Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I think we need to re-examine some of the statements here. Is Turkey more different to Greece than Greece is to Finland?

What about Spain and Latvia?

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Sep 26th, 2006 at 01:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You know, I realize it's because I'm sick and feeling puny but I give up.  I've asked repeatedly what would be the criteria for not including a country and every time it is implied that that is a hypocritical thing to ask.  I don't know what Greece and Finland have in common.  I was hoping someone might tell me.  

I don't advocate exluding people on the basis of race or creed but if they whole world decided it wanted to join the EU, on what grounds would you deny them admission?  Or would you prefer everyone were allowed in?  And if so, would you continue to call it "The European Union?"

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Tue Sep 26th, 2006 at 01:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A country should be excluded if it refuses to implement and enforce EU law, is too far geographically and historically from the EU or if it has an unacceptable form of government. I'd cheerfully allow Russia in, in about twenty years or so after substantial reforms.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Sep 26th, 2006 at 01:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's so early in the process that I think it's smart to state your standards before the real nitty-gritty bargaining begins. I do believe that once the train gets rolling all such standards will become irrelevant simply because the EU has not dealt with a nation with the history and national sentiment that Turkey has. So, you can establish equal standards in the beginning, and insist on the acquis communitaire, but because of all the interests involved, I seriously doubt that Turkish accession will look like any other accession process. And this is not because of racist elements. Mainly, Turkey has a big military, a strong sense of national unity, a very different economic system (and by this I'm referring to nitty-gritty day-to-day economics, such as distribution even, which operates very differently in Turkey than it does anywhere else). As well, Turkey is a conduit for natural resources. Turkey will attempt to enter the union from a position of relative strength, and this will produce a very nervy set of negotiations.
by Upstate NY on Tue Sep 26th, 2006 at 03:12:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've asked repeatedly what would be the criteria for not including a country

Currently: (1) not having adopted the full legal framework, (2) failing to win the support of the populace of members that have referendum on the issue, (3) being caught up in the EU's institutional bottleneck (e.g. the EU structures are currently set up for a maximum of 27 members, which we reach next year, only a new framework like the one proposed in the Constitution can allow more). The rules may change. Conservatives certainly want so, adding cultural, religious or geographical criteria. There is a broader opinion to add time and size limitations based on the EU's ability to cope with assimilating new members.

if they whole world decided it wanted to join the EU, on what grounds would you deny them admission?

See above. Currently, the EU could theoretically grow to encompass the whole world.

Or would you prefer everyone were allowed in?

Personally, I would very much endorse an explicitely open-ended EU, albeit one growing slowly (say, integrating the current 27 in the next ten years, absorbing ex-Yugoslavia and Turkey over the following ten, Ukraine and Morocco over another ten, Russia, Syria, Lebanon, a peace-agreed Israel/Palestine over the twenty years thereafter...)

But another possibility I would like is one Colman hinted at, that EU-like organisations start to grow elsewhere. I note there are some already: ASEAN and the African Union were in part modelled on the EU, they look like earlier stages of European integration, and could develop into something similar to what we have now over decades. If such organs of regional integration develop, it would be best if instead of confrontation, there could be some overlap, say Morocco being a member of both the EU and the African Union. This would be nothing radically new: think for example of Norway, which is part of a a closer Scandinavian cooperation and customs union, but not an EU member.

And if so, would you continue to call it "The European Union?"

I don't think names matter that much. It could be changed to "Euro-Mediterranean Union", "Eurasian Union", "Yellow Stars On Blue Union"... Such a name change wouldn't be the first: after all, the EU is called the EU only for one-and-a-half decades, before there were names like European Community, the Common Market, Montanunion...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Sep 27th, 2006 at 03:45:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As for criterion 2) I would like to see all future treaties subject to referendum in all member states.

As to regional organisations, don't forget Mercosur.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 27th, 2006 at 03:59:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series