Some EU candidate countries may decide not to join - report

dahamsta

Examiner Breaking

Some of the 10 countries whose applications for EU membership are scheduled for formal approval at the EU summit starting here today may finally decide against joining, the Wall Street Journal Europe reported, citing opinion polls and politicians.

The report said polls show that on average a thin 52% majority support EU membership in the 10 countries, with support at 45% in the Czech Republic, and barely over 30% in Estonia.

"Some citizens are a little bit concerned, particularly about the fact that 10 years after we won our sovereignty, it seems that we'll lose it again," Alojz Peterle, the former prime minister of Slovenia, was cited as saying.

[...]

I'm hardly surprised about this, but how many of them will actually join? How many do we want? And is this a demonstration that perhaps the No's were right, and the whole thing was a bit previous?

adam

xlex

As a 'No' person, I didn't buy the whole 'give other countries the same oppertunities Ireland got' when the reality is that we entered a very different Europe to todays one.... ... New countries may just be realising this...

Victor

"The report said polls show that on average a thin 52% majority support EU membership" sounds like a bit of fuzzy statistics - if one country has only 30%, does another have 74% [(52%-30%)+52%]? And it is for those countries to make their own decisions. I would welcome some short-term rejections, it shows their democracies at work. Let these countries see how the EU affects their neighbours for better or worse and then let them make further decisions, if they wish, later on.

mike65

I understand Poland is 50/50 with the Catholic church urging a NO vote, they see EU membership as the short cut to Sodom and Gomorrah. As a yes person I dont see any connection with a decision to stay out, frankly it would be in all our interests if a few like Poland did'nt join. Not yet anyway.

Mike.

Elmo

They should be force sence we had to vote yes for them to join.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Typedef

We voted to allow the possiblitity of them joining.

In your opinion. Speak for yourself, but I voted No because I thought it was in the best interests of 'Ireland'. Remember Ireland, where 'we' live. Funnily enough the welfare of this State, for me comes before some mindless mantra about 'doing the right thing' vis-a-vis other nations, when 'doing the right thing' abrogates Irish people's free and fair democratic decisions for Cherry picked government orchestrated plebiscite reversals.

But there I go, sounding all against big brother again.
My apologies.

Isn't it great,heres me who voted yes for what I perceived to be the exact same reason, ie in Irelands best interests, but from a totally different perspective.
Funny old world.
mm

Elmo

The possiblity for 4 countries to join by 2004 was already there, so actually the nice treaty bears little relevance. Anyway I was being sarcastic and Its over we should let it go. And who cares if they join or don't its up to them in the end. (At least after 2 refs.)

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Typedef

Wow, what a, err, well thought out response.

No really.

Cork

Look at East Germany with 20% unemployment and after mega money been spent to modernise it.

I think that there will be a big rethink on the EU project as these countries join.

EU federalisim etc will be completely off the agenda. The cost of enlargement is going to be thru the roof and the Germans are already cribbing about handing over the €s.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
Look at East Germany with 20% unemployment and after mega money been spent to modernise it.

Produce some information about what condition it was in before the mega-money was spent, and you might have a point worth thinking about. As it is, you've got absolutely nothing.

jc

aine

What sort of stupidity is this? Why should they be forced to vote yes?

em Dave...weren't we pretty much forced to vote yes? I mean we voted no and then Bertie and Co. went hat in hand to the commission to appologise on bended knee for the stupidity of the Irish electorate and promised that when the referendum was rerun they would get the right answer!!

bonkey

Last time I checked, in a democracy, you can choose to not re-elect a government.

If the Irish voted no, and kept voting no until the next general election, and then chose not to elect the same muppets who made them vote time after time after time.....I'm wondering exactly how you would have been forced to vote yes?

The "we were forced to do it" argument is either a polite way of saying "we didnt have the backbone to stand by our beliefs", or an easy way out of saying "maybe people did change their minds, or maybe the original result was wrong."

You can take your pick.

jc

Cork

Originally posted by bonkey
Produce some information about what condition it was in before the mega-money was spent, and you might have a point worth thinking about. As it is, you've got absolutely nothing.

jc

There is 20% unemployment in East Germany & Billions were put into it after unification.

The point being putting €s into a economy is no gaurentee that it is going to catch up with neighbouring economies.

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
There is 20% unemployment in East Germany & Billions were put into it after unification. The point being putting €s into a economy is no gaurentee that it is going to catch up with neighbouring economies.

What this proves is there is no magical solution to transform an economy (and a country of almost 20m people) in 5 to 8 years - it needs gradual reinforcement over a longer period of time.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
There is 20% unemployment in East Germany & Billions were put into it after unification.

The point being putting €s into a economy is no gaurentee that it is going to catch up with neighbouring economies.

You're still saying absolutely nothing Cork. Did the money spent reduce unemployment from 20.05%, from 50%, from 70% ??? How has the quality of life improved? How much of the money went on non-employment-related issues such as infrastructure?

In other words - you're not even making a point. "Billions" is a meaningless number, as is the 20% without putting it in perspective. Also, the rate at which unemployment changed, whether the trend is continuing, etc. etc. etc are all issues you seem to have decided to ignore.

Your comment smacks of a level of research/knowledge somewhere below that of what I'd expect from a tabloid newspaper.

jc

Cork

Do people think that the French and Germans should be continually funding the EU?


I think that they are becoming weary.


I think that the Germans in particuler are becoming a little relucant on funding. This is only my perception from talking to German nationals.

Direct grant aid to countries is one way to transform a countries infrastructure.

Training and Education projects will take longer.

There is no gaurentee that these applicant countries will emulate countries like Spain, Portugal or indeed ourselves.

Victor

Cork, I'm getting fed up with you presenting half-truths and half thought out comments (oh damn, you don't make comments, you just present rhetoric as fact).

Originally posted by Cork
Do people think that the French and Germans should be continually funding the EU?

This is a misnomer, we all fund the EU every time we buy something (through VAT) or own something (through other levies paid by government, based on GNP and other factors).

However, there has been a pattern whereby Germany (in particular) doesn't receive as much cash (to government or subsidised activities) as it gives and this is what they complain about.

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
Cork, I'm getting fed up with you presenting half-truths and half thought out comments (oh damn, you don't make comments, you just present rhetoric as fact).

I couldnt have put it better myself.