The limits of EU

[GinandTonic]

Actually they got home rule in 1979. They left in 1985 due to some fishing quota conflicts.

(edit - and Greenland is still part of Denmark)

Sorry wasnt clear in my post about that that at all. Only so much I can read about trade/ tax harmonisation/ infrastructure grants/ voting rights etc etc before my brain starts leaking out of my ears.

When I found myself wondering about the potential freedom of movement rights of a person born in antarticia I lost the will to live and called it a day.

Greenland is still tecnically a part of Denmark, but with home-rule.

 

[ironduck]

It's a lot more than 'technically' part of Denmark. It's fully part of the Kingdom of Denmark and included as such in the Constitution of Denmark. All people born there are Danish citizens. Greenland has two members in the Danish parliament, there's full access to services in the rest of Denmark, etc, etc.

 

[kalif]

^^ both of you are right. greenland is an autonomous part of denmark. greenland has its own parliament and ministers and is competent and souvereign in its domestic policies. their foreign policy is represented by denmark, except certain relations to other inuits.

but OT, geography does matter. all those former colonies -- bound to their old colonizer by whatever reason -- aspire to more autonomity in a long term and thus will lose their exclusive contracts with the eu. and greenland is a perfect example. ok, maybe the eu will think about cancelations. because cancelling those contracts would be seen as an act of revenge for something...
but anyway, i dont see any logic in expanding europe to the near east or magreb countries. including turkey is a great deal and chance, ukraine might be bearable as well in mid future, but morocco or russia? do you think europeans have a lot in common with morocco? not that there is a monopol on deciding what is european identity or not, but including them seems going too far.

 

[bhsup]

did anyone complain when it became a state, I wonder?

You mean other than the Hawaiians?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Yeah, but that keeps the Greeks happy, was one in the eye for the Turks keeping the eastern countries, French and everyones right wing happy, and means the Brits can write the cost of the cypress base off against its EU subs.

What will they do when Turkey is also admitted?

 

[Dionysius]

What will they do when Turkey is also admitted?

oh god, i hope not. at least not til they`ve cleaned up their act.
two words... ethnic cleansing

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

oh god, i hope not. at least not til they`ve cleaned up their act.
two words... ethnic cleansing

This is my same point with Cyprus. Neither has "cleaned up its act." This means that Cyprus can become a danger to the EU, who becomes entangled in this controversy even though they had nothing to do with it.

 

[William GBTW]

Okay simple, one purpose listed in the EU Treaty concerned developing the "less developed regions"; so the EU shouldn't close the door on less developed States, but they should be allowed yet to join the ECBS.

 

[Winner]

Good poll, Steph

In my opinion, the new entrants should meet the same (Copenhagen) criteria the current new member states had to, plus they should be culturally close (you know, they must be European in the cultural sense) which also means they should be Christian-Agnostic-Atheist like current member states.

There is no doubt they have to be democratic, it is a basic requirement of EU since its beginning.

I don't think that country has to be extraordinarily strong in economy, since the EU membership should help the country to develop. There is no reason to wait much longer until it develops on its own and then let it in. Of course, this can be a subject for debate - I also don't think that country, which is really poor should be admitted, simply because the poor countries usually aren't ready for the membership due to bad administration, laws, high corruption etc.

Geography doesn't matter much for me, since Europe isn't continent, it is just a big Asian peninsula. Europe is, first of all, a cultural sphere, so the culture should be the main criterion of what is or isn't European.

As for the countries you've included into your poll:

Switzerland - they could become members any time if they wanted.
Japan - no, they're not European, their culture is totally different.
Quebec - well, I am sure French would be very happy to admit a french-speaking country for a change If they were an independent country and they wanted to join, why not, I'd be against it. Unfortunately, I think that membership in NAFTA makes more sense for all North American countries.
Turkey - no, they're not European. Culturally, they are Islamic country and I think they will fully realize that in fed decades.
Belarus - as long as Lukasenko rules it, it can't join EU because of the lack of democracy there.
Marocco - no, not democratic, not European.
Israel - if they wanted so, yes, I'd be happy to have them in. Unfortunately, this is about as probable as me becoming the pope.
Canada - sure, why not. If they were in Europe, they'd be a fine European country.
Australia - the same as Canada.
USA - Well, theoretically yes, but I am not sure how would their nationalism fit into European trans-nationalism. Since they've always based their identity on the fact they're not Europeans and that they're better than Europe, I can't imagine having them in EU.
Ukraine - yes, at least the western part. The East should join Russia, not EU.
India - not European.
Russia - tough nut to crack. There has always been an internal crisis of identity. Some Russians think that Russia is an European country because of its heritage, but others are convinced it is unique and as such, it can't be a member of EU. Anyway, it is not democratic, so it isn't very important right now if it is culturally European or not. On a side note, I think that Russia can't join EU, only EU can join Russia and this isn't exactly what I want - call it a bad experience from the past

 

[William GBTW]

"Since they've always based their identity on the fact they're not Europeans and that they're better than Europe..."-Winner.
*
Not all Americans by friend; I draw my pride from being 100% European in my blood; my ancestors came here from Europe; British, Swedish, French (9 out of 10), & a little Dutch. Mainly British in my blood & then Swedish. I'm 100% Americo-European. I even have a British accent (never been there).
*
I actually think that a less developed country shouldn't be stopped from membership if it meets all other requirements; it just should be given a derogation from membership in the ECBS (European Central Bank System, ie the ECU [European Currency Unit]).

 

[Winner]

"Since they've always based their identity on the fact they're not Europeans and that they're better than Europe..."-Winner.
*
Not all Americans by friend; I draw my pride from being 100% European in my blood; my ancestors came here from Europe; British, Swedish, French (9 out of 10), & a little Dutch. Mainly British in my blood & then Swedish. I'm 100% Americo-European. I even have a British accent (never been there).

Good to hear that.

I actually think that a less developed country shouldn't be stopped from membership if it meets all other requirements; it just should be given a derogation from membership in the ECBS (European Central Bank System, ie the ECU [European Currency Unit]).

The ideal solution would be to form some kind of trans-atlantic economic union between NAFTA and EU. EU should be a tool of political unification of Europe, not economic unification of the world.

 

[Steph]

I don't care about geography. To me the important part of the EU is that it promotes certain ideals. Therefore democracy and culture are my criteria. With the assumption that the EU will operate properly this should lead to enrichment of new member states, so economy is not a necessary qualifier for me (only indirectly).

Therefore I include countries like Canada, but not Russia as Russia is currently moving away from democracy and not towards it. Also included Turkey (in my opinion they still have work to do, but assuming they move in their current direction), but excluded Belorussia for the same reasons..

Apparently we are in the same line here. The idals are more important than the geographical location.

 

[William GBTW]

NAFTA isn't strong enough; we need a North American version of the EU for Mexico & Canada & US. Maybe a full union? Then a Euro-Atlantic Economic Partnership Plan (EAEPP). We all ready have:
OCSE;
Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC);
NATO;
PfP;
that's it I think for US-Euro (plus Canada).

 

[dutchfire]

I voted for the countries that should be in eventually: Turkey, Ukraine, Russia, Israel, Belarus

 

[Thorgalaeg]

IMO the main thing is that it should be culturally close (this necesarily implies that "it should be christian or atheist" IMO). After that it should be geographically in Europe obviously and to be a "clean" democracy and then as last and less impotant condition it should be minimally developed. So i would add Switzerland and maybe in the far future some ex-USSR countries

 

[Dionysius]

why is christian lumped in with atheist?

 

[Steph]

why is christian lumped in with atheist?

Because Christianism and Atheism are the two main religions in EU at the moment.

To be politically correct, I did not write "must not be muslim".

And also to see how people would interpret it!

 

[William GBTW]

Atheism isn't a religion Also Muslim in Bosnia & Slavic nations. Complie & send this to a news magazine.

 

[BirraImperial]

I voted

-Must be a Democracy
-It must be geographically in EU
-It must be economically strong / advanced

So potencial candidates would be : Switzerland, Ucraine, Russia, Turkey, Belarus (When they get a democracy)

And it could never be: USA, Canada, Quebec, Israel, etc simply because it wouldn't be called "European Union" anymore, right?

 

[Dionysius]

again i envoke french guyana, and spain`s canary isalnds and morroccan enclaves.