Borderline Europe countries

Affable

Should Turkey be in the EU?
Should Russia?
Should Israel(I hope not)?

oscarBravo

Haven't we done this several times recently?

Affable

oscarBravo wrote: »

Haven't we done this several times recently?

The forum might have, but I personally haven't.

oscarBravo

Then perhaps you could start by expressing your own views.

BlitzKrieg

Should Turkey be in the EU?

Since they have indicated they want to and have applied, they are welcome to join if they meet the strict standards set out by the EU, so far Turkey has not reached the required democratic and human rights standard needed by the EU

Should Russia?

Russia has shown little or no interest in joining the EU but if they applied, they would go through the same strict requirements as Turkey, but would probably find it more difficult as all the eastern states would take turns in vetoing them as revenge for the soviet union (ok that last bit might not happen.)

Should Israel(I hope not)?

They wouldnt want to and I doubt they will pass the human rights requirement or the democracy one until the issue with Palestinians is actually solved.

So no.

Never gonna happen.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Since they have indicated they want to and have applied, they are welcome to join if they meet the strict standards set out by the EU, so far Turkey has not reached the required democratic and human rights standard needed by the EU
.

They do have separation of church and state.

Affable

oscarBravo wrote: »

Then perhaps you could start by expressing your own views.

OK. Russia should be, it's be a step towards Europe and a two fingers to the USA, it's natural because of shared history, resources, climate and geographically it makes sense, as they run all the way to China and Japan. Israel no ****ing way, unless you want to take a further step towards American and Jewish control over us. Turkey, if you look on the map, is a neat point to stop geographically and not allow in, although they do have separation of church and state and I'd rather have a moderate islamic country in than Israel.

BlitzKrieg

They do have separation of church and state

Didnt say they didnt, I'm just saying that the EU outline a standard for a liberal democracy for X amount of years before being considered and Turkey have not matched it yet I believe. I could be wrong. I know they are still falling short on the human rights aspect aswell.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Didnt say they didnt, I'm just saying that the EU outline a standard for a liberal democracy for X amount of years before being considered and Turkey have not matched it yet I believe. I could be wrong. I know they are still falling short on the human rights aspect aswell.

I didn't say you said they didn't. Shouldn't the EU have other criteria than that, such as spiritual/historical factors? Otherise if Aisan countries modernised, they could be in the EU, if China did, they could be in the EU.
So shouldn't we make historical/geographical borders?

BlitzKrieg

So shouldn't we make historical/geographical borders?

Dont know, I assume that in many cases that alot of these areas would opt to create their own unions and trading blocs (like most of them have already) before considering joining the EU. The thing with countries like Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Russia etc is that they have like you said yourself Historical links with europe but also have strong economic and political links with them today aswell. There would be a move to want to join the EU from within the state itself.


If the UK can hold out joining the euro despite the overpowering economic benefits for them for purely national reasons, then I have no doubt that we will not have most of the world lining up to join the EU.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Dont know, I assume that in many cases that alot of these areas would opt to create their own unions and trading blocs (like most of them have already) before considering joining the EU. The thing with countries like Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Russia etc is that they have like you said yourself Historical links with europe but also have strong economic and political links with them today aswell. There would be a move to want to join the EU from within the state itself.


If the UK can hold out joining the euro despite the overpowering economic benefits for them for purely national reasons, then I have no doubt that we will not have most of the world lining up to join the EU.

Morocco and Algeria cannot join. It just isn't right because they
are not geographically Europe. The English especially are unbelievably small minded about Europe. They(us) ares till thinking about the empire and Oxbridge and home mad jam and village greens, ie the past and not how we can be powerful again. Thats why it's dead in a way.

turgon

Affable wrote: »

So shouldn't we make historical/geographical borders?

We do have then. The capital of Turkey, Istanbul, is located on the generally held border between Europe and non-Europe. About 10% of Turkeys land is on the European side of this border.

BlitzKrieg

Morocco and Algeria cannot join. It just isn't right because they
are not geographically Europe.

But historically?

Remember Algeria only came out of French rule in the 1960's and while it is a state predominantly Islamic, french is the unofficial language which is widely spoken and many elements of french culture still persist and are popular in modern day Algeria.

At the moment I would say Algeria would not want to be part of the EU, but as it grows politically it might find itself having more in common with its EU neighbours to the north, then its african neighbours to the south.

Morocco is in a similar situation.


One thing you might need to remember is that to fully join the EU there would need to be some cultural desire above and beyond simple economic desires as most if not all countries around the borders of the EU have some form of economic trade agreement with the EU that allows them access to many of the EU's economic benefits and cooperation. To take it that one step further and seek actual full membership requires some common set of beliefs and standards that is shared by EU member states. This is why history is more important in EU membership then geography.

Affable

But if these countires all become democracies with human rights, and Europe gets really islamic anyway, what will be different between us and them? I can't help thinking that geography has to mean something.

Even dare I say, racial history means something.

sink

Affable wrote: »

I didn't say you said they didn't. Shouldn't the EU have other criteria than that, such as spiritual/historical factors? Otherise if Aisan countries modernised, they could be in the EU, if China did, they could be in the EU.
So shouldn't we make historical/geographical borders?

There are already Article 49 of TEU states that any European country that respects the principles of the EU may apply to join. There is no mention of non-European countries being allowed to join and there is a precedent, Morocco's application to join was refused on the grounds that it is not a European country.

I'm not a big supporter of the current geographic requirements, it seems a bit arbitrary. Any country within the vicinity of the EU that satisfies the Copenhagen criteria should imo be allowed to join.

The Copenhagen criteria are the requirements which any applicant country must meet before they are permitted to join the EU.

"Membership requires that candidate country has achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and, protection of minorities, the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Membership presupposes the candidate's ability to take on the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union."

There are further EU directives clarifying the exact requirements laid down.

turgon wrote: »

We do have then. The capital of Turkey, Istanbul, is located on the generally held border between Europe and non-Europe. About 10% of Turkeys land is on the European side of this border.

The capital of Turkey is Ankara btw.

turgon

Oops, just assumed that the historical significance and size of Constantinople would have made it capital.

BlitzKrieg

But if these countires all become democracies with human rights, and Europe gets really islamic anyway, what will be different between us and them? I can't help thinking that geography has to mean something.

THis is leading into many more questions then simply should someone join or not, and its why relying simply on geography firstly oversimplifies the situation and secondly leads to misconceptions of the EU itself. Firstly the *us and them* issue needs to answer what is *us* first, if the EU holds through to its origins, then the guidelines that I have brought up that Sink quoted would be what defines the *us* of the EU as an institute and therefore if nations uphold those guidelines *the principles of the EU* as Sink put it, then they are as much *us* as we are and are welcomed to join. But if there are other aspects that define *us* are they used to define the EU aswell? In alot of cases they dont, beyond what we agree on liberal democratic states embracing freedoms, there is little beyond our history that links that members of the EU together, they are different cultures, different religions, different ideals, languages and so on. The most common element that links europe is simply history, which is where my argument that states like algeria, Morocco and Turkey share that same history as much as some european states. And remember for most of that history we spent it fighting each other, so its not a happy history either.

Also consider that Spain, historicaly was ruled as an islamic land for decades at one point, was in modern history the longest surviving fascist state in history and yet they were welcomed into the EU.

Thee guidelines being used by the EU are currently the best and most consistent set of ideals for the EU at the moment and any country that can match those ideals and wish to join, I say they should be welcomed, encoruge the democracy and embrace the freedoms and the extremism will be driven out.

Even dare I say, racial history means something.

I guess I would be of the opinion that social history has more importance then racial history. Racial history has always played second fiddle to social history in that for the needs of nations class and societies race has been divided up or driven to and from lands. In fact its only with the advancement of social history do the wrongs of racial history are amended.

Affable

sink wrote: »

There are already Article 49 of TEU states that any European country that respects the principles of the EU may apply to join. There is no mention of non-European countries being allowed to join and there is a precedent, Morocco's application to join was refused on the grounds that it is not a European country.

I'm not a big supporter of the current geographic requirements, it seems a bit arbitrary. Any country within the vicinity of the EU that satisfies the Copenhagen criteria should imo be allowed to join.

.

Rule of law but what kind of law? What if it was Sharia for example? Deaht penalty countries? I dunno about arbitrary. It seems intuitive that the better countries in Africa should be working to better Africa rather than looking to join us. South Spain makes a neat border for Eurpe, climatically and border control wise. (beter climates cause better economic conditions, less heatwaves, droughts etc) There should be a size limit right? Theres only so much land a government manage and only so many borders they can protect.
Also, by your rationale if any country in Africa further down began to meet requiremtns we could allow them in, and so it would go on. You have to stop somewhere geographically unless you just want a huge globalised bloack with no distinctions. Because if the EU has more seriius aims than just being an economic block, actually becoming a USE, given more and more English is spoken throughout also, then too bigger size and disparity would harm that ideal.

turgon

Well firstly, the EU is the biggest promoter of the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.

Secondly, I dont know much about Sharia law, but Im sure a lot of it is negated by the charter of rights.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Also consider that Spain, historicaly was ruled as an islamic land for decades at one point, was in modern history the longest surviving fascist state in history and yet they were welcomed into the EU.

.

Yeah but like I say if the EU's got serious long term aspirations of greater union to a single federation/country, then too bigger size may impinge on that. Africa is an intuitve place to stop, the water does it. Over the water is a huge huge land mass. You may get some equivalent to the Northern Ireland situation if it occurs.

BlitzKrieg

if the EU's got serious long term aspirations of greater union to a single federation/country,

Again you are bringing other issues into the discussion. The matter of the EU as a single country/federation is something I would oppose, I perfer the inter governmental system.

then too bigger size may impinge on that. Africa is an intuitve place to stop, the water does it. Over the water is a huge huge land mass. You may get some equivalent to the Northern Ireland situation if it occurs.

The issue that you are ignoring is that countries joining the EU are never asked to join, they apply themselves. This is why I am pushing social history as an important aspect. Because once you go beyond northen africa the social history between europe and the southern african states is very different. They do not have the same social or historical links as the northen african states and would be less willing to push for any more then an economic agreement.

Furthermore you have to consider that there is nothing stopping similar bodies being set up with overlap with the EU, there was talk of a mediterranian union being established (and the Barcelona process is an element of that) a while back which would overlap with the EU in the way of economic policies etc but still be two seperate politic institutes. Similar there already exists a African Union already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_union. (note that Morocco is the only African state not a member of its own free will and not suspended)

There's an element of arrogence that it is assumed all states would want to join the EU, the same way people in the USA would think all europeans want to be a federal democracy like the USA. The reality is if it was put to a vote tomorrow should we join the USA I would be surprised if even 10% voted yes.

That is why I would argue that once you go beyond the north african coast you will find that most states would choose the African Union over the European Union.

BlitzKrieg

out of personal curiosity (since I brought it up)

does anyone know how the African union Commission is selected?

they have 10 commissioners for over 50 states and seeing the amount of problems we had here over loosing one, I am curious as to how the african ones are selected from out of 50 states...

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Again you are bringing other issues into the discussion. The matter of the EU as a single country/federation is something I would oppose, I perfer the inter governmental system.

There's an element of arrogence that it is assumed all states would want to join the EU, the same way people in the USA would think all europeans want to be a federal democracy like the USA. The reality is if it was put to a vote tomorrow should we join the USA I would be surprised if even 10% voted yes.

That is why I would argue that once you go beyond the north african coast you will find that most states would choose the African Union over the European Union.

But you could have huge power and a better economy by being a single country. And the enrichment of cultural interchange, greater power against americanisation etc. America still has much state independence, it has state laws and governers, that gives the key independence whilst still maintaining unity.
What do you mean Americans think we want a federal democracy? Is that the same as joining the USA? Who thinks we would want to join the USA?
I wasn't aware there even were such people...

BlitzKrieg

Affable wrote: »

But you could have huge power and a better economy by being a single country. America still has much state independence, it has state laws and governers, that gives the key independence whilst still maintaining unity.

I perfer the inter governmental system, people may not appreciate it at the moment and treat it like a federal system by seperating our government and the EU (inc. a number of our own leaders) on many issues, but the reality is the EU is an extension of our own government and its powers. I also disagree with the federal systems consoludating of alot of power into a single institute such as the executive with the president etc.

What do you mean Americans think we want a federal democracy? Is that the same as joining the USA? Who thinks we would want to join the USA?
I wasn't aware there even were such people...

I was referring to the myth some americans propergate that everyone else wants to be american. And applying the same thinking that someimtes exists in the EU that everyone else wants to be in the EU aswell. THe assumption that just because anyone can apply to join the EU everyone will is somewhat similar to the idea that if the US offered free membership to any EU state we would all apply to join.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I was referring to the myth some americans propergate that everyone else wants to be american. And applying the same thinking that someimtes exists in the EU that everyone else wants to be in the EU aswell. THe assumption that just because anyone can apply to join the EU everyone will is somewhat similar to the idea that if the US offered free membership to any EU state we would all apply to join.

Oh interesting. Why do any Americans actually suggest that? I'd be shocked if they did.

BlitzKrieg

because they are proud. No harm in it really and it normally translate to a nice shot of national swell, bit of flag waving, isnt it great. And it is great, there are many great things about America.

Same here, we are proud of many aspects of being Irish and being European...sadly an internet forum isnt the best example of that pride because we spend most of the time argueing.

And I know Kenyans who are very proud of their home.

EDIT DAMNIT! I missed my 9'000 post now I gotta go back and find it.

sink

Affable wrote: »

Rule of law but what kind of law? What if it was Sharia for example? Deaht penalty countries? I dunno about arbitrary. It seems intuitive that the better countries in Africa should be working to better Africa rather than looking to join us. South Spain makes a neat border for Eurpe, climatically and border control wise. (beter climates cause better economic conditions, less heatwaves, droughts etc) There should be a size limit right? Theres only so much land a government manage and only so many borders they can protect.
Also, by your rationale if any country in Africa further down began to meet requiremtns we could allow them in, and so it would go on. You have to stop somewhere geographically unless you just want a huge globalised bloack with no distinctions. Because if the EU has more seriius aims than just being an economic block, actually becoming a USE, given more and more English is spoken throughout also, then too bigger size and disparity would harm that ideal.

The specifics of the Copenhagen criteria are laid out in detail in further EU legislation and the rule of law is defined as following liberal and egalitarian principles.

It is arbitrary because any decision should be based upon the potential benefits weighed against the negatives and not based purely upon an irrelevant line on a map. The purpose of the EU is to provide a better society for it's citizens and that can be achieved by stabilising, developing and eventually integrating all countries in it's neighbourhood who choose to do so. Whether a country is inside or outside any defined border of Europe has zero impact upon whether integration would benefit the EU.

You have not given any reason as to why an expanded EU would harm the ideal and the climatic argument is completely erroneous. It is not suited to a European style agrarian economy but Africa has many abundant natural resources Europe lacks and which can be developed into prosperous industries. The only thing Africa lacks is stability and leadership.

As Blitzkrieg said, sub-Saharan African countries are unlikely to want to join the EU for nationalistic/anti-colonial reasons.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

because they are proud. No harm in it really and it normally translate to a nice shot of national swell, bit of flag waving, isnt it great. And it is great, there are many great things about America.
.

Not great IMO. Bit naff and overbearing the way they do it and no-one else does it that way. I know its en vogue to be pro-American but I think the Americanisation of Europe thats occured is no good thing.

BlitzKrieg

I know its en vogue to be pro-American but I think the Americanisation of Europe thats occured is no good thing.

nail + hammer = QED

Now you know why the majority of the world will not apply to join the EU.

Affable

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

nail + hammer = QED

Now you know why the majority of the world will not apply to join the EU.

No, because it's totally different. Borderline Asian/African countries wanting/not wanting to be in the EU is simply not an issue that is comparable to European countries wanting to join the USA. It just isn't.

sink

Affable wrote: »

No, because it's totally different. Borderline Asian/African countries wanting/not wanting to be in the EU is simply not an issue that is comparable to European countries wanting to join the USA. It just isn't.

What exactly is the difference between an Irishman not wanting Ireland to become the 51st state of the USofA and a Kenyan not wanting Kenya to become a member of the EU?