04:15 PM, -Ubermensch- wrote: The EU will keep using the "Human Rights' argument against Turkey, for certain. God forbid a Muslim nation should join an all-Christian club.

Easy for you to say, it's not your country that will have to throw money at Turkey. And it's not your country that would end up being swamped by Turkish immigrants.

[PhysicsMafia]

At 9/29/05 04:15 PM, -Ubermensch- wrote:

The EU will keep using the "Human Rights' argument against Turkey, for certain. God forbid a Muslim nation should join an all-Christian club.

exactly, even the pope said they would darken the face of europe.lol. the addition of these countrys will be good for them but bad for the existing members, businesses are oving to the eastern countrys because it is cheap to set up factories and wages are lower, this leads to the big businesses getting richer but to higher unemployment in the primary and secondary sectors in the existing members.

[lapis]

At 9/29/05 05:25 PM, Loch_Ness_Monster wrote: Easy for you to say, it's not your country that will have to throw money at Turkey.

It like it better when development money is being spend on building the economies of new members than on third world countries that never become stable anyway. Turkey has had over 8% economic growth which by far exceeds the European average. Turkey growing means more exports for the present members who haven't been doing so well lately (the Italian GDP has a growth rate of near zero)

And it's not your country that would end up being swamped by Turkish immigrants.

Oh come on. Did the west get 'swamped' by immigrants when Poland, Czech and the other Eastern nations joined? Quota like they have with the new members will effectively keep the migration levels down.

At 9/29/05 05:29 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: the addition of these countrys will be good for them but bad for the existing members, businesses are oving to the eastern countrys because it is cheap to set up factories and wages are lower, this leads to the big businesses getting richer but to higher unemployment in the primary and secondary sectors in the existing members.

Cheap labour is being outsourced to China and India anyway, we can't stop that. When EU members provide this labour we have the opportunity to negotiate limits and reduce aid however, plus the money stays in Europe where the people are more likely to use it to import goods produced by the old members.

[Flashfire]

The trouble with the EU is that it's seen as corrupt, bureaucratic, socialistic and unjustifiably expensive and this is mostly true (e.g. the trade restrictions with China). I think people would find it more acceptable if the countries of 'old Europe' would adopt a more realistic free market stance and stop crazy schemes such as subsidizing farmers for no reason.

[lapis]

At 9/30/05 10:58 AM, Flashfire wrote: The trouble with the EU is that it's seen as corrupt, bureaucratic, socialistic and unjustifiably expensive and this is mostly true (e.g. the trade restrictions with China). I think people would find it more acceptable if the countries of 'old Europe' would adopt a more realistic free market stance and stop crazy schemes such as subsidizing farmers for no reason.

The EU is liberal when it comes to global trade. Take for instance the part of the rejected constitution that forbids renationalising privatised state companies. And all major western nation heavily subsidise their farmers, like the US and Canada. It's not just a EU problem.

[RedSkunk]

At 9/30/05 10:58 AM, Flashfire wrote: The trouble with the EU is that it's seen as corrupt, bureaucratic, socialistic and unjustifiably expensive and this is mostly true (e.g. the trade restrictions with China).

The liberal economic nature of the EU has already been pointed out. As far as the "bureaucratic" and "unjustifiably expensive" aspect goes -- this is entirely untrue. The budget in 2004 was 112b Euro. This is a pitiful amount, especially when you consider the political and economical sphere of influence that is the "European Community".

How things are portrayed and how they actually are are more oftentimes than not greatly different.

[Der-Ubermensch]

At 9/29/05 05:25 PM, Loch_Ness_Monster wrote:

At 9/29/05 04:15 PM, -Ubermensch- wrote: God forbid a Muslim nation should join an all-Christian club.

Easy for you to say, it's not your country that will have to throw money at Turkey. And it's not your country that would end up being swamped by Turkish immigrants.

Give us a break.. we do have Mexico to fulfill the role.

[Flashfire]

I may have been wrong in my previous post, but I do remember seeing a piece of news where the EU put quotas on trade with China, and also a piece where it was predicted that the EU would suffer if it didn't adopt more realistic trade policies given the rise of the Asia.

[Britkid]

At 9/30/05 01:49 PM, Flashfire wrote: I may have been wrong in my previous post, but I do remember seeing a piece of news where the EU put quotas on trade with China, and also a piece where it was predicted that the EU would suffer if it didn't adopt more realistic trade policies given the rise of the Asia.

The EU needs its members to have a bigger economy than China, and seeing as at the moment China's economy is due to overtake the USA's by 2020, the EU will do quite a bit to make its members at the top of the economy charts.

[RedSkunk]

At 9/30/05 03:06 PM, Britkid wrote: The EU needs its members to have a bigger economy than China, and seeing as at the moment China's economy is due to overtake the USA's by 2020, the EU will do quite a bit to make its members at the top of the economy charts.

I don't quite see your point.. The EU, taken as a collective economy, already does have the single largest economy in the world, GDP-wise.

[ErwinR0mmel]

The EU will keep using the "Human Rights' argument against Turkey, for certain. God forbid a Muslim nation should join an all-Christian club.

I agree like Pope said Muslim Turkey does not belong in Christian Europe.

[Redbob86]

My grandparents to go Croatia every summer, they've got family there. Anyway, they came back and they told me that Croatia joining the EU is a bad idea. It's not going to solve Croatia's problems, instead Croatia will just get the EU's problems.

They told me stories about how a lot of families break apart when they go to work on projects from one of the more powerful nations like Germany, England, and Spain. They say the Eastern European workers leave to go work in Germany, but the family is left behind and employment is low. And in the end, the worker doesn't make much more doing this project than he did during his old job, and Croatia doesn't really benefit, but the Germany GREATLY benefits off the work of these poor Eastern European workers.

It's an unfair and unnescessary move. Croatia won't have it's problems solved by the EU, instead they will just have to deal with the EU's problems ontop of their own.

[Redbob86]

On a side note, did you know than in Croatia, it costs roughly 20 American dollars to call the cops? They said there are a lot of stray dogs in the streets, their didn't used to be, but people don't want to pay 20 bucks to call and get someone to take these dogs away, so now their everywhere.

[Demosthenez]

At 9/30/05 03:06 PM, Britkid wrote: The EU needs its members to have a bigger economy than China, and seeing as at the moment China's economy is due to overtake the USA's by 2020, the EU will do quite a bit to make its members at the top of the economy charts.

Overtake by 2020? What, is this fantasy land?

[Loch-Ness-Monster]

At 9/30/05 01:29 PM, -Ubermensch- wrote: Give us a break.. we do have Mexico to fulfill the role.

Maybe, but it still doesn't change what I said. I'm sick of the way the US government (I know you're not American) sticks their nose in demanding that the EU let Turkey in. And there's all this crap about letting Turkey in reducing terrorism. Yes, giving 70 million muslims the right to move into Europe is a sure way of eliminating terrorism!

Besides, the money problem is still there. It will cost countries like the UK loads for the pleasure of having them in.

[Redbob86]

Turkey is a Middle Eastern country, always has been, always will be. "Tecnically" it could be considered a European nation, but culturally it's a Middle Eastern one. Hey, up until recent years, they were the only country that traded with Iraq.

[lapis]

At 9/30/05 05:57 PM, Redbob86 wrote: They told me stories about how a lot of families break apart when they go to work on projects from one of the more powerful nations like Germany, England, and Spain. They say the Eastern European workers leave to go work in Germany, but the family is left behind and employment is low. And in the end, the worker doesn't make much more doing this project than he did during his old job, and Croatia doesn't really benefit, but the Germany GREATLY benefits off the work of these poor Eastern European workers.

Oh crap, I forgot how these workers are being forced to work in the West and leave their families behind. Look, if they'd earn as much money if they stay in Croatia then why are so many moving to the West illegally? Ever asked yourself that? And German corporations might benefit, but the locals are being pressed out of the market because the illegals are grossly underpaid (especially in the construction business). How do we solve this? By letting Croatia join the union so that they can do more to raise minimum wages and keep the people from moving out of the country.

Or by building a huge wall around Croatia to prevent illegal migration.

Seriously, this is the saddest argument I've heard against the union in my life.

It's an unfair and unnescessary move. Croatia won't have it's problems solved by the EU, instead they will just have to deal with the EU's problems ontop of their own.

Those damn EU problems! Like having a twice as high GDP/capita. And I always thought having money was a good thing, I guess I'll have to start retaking classes in economics.

At 9/30/05 06:33 PM, Loch_Ness_Monster wrote: And there's all this crap about letting Turkey in reducing terrorism. Yes, giving 70 million muslims the right to move into Europe is a sure way of eliminating terrorism!

Even the new 10 members aren't part of the Schengen-group whose members get to freely cross the borders. There are migration limits for the new members which will also apply to Turkey.
Furthermore, denying Turkey the right to join after years of negotiations will only strengthen the rising influence of radical muslims. Turkey has never had problems with this (name one Turkish muslim terrorist) but it wouldn't be a smart move to deny keep them out just for being muslim; not a great way to make friends. They have always been allies to the West and have a strong "church and state are seperate" tradition. (example: Turkey, which is officially secular, regards the wearing of the Muslim headscarf as a political, pro-Islamic statement and has banned them in public institutions. )

Besides, the money problem is still there. It will cost countries like the UK loads for the pleasure of having them in.

It's funny that you mention the UK because you're getting a heavy rebate (I pay twice what you pay in development aid) Anyway, the amount of money that goes to the new members is pretty small compared to what the 'old' members receive. (Spain still gets over four times what Poland gets). Those few extra euros per person are a small price to pay for a new member who already has an annual GDP growth rate of over 8%, since letting a growing economy into the union will boost the economies of the other members thanks to the increase in trade.

[lapis]

At 10/1/05 07:29 AM, lapis wrote:

Or by building a huge wall around Croatia to prevent illegal migration.

Seriously, this is the saddest argument I've heard against the union in my life.

Argh, typed a ': ' before a sentence that shouldn't have been quoted. My bad.

[RedSkunk]

At 9/30/05 06:36 PM, Redbob86 wrote: Turkey is a Middle Eastern country, always has been, always will be. "Tecnically" it could be considered a European nation, but culturally it's a Middle Eastern one. Hey, up until recent years, they were the only country that traded with Iraq.

Culture has never been a consideration in the EU. If it was, it would result in the dissolution of the EU, since culture is such a multi-faceted, complex component. The existing EU doesn't share a single culture. It should play no part in whether or not Turkey joins.

Additionally, people seem to be really confused about the economic implications of these Eastern European (& Turkey) nations joining the EU. It is a plus for all-sides. The Eastern European nations benefit as they are tied into EU economic policy, the EMU. Just look at Ireland as a prime example of an underdeveloped nation joining. And the established powers like Germany, France, also benefit -- these new member states are new markets for their goods. There won't be all of these doomsday scenarios of massive immigration, and Western European nations' economies will not be ravaged either. Get a grip.

[Jimsween]

At 10/1/05 07:55 AM, red_skunk wrote: Additionally, people seem to be really confused about the economic implications of these Eastern European (& Turkey) nations joining the EU. It is a plus for all-sides. The Eastern European nations benefit as they are tied into EU economic policy, the EMU. Just look at Ireland as a prime example of an underdeveloped nation joining. And the established powers like Germany, France, also benefit -- these new member states are new markets for their goods. There won't be all of these doomsday scenarios of massive immigration, and Western European nations' economies will not be ravaged either. Get a grip.

I'm curious, are these economic policies of giving money for development binding in any way? If not, I see no difference between the EU and FTA.

[RedSkunk]

At 10/1/05 01:31 PM, Jimsween wrote: I'm curious, are these economic policies of giving money for development binding in any way? If not, I see no difference between the EU and FTA.

I'm not sure what you mean, but there are significant differences between the EU and other free trade agreements. The EU goes a step farther than any free trade zone by helping to develop the lower partners (while things like NAFTA seem to be a one-way gravy train for the US). Is developmental aid binding? I don't know the nitty gritty details, but it's not as if the EU will accept new countries, and then screw them over. But of course, I'm no economist. On the other hand, qualifiable economists in the countries of both EU-15 and EU-25 are wholly supportive.

[Jimsween]

At 10/1/05 01:43 PM, red_skunk wrote: I'm not sure what you mean, but there are significant differences between the EU and other free trade agreements. The EU goes a step farther than any free trade zone by helping to develop the lower partners (while things like NAFTA seem to be a one-way gravy train for the US). Is developmental aid binding? I don't know the nitty gritty details, but it's not as if the EU will accept new countries, and then screw them over. But of course, I'm no economist. On the other hand, qualifiable economists in the countries of both EU-15 and EU-25 are wholly supportive.

Qualifiable economists supported FTA too. So there is no obligation to give developmental aid, exactly. It's exactly the same as FTA, the only difference is they use aid to get the countries to join up. However, I do believe the same happened with FTA.

You seem far to willing to accept the EU and far to unwilling to accept something nearly the same, NAFTA. The US gives more aid to Mexico than all of the EU gives in aid to all its coutries. And you know what? The year NAFTA was signed was the same year Mexico got a 50 billion dollar bailout from the US.

But, of course, the US was involved, so they must have been doing bad things.