Where should the EU stop if anywhere?

PHB

Where do people think the EU should stop? Do people think there are any criteria for excluding countries from joining?

Personally I look forward to the day when Canada joins

Sherifu

Everyone knows the key to the game is Australia!

Thomas_S_Hunterson

I think we should have stopped at 15. The bigger it gets, the less effective it gets at promoting the interests of its members.

Yes, I realise that makes it sound like an elitist old boys club, but really isn't that the point?

As new countries join, it's power gets diluted and it becomes harder to get anything substantial done.

turgon

Im all for the economic things like euro currency and free market etc. The practical advantages like the Shengen area are also well cool.

But Im against handing over all sovereignty though, which is what the leaders in europe seem to want us to do. So no USE please!!

leninbenjamin

i don't think of it as where we should stop, i just think we need to exert a bit more restraint in terms of the accession, and apply not only the applicants criteria but our criteria as an institution to support them. In my opinion the budget is spread too thin at the moment. I feel we need to see a bit more convergence between the 27 we have at the moment, in terms of economic development and ideology before we pursue any further accession. Basically I think all member states should be in the position to be a net contributor before we should consider additional expansion, the budget will get obliterated otherwise.

oscarBravo

Sean_K wrote: »

I think we should have stopped at 15. The bigger it gets, the less effective it gets at promoting the interests of its members.

Less effective at promoting the interests of its members, or less effective at promoting the interests of the original 15?

As new countries join, it's power gets diluted and it becomes harder to get anything substantial done.

I'm curious what your basis is for saying the EU's power is diluted. As an international player, surely the bigger the economy the better?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

oscarBravo wrote: »

Less effective at promoting the interests of its members, or less effective at promoting the interests of the original 15?

Well both.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm curious what your basis is for saying the EU's power is diluted. As an international player, surely the bigger the economy the better?

To clarify, I should have probably have said focus as opposed to power. It's focus is diluted. Harmonised policies are a lot easier to implement across a small number of countries than a large number. It's a lot easier to deal with economic issues on a smaller scale as well.

When everyone starts getting in on the action, absolute gain is reduced as well as relative gain.

oscarBravo

Sean_K wrote: »

It's a lot easier to deal with economic issues on a smaller scale as well.

Depends on what you mean by "deal with". Take that to its limit, and you could argue that Ireland would be better off as an economy on its own. Would you argue that?

When everyone starts getting in on the action, absolute gain is reduced as well as relative gain.

I don't see why. Care to explain?

Thomas_S_Hunterson

oscarBravo wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by "deal with". Take that to its limit, and you could argue that Ireland would be better off as an economy on its own. Would you argue that?

At this stage, that's quite possible, we've done very well out of our membership over the last couple of decades, and probably would do very well standing on our own two feet.

The rest of Europe might feel a bit bitter if we were to just abandon ship.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't see why. Care to explain?

It's a trivial economic concept.

Consider a new opening in the market place. A new piece of technology perhaps. First company on the scene makes a killing. There's no competition. They can charge what they want and keep all the money. As soon as other companies start emerging, pressure builds to cut costs and prices, and the market share is gradually whittled down. Profits shrink.

Same with the EU, although, obviously it's not exactly the same as a market-place. New countries want in on the action. Ireland has to start contributing to the EU. We do less well out of the deal. Fair, yes, profitable, no.

oscarBravo

Sean_K wrote: »

At this stage, that's quite possible, we've done very well out of our membership over the last couple of decades, and probably would do very well standing on our own two feet.

When that happens, do we come back with cap in hand asking nicely to be let back in?

I'm not just being argumentative, I'm trying to make the point that the EU is a successful economy in large part because of its scale, which allows it to ride out world economic conditions better than small individual economies could. Sure, it's possible that individual economies could do better in good times, but there's the tradeoff - relative economic stability against the possible opportunity cost.

By that same token, a larger EU benefits more from this effect.

It's a trivial economic concept.

Consider a new opening in the market place. A new piece of technology perhaps. First company on the scene makes a killing. There's no competition. They can charge what they want and keep all the money. As soon as other companies start emerging, pressure builds to cut costs and prices, and the market share is gradually whittled down. Profits shrink.

Same with the EU, although, obviously it's not exactly the same as a market-place. New countries want in on the action. Ireland has to start contributing to the EU. We do less well out of the deal. Fair, yes, profitable, no.

I don't think it's at all the same as a marketplace, but I may be missing the point.

If the only way you measure the value of the EU to its members is net transfers, then you might have a point. I think that's a very narrow perspective to take, though.

gaf1983

Oscar and Sean, would you see the benefits of Ireland opting out of the EU but becoming a member of EFTA instead, thus maintaining access to the single market?

PHB

It's all about how you view sovereignty.

In terms of say sovereignty in terms of relative power in the institutions, of course we drop.
However we become more effective as actors in things we care about.

For example, we've managed to keep the EU from becoming a global actor in the way the US has (us and Denmark really) with our veto of such things being key in this regard. There is no way we could ever have done that without being in the EU.

---

As for the Norweigan approach, it's kinda silly to be in EFTA, because you are obliged to follow certain EU laws that you have no say in making. You basically remove yourself from having any chance at influencing the regulation, but commit to it.

turgon

gaf1983 wrote: »

Oscar and Sean, would you see the benefits of Ireland opting out of the EU but becoming a member of EFTA instead, thus maintaining access to the single market?

Iceland is in EFTA and is in depression. So its hardly the same!

leninbenjamin

gaf1983 wrote: »

Oscar and Sean, would you see the benefits of Ireland opting out of the EU but becoming a member of EFTA instead, thus maintaining access to the single market?

EFTA is far from being a single market. don't confuse the two. a free trade agreement is much further down the 'integration scale'. then again the EU is far from being a single market too...

sink

Sean_K wrote: »

It's a trivial economic concept.

Consider a new opening in the market place. A new piece of technology perhaps. First company on the scene makes a killing. There's no competition. They can charge what they want and keep all the money. As soon as other companies start emerging, pressure builds to cut costs and prices, and the market share is gradually whittled down. Profits shrink.

Same with the EU, although, obviously it's not exactly the same as a market-place. New countries want in on the action. Ireland has to start contributing to the EU. We do less well out of the deal. Fair, yes, profitable, no.

Your analogy is flawed. You failed to take into account the benefits in public welfare due to lower prices and greater efficiency through increased competition. Similarly the money wealthy EU members invest now to develop poorer members infrastructure will eventually advance their economies. Leading to Irish companies being able to sell products and services to a larger market and achieve higher economies of scale and make more profit. Also those countries which are now fully developed will be able to provide some goods and services with greater efficiency and effectiveness than those in our domestic market. Everyone wins! It just takes political will and short term sacrifices.

seamus

leninbenjamin wrote: »

i don't think of it as where we should stop, i just think we need to exert a bit more restraint in terms of the accession, and apply not only the applicants criteria but our criteria as an institution to support them. In my opinion the budget is spread too thin at the moment. I feel we need to see a bit more convergence between the 27 we have at the moment, in terms of economic development and ideology before we pursue any further accession. Basically I think all member states should be in the position to be a net contributor before we should consider additional expansion, the budget will get obliterated otherwise.

I wouldn't necessarily say that we *all* have to be net contributors, but I generally agree with your sentiments - the EU needs to keep an eye on its expansion and ensure that the existing community is in a strong position before it starts taking in more members.
No-one would deny the positive contribution that the EU has had on poorer states after they joined, in fact we're the poster boy for that, so I would like to see that continue and after eastern europe, possibly start expanding into North Africa. But not before we know that most of the existing members are either strong economically, or well on their way.

My other concern is that as we start receiving applications from countries who are less than exemplary on some of the EU's key beliefs (such as human rights), the political bull**** may take hold and result in the EU allowing such violations to go unnnoticed on the "promise" that the country will clean up its act.

djpbarry

seamus wrote: »

My other concern is that as we start receiving applications from countries who are less than exemplary on some of the EU's key beliefs (such as human rights)...

This is already a reality, what with Turkey's expression of interest. Having said that, great strides have been made there in protecting human rights (a fact acknowledged by Amnesty International), largely due to their desire to join the EU.

Scofflaw

For anyone interested in this discussion, this article is worth a read: An ever-wider Europe? Where the EU’s will borders end? from the European Policy Centre.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

Scofflaw wrote: »

For anyone interested in this discussion, this article is worth a read: An ever-wider Europe? Where the EU’s will borders end? from the European Policy Centre.

Cheers for that - interesting read. The following pretty much echoes the sentiments expressed in my previous post:

Experience has shown that neighbouring states are willing to modify their political and economic behaviour considerably in the hope of obtaining membership. Their transformation in the direction of stability and prosperity are in the EU’s interest. In order to maintain this leverage, the possibility (not the guarantee) of accession needs to remain open.

Kev_ps3

It seems that europe wont stop expanding. We should pull out before we lose all independance. No Irish Patriot should want to be governed from foreigners. I for one hope the EU burns in hell.

djpbarry

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

No Irish Patriot should want to be governed from foreigners.

While I do not consider myself a "patriot" in any sense of the word, I feel it necessary to point out that the EU does not "govern" Ireland; it is in fact powerless without the participation of it's member states.

conchubhar1

good point

but are those member states - in voting for their interest - having more clout essentially ruling over many irish laws etc etc?

no?

djpbarry

conchubhar1 wrote: »

but are those member states - in voting for their interest - having more clout essentially ruling over many irish laws etc etc?

No. If you disagree, then provide some examples of "Irish laws" that have been "overruled" by the EU.

conchubhar1

i dont know of any in the past - not to say there wasnt any

im just saying - that more power and new states - it could happen in the future


im not saying it will - but can you say it will definitely never happen?

conchubhar1

and how can the system of so many countries - be beneficial for all countries in all aspects all the time

Europe has been great for ireland - not as much as people think seeing it as the sole reason for the past boom - but nonetheless great for us

but sooner or later - we will be overpowered

Britain-france-germany etc - if a war breaks out in the middle east or anywhere

are you garunteeing me - they will respect our netrality without threatening our membership?

seamus

conchubhar1 wrote: »

are you garunteeing me - they will respect our netrality without threatening our membership?

It has no effect on our neutrality. It's not a case of "join us in the fight or leave the union".

conchubhar1

we will be pressured into threatening or neutrality if this hypothetical situation came about

seamus

Really? How so?

djpbarry

conchubhar1 wrote: »

i dont know of any in the past - not to say there wasnt any

Right, so you're just speculating; I suspected as much.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

im just saying - that more power and new states - it could happen in the future

im not saying it will - but can you say it will definitely never happen?

I can say it will definitely never happen any time in the near future without Ireland having a say, yes.

Can I say it will definitely never, ever happen under any circumstances? No, but then neither can I say with absolute certainty that I won't learn to fly (unaided) at some point in the near future.

conchubhar1 wrote: »

and how can the system of so many countries - be beneficial for all countries in all aspects all the time

Nobody ever claimed that it could. Nobody has ever claimed that the EU is perfect; it has its downsides, some of which can be addressed by voting 'yes' to Lisbon!

conchubhar1 wrote: »

but sooner or later - we will be overpowered

Why? Because you say so?

conchubhar1 wrote: »

Britain-france-germany etc - if a war breaks out in the middle east or anywhere

are you garunteeing me - they will respect our netrality without threatening our membership?

Well there's a war in Iraq, ain't there? There's one in Afghanistan too. There's a great big conflict in Darfur as well. Ireland's still (technically) neutral though.

conchubhar1

yes - it is speculation

but it is not out of the question

calling something a union-giving it a flag currency and looking for an anthem and wanting an army

are you to say if an army came about - we would not be expected to enter troops into it


would be be then still neutral?

sink

conchubhar1 wrote: »

are you to say if an army came about - we would not be expected to enter troops into it

That is correct we wouldn't

conchubhar1 wrote: »

would be be then still neutral?

Yes we would be then still neutral!

Laws are laws, not even the mighty empire the EU can disregard it's own laws.